University rate hikes vs funding the wrong courses

dilbert2

I am posting this here, because I believe it is as much a national and economic issue as it is an educational one. Now don't get me wrong, I nearly have a good portion of my postgraduate studies done so the fee hikes in colleges do not effect me directly. However, I am not selfish enough to just shrug it off and say "well at least it's not me", and this is in part because I believe third level education, and the courses thought at this level have consequences for everyone, and in particular economically, socially and internationally (with regard to our competiveness).

My premise is that there are basically too many nonsense degrees been taught at universities and that these degrees which benefit nobody (unlike let's say science and engineering courses) in the long run, yet they are been funded to the sum of ten's of thousands of euros over the course of a student's stay in college.

I believe that the recent fiasco of college rate hikes ties into the fact that there is too much rubbish been thought in our universities - a lot of which really belong in the realm of personal study, or if not that, in a private university - at the expense of courses which teach skills that benefit both the student taking them, and the country financially in the long run.

I am basically fed up with the most ridiculous courses getting funding and the faculties teaching them getting enormous salaries at the expense of extra funding where it is needed, a.k.a. in science, medicine and technology research. As for the usual "choosing something you like to do", well that's all well and good - but if you enjoy it so much, even while accepting that it teaches you nothing of use for the working world, then surely you'll have no problem funding it yourself.

The education system, at third level is a shambles in this country. We are punishing students in the future who may take up practical courses, which are utility and skills based, just to fund courses that if we are to be brutally honest with ourselves serve to purposes (1) allow people to study for the sake of it, and (2) keeps money in those faculties.

Am I alone in thinking that skills based degrees should be a priority in future, and that as opposed to raising third level fees for future generations, we simply cut out a lot of the rubbish. Students in fields such as science can end up (1) inventing things of benefit, (2) been a good source for foreign investment, (3) curing diseases and painful conditions, (4) inventing and designing technologies that benefit the world in every way.

And yet all of these self-same courses have to compete with public funds with courses that serve absolutely little benefit bar keeping some faculty members in the jobs. Am I right, or wrong here. I have added a poll.

stovelid

The name also needs to be changed from University to Vocational Centre.

bobblepuzzle

It's those arts degrees I tell ya! :pac:

/runs

Bowlardo

dilbert2 wrote: »

As for the usual "choosing something you like to do", well that's all well and good - but if you enjoy it so much, even while accepting that it teaches you nothing of use for the working world, then surely you'll have no problem funding it yourself.
.[/ve QUOTE]

Brilliant!

mahamageehad

so ..... basically to sum up your whole point........

only science and engineering degrees are of any benefit...rabble rabble rabble :rolleyes:

cianl1

As much as I do agree with you on many points, the fact remains that the government, any government, can't afford to be seen as biased even though it is the logical step. Equality groups for arts students would form and you'd just create a whole mess of other problems.

omahaid

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much does it cost?"

The graduate with the Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

---

Whats the differance between an arts student and a football pitch?


The football pitch has goals

---

What's the difference between an arts student and a bench?

A bench can support a family.

Land of saints and scholars.

Crap, now what do we call it?

stovelid

Dónal wrote: »

Land of saints and scholars.

Crap, now what do we call it?

Ireland Tech.

4zn76tysfajdxp

omahaid wrote: »

What's the difference between an arts student and a bench?

A bench can support a family.

Science, accounting and engineering students can support their families, though?

omahaid

Chris Unkempt Zeal wrote: »

Science, accounting and engineering students can support their families, though?

Jeez, sorry Buzz Killington, they're only jokes

tommyhaas

IMO, college should not be free. A tax should be levied on graduates once in full time employment. A low rate (5%ish) over a number of years to repay the cost of their education. This would fund third level education, while also serve to encourage people to take on courses with job prospects at the end of them. By implementing this and scraping the registration fees, third level education would be accessable to more people then it currently is

dilbert2

mahamageehad wrote: »

so ..... basically to sum up your whole point........

only science and engineering degrees are of any benefit...rabble rabble rabble :rolleyes:

That is not my point at all. I have absolutely nothing against somebody studying let's say philosophy or sociology, all well and good. And if they enjoy it, well let them do it. However my point is, is that when courses in science and engineering that have real world benefits (jobs, building technology, saving lives through medcine etc) have to compete for public funds with courses that are affectively hobbies, or passing interests at the best of times.

