Tom Garvin's Irish Times rant about 3rd level

donaghs

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0501/1224269475580.html

Any thoughts on this? It's entertaining at least. Some might say he's ill-informed about the Science/Technology/Engineering disciplines.

Most interesting was the comments about China. Seemed a bit harsh, and certain to raise hackles. But after reading a bit more about the Confucious Institute, it does seem to have political aspects, and directly controlled from Beijing.

Mushy

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Its more the crap I get for doing the course. Should I apologise for having an interest in something and wanting to learn more about a topic? Well I've been called stupid for it. I intend to continue learning about my areas of study even after my final exam on Saturday week....does that make me stupid? I hate how that college is run, skipping graduation so don't have to go near our beloved President. Glorified business is all it is, look forward to leaving the place.

DáireM

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

donaghs

DáireM wrote: »

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

I don't think anyone (even Tom!) is calling their work propaganda. But "post-communist" is a key term here. China has effectively dropped Communism and is now a business-friendly one-party state.

In relation to what the Confucius Institute is: Agencies like the British Council, USAid, the Peace Corps, the Goethe Institute can be seen in some ways as extending the "soft power" of a country. The don't force anyone to do anything, or create proganda - but they do help foster a positive image of that their home country.

In this context, there is a worry that the Confucius Institute is far more directly controlled by the Chinese Government than other countries cultural embassies. I don't think anyone sees it as a threat or danger, but embedded in a proper university it does raise issues of academic freedoms.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/23/content_9766116.htm

Mr.Nice Guy

Can't comment on the Confucius Institute as I'm not very familiar with it but I agree with a lot of his points, particularly this:

Rhetoric, creative writing, foreign languages and history are commonly, if covertly, regarded as unnecessary or pretentious. A grey philistinism has established itself in our universities, under leaders who imagine that books are obsolete, and presumably possess none themselves.

Considering who we have running the country, and what RTE produces for entertainment, I think we could do with a hell of a lot more imagination in our society. This country is as bankrupt intellectually as it is financially, imo.

El Siglo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Can't comment on the Confucius Institute as I'm not very familiar with it but I agree with a lot of his points, particularly this:



Considering who we have running the country, and what RTE produces for entertainment, I think we could do with a hell of a lot more imagination in our society. This country is as bankrupt intellectually as it is financially, imo.

I don't think this is fair, the ones you don't hear about are the ones doing research, keeping their heads down and working. The ones who run the country and RTÉ only get into those jobs through dodgey 'networking' practices and "Dad's friends" etc... sure half the government TDs inherited seats (Cowen, Coughlan etc...). And RTÉ, sure that's all cronyism.
Anyone worth their salt as an academic is lying low or getting out, the amount of politics involved is disgraceful.
I do think though that undergraduate education needs a little more rigour added but the problem is this endless regurgitation of essays. I only learned how to argue through trial and error, thank God for accommodating history lecturers back in the day!:D

DáireM

donaghs wrote: »

I don't think anyone (even Tom!) is calling their work propaganda. But "post-communist" is a key term here. China has effectively dropped Communism and is now a business-friendly one-party state.

In relation to what the Confucius Institute is: Agencies like the British Council, USAid, the Peace Corps, the Goethe Institute can be seen in some ways as extending the "soft power" of a country. The don't force anyone to do anything, or create proganda - but they do help foster a positive image of that their home country.

In this context, there is a worry that the Confucius Institute is far more directly controlled by the Chinese Government than other countries cultural embassies. I don't think anyone sees it as a threat or danger, but embedded in a proper university it does raise issues of academic freedoms.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/23/content_9766116.htm

He definitely implied that it's a propaganda instrument when he called it "an agency of the Chinese tyranny". I also can't see how he can say that it's controlled by the Chinese state when he also claims that the taxpayer foots the bill for it, bit of a contradiction imo.