matrim

While we're at it why don't you take the money back if someone gets a degree in one field but ends up working in another. Or we can charge people more the worse their grades are.

omahaid

tommyhaas wrote: »

IMO, college should not be free. A tax should be levied on graduates once in full time employment. A low rate (5%ish) over a number of years to repay the cost of their education. This would fund third level education, while also serve to encourage people to take on courses with job prospects at the end of them. By implementing this and scraping the registration fees, third level education would be accessable to more people then it currently is

Do I understand your proposal correctly? If they get a job afterwards they pay, if they do not get a job they do not pay? There is no incentive then to take on a course with job prospects then, surely?

Gavin "shels"

My mate is in NCAD doing some Art course, now he receives several grants from everything for materials to the basic maintence grant, now if this lad stays in the field of being an artist after college he most likely won't be paying tax, how in the name of Christ is that fair.

Now take my course of example, Computing, remember reading somewhere that every year we're short on 2,000 computer graduates and have to bring them from abroad or companies just relocate. Do I get a grant for a laptop? No, I bought it myself out of my pocket to further my chances of a good degree.

Rocket19

Ugh, I hate people floating this arguement.

There is a value in "education for educations sake".
Academic type people thrive in academic forms of education. You have to try to cater for the individual. It is better for a person to be knowledgeable in something they have a passion in.
This concept shouldn't be lost just because we're in a bad economic situation. Obviously, people need a job and money coming in the door, but working in something just for money' is really disheartening for some. Passion and optimism in daily life is what's going to get us out of this state.

A more practical person will not get anything out an academic form of education, but this is exactly the reason why there are so many choices available to us.

What ever happened to romantic Ireland?
Education is about making talented, smart people who can think for themselves. Its not all about churning people out for industry. If education is to be a public service, it definietly should be more than just simple industrial training.
It may not be practical, but are we really willing to lose this part of our culture? Some things can't be bought imo. I'll never regret choosing an 'academic' subject for study and I'd hate to think it to be considered a waste.

matrim

Gavin shels wrote: »

Now take my course of example, Computing, remember reading somewhere that every year we're short on 2,000 computer graduates and have to bring them from abroad or companies just relocate. Do I get a grant for a laptop? No, I bought it myself out of my pocket to further my chances of a good degree.

The problem is most of those jobs are tech support with a language, so unless you're doing computes and and a language, good luck getting one of those jobs.

tommyhaas

omahaid wrote: »

Do I understand your proposal correctly? If they get a job afterwards they pay, if they do not get a job they do not pay? There is no incentive then to take on a course with job prospects then, surely?

Once in employment they start to repay the cost of their education, regardless of what field they're working in, so unless they're planning on remaining unemployed for life (admitteddly, a real possibility for an arts graduate) they'll have to repay the cost of their education

Gavin "shels"

matrim wrote: »

The problem is most of those jobs are tech support with a language, so unless you're doing computes and and a language, good luck getting one of those jobs.

Could be wrong, but every Computer Science, Computing, or whatever other names they are called have an option to do a language as part of you degree, atm I've done a year and a half of Java, have another few months of it then in 3rd Year I go and learn C++ afaik.

mawk

I do halfway agree with OP, its hard for me to agree that fun courses should be tax funded. Id love to go back and study photography or do a masters in starcraft, but I dont think thats something for my peers to pay for.

I studied a hard science, with 9-6 hours five days a week and broke my balls to get a degree. it wasnt fun much of the time but it was a great education and will hopefully stand to me forever. But even though im privilleged to have gotten the education for free I have certainly paid quite a bit of tax since graduation so i can see how I was an investment for the state. Im probably still a deficit but wont be forever.

I wouldnt like to be the one to cherrypick courses that "are worth funding".

Im not much minded for the arts etc personally, but I know why they are important for any country or society.

Rocket19

dilbert2 wrote: »

That is not my point at all. I have absolutely nothing against somebody studying let's say philosophy or sociology, all well and good. And if they enjoy it, well let them do it. However my point is, is that when courses in science and engineering that have real world benefits (jobs, building technology, saving lives through medcine etc) have to compete for public funds with courses that are affectively hobbies, or passing interests at the best of times.