The Confucius Institute isn't even remotely similar to Chinese Universities, most of the courses they run are Culture and Language based as opposed to the technical and business courses that most Chinese Universities promote.

I agree with the vast majority of his article and think that knowledge for knowledge's sake is what a university should be all about but his comments on the Confucius Institute are lol.

Riamfada

Mushy wrote: »

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

Mr.Nice Guy

El Siglo wrote: »

I don't think this is fair, the ones you don't hear about are the ones doing research, keeping their heads down and working. The ones who run the country and RTÉ only get into those jobs through dodgey 'networking' practices and "Dad's friends" etc... sure half the government TDs inherited seats (Cowen, Coughlan etc...). And RTÉ, sure that's all cronyism.
Anyone worth their salt as an academic is lying low or getting out, the amount of politics involved is disgraceful.
I do think though that undergraduate education needs a little more rigour added but the problem is this endless regurgitation of essays. I only learned how to argue through trial and error, thank God for accommodating history lecturers back in the day!:D

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that people are not up to it, I just meant that they are not getting the opportunity. I agree with your assessment.

El Siglo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that people are not up to it, I just meant that they are not getting the opportunity. I agree with your assessment.

No problem at all!:D

Mushy

Grimes wrote: »

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

TRue! I do want to become a teacher though and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge though.

Arpa

Mushy wrote: »

TRue! I do want to become a teacher though and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge though.

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

pljudge321

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

Petty Much? :rolleyes:

Arpa

pljudge321 wrote: »

Petty Much? :rolleyes:

Maybe it is, but constructing a sentence should be simple and second nature. If we let it slide too often then it becomes normal. It's particularly damaging when it's issued from someone who has aspirations to be a teacher. Also "Petty much?" is not a sentence either, but don't get me started. Sorry, please continue on topic.

Mushy

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.

What exactly did I do wrong? Apart from say though twice.

dyl10

Grimes wrote: »

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

Given the relative 'cheapness' of the degree course, I'd imagine the contribution of Arts graduates to the tax net, pays for the course cost.

Someone doing a 3 year Arts degree probably equates to someone spending a couple of years on the dole and their future earnings would rarely reflect those years positively.

Killer Pigeon

These undereducated people bossing many of the best brains in the country also despise undergraduate teaching.

Welcome to capitalism my dear.

The ideal put forward by these new barbarians is the Chinese university system, a system created by one of the most hideous regimes running a major country. Chinese universities are best-known for plagiarism and hatred of free speech. In UCD there is a thing called the Confucius Institute, which is an agency of the Chinese tyranny. The Irish taxpayer should know that he’ll pick up the tab for this dissemination of post-communist rubbish.

If he is comparing Chinese communism to Confucianism, then he should note that the communist authorities tried to get rid of confusianist thoughts under Mao. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

I probably would agree that UCD and most Irish Universities are marketing education though and run basically by businessmen.

Killer Pigeon

Mushy wrote: »

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Its more the crap I get for doing the course. Should I apologise for having an interest in something and wanting to learn more about a topic? Well I've been called stupid for it. I intend to continue learning about my areas of study even after my final exam on Saturday week....does that make me stupid? I hate how that college is run, skipping graduation so don't have to go near our beloved President. Glorified business is all it is, look forward to leaving the place.

I actually agree with you on Arts, even though I'm in a denominated science course myself. University was also seen as a place were people are to be educated. I found an interesting article on wikipedia (If one can trust it), under liberal arts.

The term liberal arts denotes a curriculum that imparts general knowledge and develops the student’s rational thought and intellectual capabilities, unlike the professional, vocational, technical curricula emphasizing specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.[1] In classical antiquity, the liberal arts denoted the education proper to a free man (Latin: liberus, “free”), unlike the education proper to a slave. In the 5th century AD, Martianus Capella academically defined the seven Liberal Arts as: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. In the medieval Western university, the seven liberal arts were:

• the Trivium

1. grammar
2. rhetoric
3. logic

• the Quadrivium

1. arithmetic
2. geometry
3. music
4. astronomy

Killer Pigeon

DáireM wrote: »

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

The funny thing about the guy who wrote the article is that he is actually a professor in politics in UCD.

ghostchant

Arpa wrote: »

Maybe it is, but constructing a sentence should be simple and second nature. If we let it slide too often then it becomes normal. It's particularly damaging when it's issued from someone who has aspirations to be a teacher. Also "Petty much?" is not a sentence either, but don't get me started. Sorry, please continue on topic.

You seem to be judging the person in question quite harshly, based on one paragraph, written on an Internet message board.

I had an amazing maths, physics and applied maths teacher. I have no idea if he was capable of constructing a sentence or not, since I can't remember ever seeing him write one. Nor do I have any clue as to whether my English teacher was familiar with Analytical Mechanics. You're working under the assumption that all teachers require the same skillset, regardless of what they're teaching. Of course the ability to convey information is essential, but perfect sentence
structure isn't necessary for that. Passing on their enthusiasm for the subject they're teaching would be a significantly more important skill in my eyes.

Back on topic! Weird rant against China aside, it was an interesting article. Coming from a science perspective, I get concerned about the focus on applied research, where the money is, without equally strong support for basic research at the same time. Though I must admit that that's a funding issue, pretty much independent of UCD and other universities.

Damian Duffy

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

There is such a lack of original creative thought in UCD at the moment that it's painful to watch. I'm not saying that there is nobody in the college with creative ideas, of course there is, but it's so rare to see it's incredible.

As a friend of mine mentioned the other day, people now go to college for the sake of going to college because it's 'in' and without it, they would possibly be left out of social circles etc. They then don't want to do the work when they get here, instead they moan and moan about a workload that when compared to previous generations is so small it's ridiculous. This leads to people treating college like they did school. They sit there and expect everything to be told to them, the ultimate goal being to get it out of the way so that the piss up can begin.

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

A lot of this is the college's fault of course with semesters, horizons etc but the responsibility lies with the individual as well. The fact there are people going through this system and then becoming teachers scares me.

El Siglo

Damian Duffy wrote: »

There is such a lack of original creative thought in UCD at the moment that it's painful to watch. I'm not saying that there is nobody in the college with creative ideas, of course there is, but it's so rare to see it's incredible.

As a friend of mine mentioned the other day, people now go to college for the sake of going to college because it's 'in' and without it, they would possibly be left out of social circles etc. They then don't want to do the work when they get here, instead they moan and moan about a workload that when compared to previous generations is so small it's ridiculous. This leads to people treating college like they did school. They sit there and expect everything to be told to them, the ultimate goal being to get it out of the way so that the piss up can begin.

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

A lot of this is the college's fault of course with semesters, horizons etc but the responsibility lies with the individual as well. The fact there are people going through this system and then becoming teachers scares me.

Creative ideas are there, saying that there is less creativity now is like saying scientists or people 100 years ago were less intelligent, it's all about context. There's so many people now going to college that the ones who should go are out weighed by the ones that shouldn't or traditionally wouldn't have gone. What this has done has changed the way college should be experienced, from the purely academic pursuit to job chasing, ladder climbing binge drinking that it is now.
I remember lectures and tutorials back in UCD, it was as if I hadn't left my crappy secondary school. The thing is creative people who have genuinely good ideas aren't listened to or heard because the idiots, albeit in a class room, lecture theatre or Dáil are able to shout that bit louder. I'd say out of a class of maybe 250, five to ten percent have something useful to contribute academically, whereas twenty or thirty years ago this would have been twenty to thirty percent.

parker kent

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

Have you considered that your "revered teachers" were not actually the intellectual Gods that you imagined, but were in reality just one chapter ahead of you? As you get older, you realise that authority figures you once looked up to, are not as infallible as you once thought. They are people just as capable of mistakes and errors as anybody else. On a side-note, once you have met teachers in Coppers, you never look at them the same again

Now of course you may have been lucky and had great teachers, but to suggest that all modern teachers are worse than their predecessors is ridiculous. There were bad teachers then, there are bad teachers now. Same as there are good teachers coming from UCD now, and there will be bad teachers coming from UCD now. As is said above, there are more people in college now, so there will be more of every type of student; good, bad and indifferent.