I don't agree with this because basically, what you're saying is "leave the academic subjects for the elite".
Theoretical subjects used to be just a 'hobby' for the upper-classes and imo, its great that that has changed.

The education you recieve from a reputable university is going to give you much more than you can get on your own. It's available to everyone who has a passion for it.
It's not like arts lectures are 'just a bit of story telling'. I can't stand this attitude. You are develeoping skills. You're using your head, writing essays of thousands of words and developing your critical thinking. It's helping to create a greater society and one that can think for themselves.

Some people aren't suited to this and are better off in more practical subjects, but we can't pigeon-hole people for the sake of money.
The ongoing study of history and archaeology gives us the museums and fantastic indepth knowledge of the past we have today. Are you really considering losing that?

Patricide

So basically, the only people out there who matter are sceintists and engineers....


I really didnt expect to see so much support on the yes side of the pole. Kinda frightening.

B0X

Gavin shels wrote: »

Could be wrong, but every Computer Science, Computing, or whatever other names they are called have an option to do a language as part of you degree, atm I've done a year and a half of Java, have another few months of it then in 3rd Year I go and learn C++ afaik.

:pac:

If only people could communicate through programming languages.

omahaid

tommyhaas wrote: »

Once in employment they start to repay the cost of their education, regardless of what field they're working in, so unless they're planning on remaining unemployed for life (admitteddly, a real possibility for an arts graduate) they'll have to repay the cost of their education

Mmm, fair enough, seems like a good enough idea

JonJoeDali

The OP has two arguments tangled together: fees and the economic worthwhileness of arts degrees.

I'm in favour of fees. I think it's ignorant to pass off arts education as being a waste of time, usually trotted out by ignorant people who have no appreciation for a good classical education. I mean, how many engineers and scientists make it into upper management positions? Not many - arts teaches broad understanding, empathy and an understanding of humanity that is very useful when angling for a leadership role.

matrim

Gavin shels wrote: »

Could be wrong, but every Computer Science, Computing, or whatever other names they are called have an option to do a language as part of you degree, atm I've done a year and a half of Java, have another few months of it then in 3rd Year I go and learn C++ afaik.

By language I meant French, German, etc. And while most courses (at least when I was going to college) did have an option to do a language, it was the minority that actually took up that option.

If you are doing a computers degree that doesn't teach any kind of programming language (most should teach at least 2 or 3) then it's a joke calling a computer (whatever) degree

Dardania

Gavin shels wrote: »

Could be wrong, but every Computer Science, Computing, or whatever other names they are called have an option to do a language as part of you degree, atm I've done a year and a half of Java, have another few months of it then in 3rd Year I go and learn C++ afaik.

Language, in the more traditional, person-to-person sense of the word...

jesus_thats_gre

I would go one step further and say that your college fees should only be fully paid for if you successfully complete the course. There should obviously be no penalty if you change your mind few weeks/months in but if you drop out of a course 3 years into a 4 year course without justifiable cause, you should have to pay back all, or certainly a defined portion anyway, of the costs incurred to send you to college.

BickNarry

dilbert2 wrote: »

That is not my point at all. I have absolutely nothing against somebody studying let's say philosophy or sociology, all well and good.

Yeah, but the thing is they are useful. John Stuart Mills and John Locke were two philosophers who greatly affected modern politics. Philosophy is thought, or lack thereof,behind our actions.No need for philosophy in the real world?No need for rational debates either. Sure who the **** was Plato anway......

Sociological studies are hugely benificial as they increase our knowledge on what does and does not work in society and the effects of even the smallest thing has on people. Google the Milgram experiment. Tells us a lot about ourselves and the effects of authority.

Pherekydes

So, we should have plumbing courses at Uni now?

AnneElizabeth

JonJoeDali wrote: »

. I mean, how many engineers and scientists make it into upper management positions? Not many - arts teaches broad understanding, empathy and an understanding of humanity that is very useful when angling for a leadership role.

Actually, the highest percentage of CEOs in the world (by far) have Engineering degrees.

ejmaztec

A PHD in Delusional Studies for Philistines.

TrustedApple

I am doing a arts course next year but it multimedia it's maybe the highest pointed course in my IT 375 points and next year post to be 420 so I must be a good course if it gos up every year with out fail.