To judge one person based on what was likely a quickly written message on boards is not a sign of the open-minded thinking to which you seem to aspire. Hopefully our teachers are not as quick to judge!

Back to the OP, most Western areas that are economically strong tend to have a strong investment in the arts. Look at New York or other similar areas. David McWilliams refers to places that are "gay friendly" as being the where the most innovation appears. (http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/03/19/drag-queen-bingo-proves-ireland-has-hit-jackpot)

So I agree with the article. A purely business mindset is not going to create the necessary environment that economically strong areas thrive under. So in conclusion, arts students rock

Edit: I like the anti-plagiarism bit about China too, very true! Although he does come across as far too pretentious in the article

Arpa

parker kent wrote: »

Have you considered that your "revered teachers" were not actually the intellectual Gods that you imagined, but were in reality just one chapter ahead of you? As you get older, you realise that authority figures you once looked up to, are not as infallible as you once thought. They are people just as capable of mistakes and errors as anybody else. On a side-note, once you have met teachers in Coppers, you never look at them the same again

Yes, I have considered that and I have factored that in to what I have said for the sake of brevity. Read it again. I wasn't five years old looking up to authority figures and "revering" them. I was 18, quite capable of making judgements of character and noticed a sincere passion in what certain teachers were doing. However thanks for the input on that. If you have just come out of a lecture on Freud and authority figures, I'm not up for it at the moment.

Now of course you may have been lucky and had great teachers, but to suggest that all modern teachers are worse than their predecessors is ridiculous. There were bad teachers then, there are bad teachers now. Same as there are good teachers coming from UCD now, and there will be bad teachers coming from UCD now. As is said above, there are more people in college now, so there will be more of every type of student; good, bad and indifferent.

Yes I more than likely was lucky to have great teachers but again, I never suggested that any modern teacher is better or worse than their predecessors. I was suggesting that there is a different attitude emanating from UCD today in terms of a genuine desire to, as the article suggested, seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Of course there are good and bad in all walks of life, but when it comes to the education of future generations I'm afraid, "There's bad in every bunch", just doesn't swing it anymore. That attitude will only propogate the problem.

To judge one person based on what was likely a quickly written message on boards is not a sign of the open-minded thinking to which you seem to aspire. Hopefully our teachers are not as quick to judge!

Thank you for clarifying my aspirations. As for my judgement, it's very simple and I won't go into detail. Quickly written message or not, the use of two subordinating conjunctions in the same clause is basic grammar. I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

parker kent

Arpa wrote: »

I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

Well it is only ironic if they intend to become an English teacher, otherwise it is a harmless mistake. Plus everybody, including yourself in this thread (yes I have spotted spelling mistakes in your posts ), makes errors. But this is boards, not the New York Review of Books so cut everybody some slack! I get your point though, writing ability is awful for a lot of students. My English undergrad class had people with comically poor English. Now that is ironic.

Arpa wrote: »

Yes, I have considered that and I have factored that in to what I have said for the sake of brevity. Read it again. I wasn't five years old looking up to authority figures and "revering" them. I was 18, quite capable of making judgements of character and noticed a sincere passion in what certain teachers were doing. However thanks for the input on that. If you have just come out of a lecture on Freud and authority figures, I'm not up for it at the moment.

Leave the amateur dramatics to Dramsoc! I hardly got that deep into the topic. Yes I understood you were not 5, it is secondary school teachers we are talking about after all. But you were still 18...hardly the age of wisdom.