Ps I will be workin in computers with it it's a computers course but it classed as arts for some odd reason. I guy I know is doing it some where else and it's a computer course there

Pherekydes

samapple789 wrote: »

I am doing a arts course next year but it multimedia it's maybe the highest pointed course in my IT 375 points and next year post to be 420 so I must be a food course if it gos up every year with out fail.

Ps I will be workin in computers with it it's a computers course but it classed as arts for some odd reason. I guy I know is doing it some where else and it's a computer course there

Maybe repeat?

Secondary school

tommyhaas

JonJoeDali wrote: »

II mean, how many engineers and scientists make it into upper management positions? Not many - arts teaches broad understanding, empathy and an understanding of humanity that is very useful when angling for a leadership role.

Bullsh!t. Its auctually quiet a high percentage. Most Engineers with 10+ yrs of experience are in management roles

parker kent

This argument gets thrown out there all the time. Newsweek did a good article on why we need the humanities in 2009. Also, plenty of studies have shown the economic benefits of countries that give a lot of funding to the Arts and Humanities.

Half a Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste
The idea that we must choose between science and humanities is false.
November 14, 2009
In the heady progressive years of the early 20th century, few things were more alluring than the promise of scientific knowledge. In a world struggling with rapid industrialization, massive immigration, and chaotic urban growth, science and technology seemed to offer solutions to almost every problem. Newly created state colleges and universities devoted themselves almost entirely to scientific, technological, and engineering fields. Many Americans came to believe that scientific certainty could solve not only scientific problems, but could also reform politics, government, and business.

Two world wars and a Great Depression rocked the confidence of many people that scientific expertise alone could create a prosperous and ordered world. In the aftermath of World War II, the academic world turned with new enthusiasm to humanistic studies, which seemed to many scholars the best way to ensure the survival of democracy and to resist tyranny. American scholars fanned out across much of the world—with support from the Ford Foundation, the Fulbright program, and the U.S. Information Agency—to promote the teaching of literature and the arts in an effort to make the case for democratic freedoms.

In the America of our own time, the great educational challenge has become an effort to strengthen the teaching of what is now know as the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math). There is considerable and justified concern that the United States is falling behind much of the rest of the developed world in these essential disciplines. India, China, Japan, and other regions seem to be seizing technological leadership.

At the same time, perhaps inevitably, the humanities—while still popular in elite colleges and universities—have experienced a significant decline. Humanistic disciplines are seriously underfunded, not just by the government and the foundations but by academic institutions themselves. Humanists are usually among the lowest-paid faculty members at most institutions and are often lightly regarded because they do not generate grant income and because they provide no obvious credentials for most nonacademic careers.

There is no doubt that American education should be training more scientists and engineers and should be teaching scientific literacy to everyone else. Much of the hand-wringing among politicians about the state of American universities today is focused on the absence of "real world" education—which to a large degree means preparation for professional and scientific careers. But the idea that institutions or their students must decide between humanities and science is false. Our society could not survive without scientific and technological knowledge. But we would be equally impoverished without humanistic knowledge as well. Science and technology teach us what we can do. Humanistic thinking can help us understand what we should do.

The humanities are not simply vehicles of aesthetic reward and intellectual inspiration, as valuable as those purposes are. Science and technology aspire to clean, clear answers to problems (as elusive as those answers might be). The humanities address ambiguity, doubt, and skepticism—essential underpinnings in a complex and diverse society and a turbulent world.

It is not surprising that many of our greatest scientists are also deeply committed to humanistic knowledge and values. Nor should it be surprising that many humanistic fields find scientific tools essential to their work. At my own university, all undergraduates must take a rigorous humanities core, but they are also required to develop scientific skills and literacy. Many liberal-arts institutions have developed similar curricular goals. Among academics, scientists and humanists not only coexist, but often collaborate. It is mostly in the politics of education that debates over the relative value of these different disciplines take place.

It is almost impossible to imagine our society without thinking of the extraordinary achievements of scientists and engineers in building our complicated world. But try to imagine our world as well without the remarkable works that have defined our culture and values. We have always needed, and we still need, both.

Rabble Rabble

[QUOTE=Rocket19;69806397
Education is about making talented, smart people who can think for themselves. Its not all about churning people out for industry. If education is to be a public service, it definietly should be more than just simple industrial training.
It may not be practical, but are we really willing to lose this part of our culture? Some things can't be bought imo. I'll never regret choosing an 'academic' subject for study and I'd hate to think it to be considered a waste.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, he is suggesting that you pay more for it. In the case of the modern English degree, with it's amount of deconstruction and textual analysis indicates to me that it can only appeal to people who hate literature, and want to attack it from within.