The article has valid points. A University should not be run as a business and weirdly, it is not good for the business sector in a country for that to happen. But I think the future generations will be OK, people have been talking about doom of institutions and the next generation for 4000 years. The Hugh Brady era will end and is likely to be replaced by somebody far too into knowledge for knowledges sake, leading to an angry article in the Irish Times about how future generations need to learn practical skills.

Arpa

Fair points. Though I think irony does not have to be so specific. Anyway, spelling mistakes and typos are different to grammar. It just kills me to see a lack of care. As for age...18, I think that's old enough to have a fair idea about someones character. Then again that depends on the individual. As for the article...back on topic, finally.
Yes, of course people have been talking about doom for coming generations, that's to be expected, but again it's not a sufficient answer. Every point raised, (no offence peter clark) but every point you seem to say. "Well yes A happens but B also happens and that's life, it will be okay". Anyone can do that. Make some proper points and stand by them, middle ground explanations are boring. It's the type of inane meandering that ends discussions, because somebody says, "Yeah I see your point, and I see yours too, now whos round is it?". "The war happened, and wars have been happening for thousands of years, so things will be okay". It's just not beneficial. As an educated guy, which you sound like, you should be challenging your mind when you read the article and looking at ways to improve things, not sitting on the fence. So should everyone, or else theres no point in discussing it. Hugh Brady and his team of business cronies won't just walk out because they feel they're letting the intellectuals down. With humility SuperSpider.

Mushy

Arpa wrote: »

Thank you for clarifying my aspirations. As for my judgement, it's very simple and I won't go into detail. Quickly written message or not, the use of two subordinating conjunctions in the same clause is basic grammar. I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

Nah I'm mediocrity personified when it comes to academic grades, and English was always one of my worst subjects. My history lecturer pointed this out in handing back essays, said it was the reason my essas lost marks...and lots of them:( Yes I do think there is a link between these two! Thought that'd change with LC, but then had the worst teacher imaginable. Sure when I re-read it I knew exactly what was wrong anyway. And no, I don't intend going near English.

I still stick to my original point though about the place becoming more of a business. Answered that question in a sociology tutorial, about neo-liberalism in UCD. Nobody could disagree because they didn't know what neo-liberalism was.

convert

I have to say I agree with a lot of what Tom Garvin worte in his article. There's definitely an attitude in UCD that arts doesn't matter because it's doesn't draw in the same funding as science or engineering which attract big money from pharmaceutical companies. While it's great that the college is getting in money, perhaps this could lead to the commercialisation of education, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

It also seems that lecturers are actively encouraged to move away from a 'teaching' focus to placing more emphasis on their own research, which can only hinder the further education of students in the university.

While we're on the topic, there have been some great replies in the Times over the last few days.

hatful

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Garvin. No allowances seem to be made for subjects that present and view research results in a different way to business and technology fields. The pressure on academics from the humanities to produce "evidence based research" is enormous. There was a time when students were educated rather than trained. Well rounded individuals who knew what thinking is and can adapt their reasoning to varying work situations were turned out of universities.

dyl10

El Siglo wrote: »

. I'd say out of a class of maybe 250, five to ten percent have something useful to contribute academically, whereas twenty or thirty years ago this would have been twenty to thirty percent.

What do you base this on?

El Siglo

dyl10 wrote: »

What do you base this on?

Experience.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

dyl10

El Siglo wrote: »

Experience.

Ah, I took you for 20 years younger

El Siglo

dyl10 wrote: »

Ah, I took you for 20 years younger

Fair enough.:pac:

parker kent

Plowman makes a lot of good points in relation to the replies to the article.

But in relation to this quote,

To break the culture of intellectual conformity – the belief that the professor holds the key to all knowledge – we are encouraging more active student engagement. So today’s first year English students may find themselves working in a group to devise a marketing plan for Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre – an exercise that requires them to be knowledgeable about the London theatre in Shakespeare’s time: the plays, actors, and wider culture.