There are "useless" degrees ( a term I dont agree with) with no practical purpose necessarily - like mathematics - where people are expected to contribute to the subject by research and increasing mathematic knowledge, and other courses where the whole academic work is analyzing other people's work.

It mathematics worked like English degrees, the universities would have teachers of mathematical "discourses", who would analyse mathematical books ( for non=PC ness) written outside the academy but very few within the universities would be writing or doing mathematics, but instead deconstructung it.

Thats not in the least bit useful. Or advancing any kind of knowledge.

dilbert2

Rocket19 wrote: »

I don't agree with this because basically, what you're saying is "leave the academic subjects for the elite".
Theoretical subjects used to be just a 'hobby' for the upper-classes and imo, its great that that has changed.

The education you receive from a reputable university is going to give you much more than you can get on your own. It's available to everyone who has a passion for it.
It's not like arts lectures are 'just a bit of story telling'. I can't stand this attitude. You are developing skills. You're using your head, writing essays of thousands of words and developing your critical thinking. It's helping to create a greater society and one that can think for themselves.

Some people aren't suited to this and are better off in more practical subjects, but we can't pigeon-hole people for the sake of money.
The ongoing study of history and archaeology gives us the museums and fantastic in depth knowledge of the past we have today. Are you really considering losing that?

But haven't you not answered your own question here in a way, when you rightfully point out that a lot of the arts subjects on offer now were once the privilege of the wealthy and their children. That is precisely the point, people who are wealthy and will more than likely inherit wealth can afford to give away 3 years (or more in some cases) to studying a hobby, but not many people in reality can, or could afford such a luxury.

There is also another reason why they were the preserve of the wealthy elite - because they were the only people who could afford them, and that also ties into this argument. It is bloody expensive to teach a subject and keep the staff in a faculty paid annually, and this is coming out of public funds.

So what we are left with here is a situation where anybody can go and study a subject at the expensive of public funding elsewhere (where it is needed) that once the preserve of a wealthy elite who could (a) spending three years doing a course with little practicality, even if it was expensive, and (b) not suffer the consequences of lack of employability as they more than likely had wealth to inherit.

And that is another problem, along with the squandering of public resources for courses with little payback - students are taking courses which are if we're to be honest with ourselves of little use to employers. If somebody's hobby is philosophy, well let them fork out the funds for 3 years to pay for their course, and the salaries of those teaching the subject - and leave the funds in more skills based degrees with real world benefits such as medicine, engineering, physics, computer science, biochemistry etc.

Ironic that, your opinion running counter to my argument has in fact been useful in further showing how crazy our system is when it comes to deciding it's future. I don’t believe university is a playground or a 3 year holiday at the expensive of the exchequer – and it is time to get our priorities right, and in particular giving a chance to students who want to develop everyday skills, which will benefit both themselves and the country.

Nolanger

dilbert2 wrote: »

My premise is that there are basically too many nonsense degrees been taught at universities and that these degrees which benefit nobody (unlike let's say science and engineering courses) in the long run, yet they are been funded to the sum of ten's of thousands of euros over the course of a student's stay in college.

Not true. Do you honestly think a bunch of introverted or anorak-wearing science/engineering graduates will improve the economy? Lots of science subjects are a waste of time. What difference would a zoology graduate make? In the real world society values teamplaying, communication skills, and getting the job done over brainboxes. Most jobs in Ireland are dumbed down now because of the unions and equality issues. In the real world people who are in the middle of the bell-shaped curve are the majority. That's why even if scientists/engineers tried to make a change no-one would listen. In the real world it's more important to be 'nice' than be a bright spark. If most organisations wanted brainy people working for them they would hire consultants!

Rabble Rabble

But try to imagine our world as well without the remarkable works that have defined our culture and values. We have always needed, and we still need, both.

None of which need the university. Is the Time magazine claiming that English degrees produce the Novel, and that has been the case historically? Jane Austen never entered a university.

History is different. History graduates and philosophers can write new and interesting social histories based on new research, which needs funding. They produce their own "literature".

A huge number of English courses are not about producing great works but taking great works and PISSING on them. This from an American university

The ETS curriculum stresses not only what is read but how--and is organized by topics of reading and modes of critical inquiry. Our goal is not only to show how meanings are created through acts of critical reading, but also to demonstrate the consequences of pursuing one way of reading over another. It matters greatly whether texts are taught from the perspective of authorship, literary history, gender studies and feminism, metaphoric language, or imperialism. For this reason our upper division curriculum has no course titled "Shakespeare," although Shakespeare's plays might be studied in any number of courses bearing such titles "Authors" or "Forms and Genres" or "Reading Nation and Empire." This is why every ETS course has two titles: a broader generic title (such as "Literary Periods" or "Theorizing Representation") that marks out a specific set of interpretive questions and critical methodologies, and a subtitle (such as "Renaissance Poetry" or "American Consumer Culture") that identifies the topic or textual material selected by the professor for emphasis in that particular semester.

All left wing claptrap, none designed to produce either a writer of great works or a lover of literature.

Rabble Rabble

Nolanger wrote: »

Not true. Do you honestly think a bunch of introverted or anorak-wearing science/engineering graduates will improve the economy? Lots of science subjects are a waste of time. What difference would a zoology graduate make? In the real world society values teamplaying, communication skills, and getting the job done over brainboxes. Most jobs in Ireland are dumbed down now because of the unions and equality issues. In the real world people who are in the middle of the bell-shaped curve are the majority. That's why even if scientists/engineers tried to make a change no-one would listen. In the real world it's more important to be 'nice' than be a bright spark. If most organisations wanted brainy people working for them they would hire consultants!

The idea that teams of engineers dont communicate, but somehow produce complex engineering or software systems can only be believed by an idiot. As has been pointed out most of the most successful CEOs are engineers. They can all talk.

( The zoology graduate would be useful in a zoo. )

samapple789

samapple789 wrote: »

I am doing a arts course next year but it multimedia it's maybe the highest pointed course in my IT 375 points and next year post to be 420 so I must be a good course if it gos up every year with out fail.

Ps I will be workin in computers with it it's a computers course but it classed as arts for some odd reason. I guy I know is doing it some where else and it's a computer course there

Points also go up due to popularity as well as difficulty....that course could just be really popular, so they raise the points to ensure they get the best students

dilbert2

Nolanger wrote: »

Not true. Do you honestly think a bunch of introverted or anorak-wearing science/engineering graduates will improve the economy? Lots of science subjects are a waste of time. What difference would a zoology graduate make? In the real world society values teamplaying, communication skills, and getting the job done over brainboxes. Most jobs in Ireland are dumbed down now because of the unions and equality issues. In the real world people who are in the middle of the bell-shaped curve are the majority. That's why even if scientists/engineers tried to make a change no-one would listen. In the real world it's more important to be 'nice' than be a bright spark. If most organisations wanted brainy people working for them they would hire consultants!

Right, so by your logic the likes of IBM and Intel go to countries where communications skills are valued and developed, as opposed to countries with a good record in science and technology jobs creation and innovation?

And i'm sorry to be blunt here but what would make you sleep sounder at night, knowing that (Student A) knew how to cure you of a painful disease or condition, or (Student Could tell you why Nietzsche thought so and so about life and death. etc

Nolanger

Nolanger wrote: »

Not true. Do you honestly think a bunch of introverted or anorak-wearing science/engineering graduates will improve the economy? Lots of science subjects are a waste of time. What difference would a zoology graduate make? In the real world society values teamplaying, communication skills, and getting the job done over brainboxes. Most jobs in Ireland are dumbed down now because of the unions and equality issues. In the real world people who are in the middle of the bell-shaped curve are the majority. That's why even if scientists/engineers tried to make a change no-one would listen. In the real world it's more important to be 'nice' than be a bright spark. If most organisations wanted brainy people working for them they would hire consultants!

This comment sounds like one from an arts student!
I have a degree and masters in biochemistry and and biomedical science respectively. I am neither introverted nor wear an anorak. I have a big group of friends, I socialise. You need to delve into the science of zoology to see exactly what it is they do.
Also without science and engineering graduates you would not be able to post your ill-informed comments on somewhere like boards. Also if organisations like 'nice' people then why do the vast majority of high tech, high skilled companies require at least one aptitude test, maybe two or three before entry? To weed out the dumb nice ones, and get the brainy mean ones that's why! The brainy mean ones make decisions, the right ones without thinking "oooh will this hurt Mary's feelings?"