I wouldn't mind this type of thing so long as it keeps the actual literature in mind. Plenty of people I did English with had little to no knowledge of the context much of the literature was written. This is not their fault in some cases as it is difficult for many 18-year-olds to have deep knowledge about every era. I think this sort of exercise might prove useful as long as it is carefully used. So long as they don't get bogged down in the specifics of a marketing plan, it should be fine. Being knowledgeable about the plays, actors and culture is not a bad thing for understanding literature.

Anyway....any abstract thinking that gets them to remember this is OK. Overall Horizons doesn't fill me with warm, fuzzy feelings but I wish I had the chance to do this during my undergrad. It might have made some of the tutorials in 1st year a little bit more memorable! I just hope that they are using it to add to the literature, not take away from it and produce mindless drones that know about marketing plans.

cue

Damian Duffy wrote: »

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

Mushy

cue wrote: »

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

In my experience I'm just a tad too shy to always speak up. Just takes some time. Depends on tutor though.

Mardy Bum

parker kent wrote: »

Plowman makes a lot of good points in relation to the replies to the article.

But in relation to this quote,



I wouldn't mind this type of thing so long as it keeps the actual literature in mind. Plenty of people I did English with had little to no knowledge of the context much of the literature was written. This is not their fault in some cases as it is difficult for many 18-year-olds to have deep knowledge about every era. I think this sort of exercise might prove useful as long as it is carefully used. So long as they don't get bogged down in the specifics of a marketing plan, it should be fine. Being knowledgeable about the plays, actors and culture is not a bad thing for understanding literature.

This is a major part of English Literature almost all of it.
There is modules purely called Literature in Context and in every other module context is a major part.
What is literature if it is not in context?:confused

I did the module which had the marketing plan as one of the components. The marketing plan had very little to do with the assignment. The aim of it was to get a greater understanding of the context of the literature as well as the literature itself. The module was in fact called literature in context.

dan_d

Interesting thread.
I graduated from UCD in 05. My exams were all 3 hour blocks, 100% jobs. My sister on the other hand is in the final year in UCD, and I can honestly say, although she works hard, the new system appears a bit - stupid!
Firstly I think this is the first year she's ever had either a 3 hour exam, or an exam that is worth 100%. Consequently, she's terrified! She always has at least 10% going into an exam, and all along her exams haven't been more than 2 hours. Secondly she's struggled to fit the Horizons thing into her timetable all along....sounds like a great idea in theory but in practice it's abit different. She has quite a lot of hours and labs, and still has to do Horizons, but she has to fit the extra classes into her lunch hour or late in the evening. This severely limits what's available to her, and frequently she ends up doing classes she has zero interest in and won'ts benefit her at all, but has to do to tick a box.There is no continuity from year to year, becuase of the limited times available to her.
A small point would be that most of her exams through the last 4 years have been at either 4pm or 7pm at night, in blackrock. I have serious doubts that anyone is at their best for exams at that time of day. It's wrangling in order to make a poor system function.
While the continuous assessment is probably a good idea for some people (I don't buy into it) it just appears to me that the college is dumbing itself down even further. Hugh Brady was installed as president during my years there, and suddenly we began to hear all these Americanisms...."credits" "GPA" & "semesterisation" were being bandied around a lot.It was very noticeable. I think back to my course (engineering including a 5month work placement, which was an extremely valuable part of the course), and wonder how in God's name they can possibly have changed the course to fit the new system yet maintain the same standard. I find it very hard to believe it can be done.
Although I also don't buy into Tom Garvin's rant, I do believe that Hugh Brady was a mistake. He spent a lot of time in the states and brought back an idea that he was going to change UCD, make it more like the American system. I know the US has some excellent colleges, but overall their system is streets apart from ours (in good and bad ways), and should be left like that. Change was certainly needed, but not in that manner. Tom Garvin's rant should be taken against the backdrop that the majority of the college staff were very reluctant to back Hugh Brady's changes - VERY reluctant.
As parker kent says, interactive learning exercises are all very well, as long as the actual object of the exercise (such as Shakespeares play) is kept in mind. I do think that at some point people have to accept that they do have to spend a period of time sitting down either listening or learning off. New thinkers on education seem to think that enlightened learning comes through have kids and students clicking on keyboards all day, doing "web based" activities and interacting with everything except the topic at hand. While these things are probably helpful, at some point you've got to sit down and learn the stuff...which is a fact I think gets overlooked.
Conclusions?? Change is great, but in the wrong hands, is lethal!

ChocolateSauce

I agree with Nick Tom Garvin.

It's nice to hear someone actually demand that education be recognised for what it is: Nothing less than the liberation from the shackles of ignorance.

The modular system has dumbed down exams tremendously, something the head of the Chemistry department and others have let us know in spades. We were given past exams from 1983 for the subject I did on Saturday, and it was much harder than it is today.

parker kent

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is a major part of English Literature almost all of it.
There is modules purely called Literature in Context and in every other module context is a major part.
What is literature if it is not in context?:confused

I did the module which had the marketing plan as one of the components. The marketing plan had very little to do with the assignment. The aim of it was to get a greater understanding of the context of the literature as well as the literature itself. The module was in fact called literature in context.

Yes you are repeating my point. I'm saying that due to the changes in UCD under horizons, modules like you mention are available. I was defending the existence of modules like the one you describe. I'm comparing when I did 1st year in 2004 (where we had very little context, just more along the lines of here is the text: read it!) and to now.

Edit: What is literature when it is not in context? Try being in our class in 2004 when we sat down and started discussing Edna St Vincent Millay despite not being told: who she was, what century she lived in, basically told nothing at all other than the words on the page and the notion that we were doing poetry. Some people would have known the answers to these questions due to reading about them in their study leading up to the first tutorial, but many didn't and I'm sure they were lost.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

parker kent

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I get that (I did get a 1st!) but I think that 1st year needs to be an introductory year to all elements relating to literature. We had 1 and a half lectures on critical theories in 1st year, that was just not enough. Hopefully they have a module now that explains theories in semester 1 in first year. They needed to change the balance and understand that there were 18-year-olds in there with gaps in their knowledge. I think the current approach is trying to make up for gaps that existed and produce more rounded students. Then in 2nd and 3rd year, students should be able produce better results/discussions. I think that is what they should be aiming for across all courses, producing rounded graduates who have received a rounded education.

bnt

I've been at UCD for three years now, but as a mature student with 20 years of work experience before that. I want to make one particular point about exams, which I think is being missed here: they are unrealistic. They do not test the skills that you will require once you get out in to the world and do actual work.

You will be judged on the work you produce, and the problems you solve, and the time in which you do it. You are not judged on the amount of stuff you have crammed in to your head at any one time: there will be too much information for you to memorise. You will be expected to produce quality work, using all the resources that are available to you. If a computer is quickest (which it usually is), you use a computer. Using a book or the Internet is not "cheating" in itself: there is no "cheating" if you can deliver the right results on time. (You do have to give credit where credit is due, of course.)

You are not judged on your ability to hand-write solutions to problems, on paper, within an arbitrary time limit. You will be expected to work effectively in collaboration with other people, some of whom may not be on the same continent. What use is hand-written paper in that context?

In short, I really don't understand why some folks think that harder exams for 100% of the course marks were somehow a better thing. You may be right that students come out of university "knowing" less - that is, they have crammed less bulk knowledge in to their heads - but I question whether that's such a bad thing, considering what employers need from people these days. So you might ask "who cares what employers want?": well, unless you plan to spend your life in Academia, getting a PHD, lecturing and doing research for the rest of your life - you need to care. For example, I've heard horror stories from employers about graduates in Computer Science who know all kinds of arcane concepts, but are unable to write actual programs to implement simple concepts.

That's just a small taster of a rant I could produce about 3rd Level. :eek:

PS: I'm not exaggerating about the handwriting part. In the 15 or so years before I started at UCD, I hardly wrote more than a couple of sentences on paper. If I did a hand sketch, it was only as a prelude to doing a professional illustration on computer. You can imagine what that did to my handwriting, and I pity the poor examiners who have to mark my papers. :cool:

The Agogo

Being critical in University is on the decline. The main aggressors seem to be the academic teachers though!

In Week 5 of a Analysis & Composition Module for Music, I gave a very harsh and critical presentation on something that was ridiculous but which everyone else agreed with, just for the sake of convenience.

That teacher constantly berated me for being critical. Is that not what University is about though? Questioning everything; the search of genuine knowledge?

littlefriend

cue wrote: »

I have to say that sitting in tutorials like that has been the most disappointing of my university experience so far. The students do not open up and some of the tutors seem to have no experience of stimulating discussion in a group environment. It is very frustrating for both parties.

Could not agree with this more. Cringeworthy and more or less a waste of time

donaghs

I found Laffan & Mary Daly's rebuttal rather dull and politician-like. At least Garvin's piece was animated and entertaining. Apart from their bizarre "Apprentice" bit about the Globe Theatre, which was a tad "distant from the challenges we confront", as they would say in political-speak. Fintan O'Toole picked up on this recently:

"Studying Shakespeare is not like opening a Dundrum boutique"
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0515/1224270446769.html

dan_d

bnt wrote: »

I've been at UCD for three years now, but as a mature student with 20 years of work experience before that. I want to make one particular point about exams, which I think is being missed here: they are unrealistic. They do not test the skills that you will require once you get out in to the world and do actual work.

You will be judged on the work you produce, and the problems you solve, and the time in which you do it. You are not judged on the amount of stuff you have crammed in to your head at any one time: there will be too much information for you to memorise. You will be expected to produce quality work, using all the resources that are available to you. If a computer is quickest (which it usually is), you use a computer. Using a book or the Internet is not "cheating" in itself: there is no "cheating" if you can deliver the right results on time. (You do have to give credit where credit is due, of course.)

You are not judged on your ability to hand-write solutions to problems, on paper, within an arbitrary time limit. You will be expected to work effectively in collaboration with other people, some of whom may not be on the same continent. What use is hand-written paper in that context?

In short, I really don't understand why some folks think that harder exams for 100% of the course marks were somehow a better thing. You may be right that students come out of university "knowing" less - that is, they have crammed less bulk knowledge in to their heads - but I question whether that's such a bad thing, considering what employers need from people these days. So you might ask "who cares what employers want?": well, unless you plan to spend your life in Academia, getting a PHD, lecturing and doing research for the rest of your life - you need to care. For example, I've heard horror stories from employers about graduates in Computer Science who know all kinds of arcane concepts, but are unable to write actual programs to implement simple concepts.

That's just a small taster of a rant I could produce about 3rd Level. :eek:

PS: I'm not exaggerating about the handwriting part. In the 15 or so years before I started at UCD, I hardly wrote more than a couple of sentences on paper. If I did a hand sketch, it was only as a prelude to doing a professional illustration on computer. You can imagine what that did to my handwriting, and I pity the poor examiners who have to mark my papers. :cool:

Well that's okay, but you're still doing exams under the new system, so it's a bit of a moot point. Your argument is valid, but the other side of it is that you have to start somewhere. Not all jobs can be done by choosing a career at 18, walking in and starting "training" in an office/work environment. Regardless of how valid or otherwise the course work may be, many professions require a certain amount of knowledge.And there are those jobs out there that are supplied by Arts grads/general degrees.

I understand your argument, but I also remember that as a student we found mature students were annoying, because they always thought they knew better/more than the guy teaching and were never afraid to make it known. Don't be that person!!!!!!!;)