Sigh:rolleyes:

ejmaztec

dilbert2 wrote: »

But haven't you not answered your own question here in a way, when you rightfully point out that a lot of the arts subjects on offer now were once the privilege of the wealthy and their children. That is precisely the point, people who are wealthy and will more than likely inherit wealth can afford to give away 3 years (or more in some cases) to studying a hobby, but not many people in reality can, or could afford such a luxury.

There is also another reason why they were the preserve of the wealthy elite - because they were the only people who could afford them, and that also ties into this argument. It is bloody expensive to teach a subject and keep the staff in a faculty paid annually, and this is coming out of public funds.

So what we are left with here is a situation where anybody can go and study a subject at the expensive of public funding elsewhere (where it is needed) that once the preserve of a wealthy elite who could (a) spending three years doing a course with little practicality, even if it was expensive, and (b) not suffer the consequences of lack of employability as they more than likely had wealth to inherit.

And that is another problem, along with the squandering of public resources for courses with little payback - students are taking courses which are if we're to be honest with ourselves of little use to employers. If somebody's hobby is philosophy, well let them fork out the funds for 3 years to pay for their course, and the salaries of those teaching the subject - and leave the funds in more skills based degrees with real world benefits such as medicine, engineering, physics, computer science, biochemistry etc.

Ironic that, your opinion running counter to my argument has in fact been useful in further showing how crazy our system is when it comes to deciding it's future. I don’t believe university is a playground or a 3 year holiday at the expensive of the exchequer – and it is time to get our priorities right, and in particular giving a chance to students who want to develop everyday skills, which will benefit both themselves and the country.

The mere fact that someone has a degree of any kind, stands them in good stead when they apply for jobs, whether the degree relates to that particular job or not. I've worked with, and known people over the years who fell into this category. A couple of guys, one with a degree in bio-chemistry, and the other with a degree in Hebrew, decided to become chartered accountants. Another friend of mine with a degree in Geology became a fighter pilot.

Wasting resources in my book, is funding anyone through third level education, only to see them emigrate immediately afterwards.

Nolanger

Starla_o0 wrote: »

The brainy mean ones make decisions, the right ones without thinking "oooh will this hurt Mary's feelings?"
Sigh:rolleyes:

You will find out eventually that in most Irish workplaces it's the 'Marys' who rule! The big mouths, the union members, the gossipers, the teamplayers, the ones who shout the loudest! If you think because you've a science/engineering degree that you'll be respected by the 'Marys' then think again! Irish people are naturally suspicious of the 'smarter' ones, jealous even. The brainy people don't make the decisions! Not in this country. The people who make the decisions got their job because of being popular, being a teamplayer, having the right family connections, or just being lucky. No-one in Ireland will give a sh*t when you eventually emigrate to find a science job.

dilbert2

omahaid wrote: »

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much does it cost?"

The graduate with the Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

---

Whats the differance between an arts student and a football pitch?


The football pitch has goals

---

What's the difference between an arts student and a bench?

A bench can support a family.

I hear andrex are handing out arts degrees as well now.

Tonyandthewhale

dilbert2 wrote: »

But haven't you not answered your own question here in a way, when you rightfully point out that a lot of the arts subjects on offer now were once the privilege of the wealthy and their children. That is precisely the point, people who are wealthy and will more than likely inherit wealth can afford to give away 3 years (or more in some cases) to studying a hobby, but not many people in reality can, or could afford such a luxury...

Pity you didn't take a few philosophy modules or you might have realised the the circularity of your argument. You're saying that the arts subjects were traditionally pursued by the very wealthy because BEFORE free education they were the only ones who could afford it, that's fair enough. However you also suggest that AFTER the introduction of free education arts degrees are still something only rich people do so we shouldn't be funding them with public money especially since according to you these people don't care about not being able to get a job with an arts degree because they all (or most of them) have magically inherited vast sums of wealth from god knows where.

dilbert2

Nolanger wrote: »

You will find out eventually that in most Irish workplaces it's the 'Marys' who rule! The big mouths, the union members, the gossipers, the teamplayers, the ones who shout the loudest! If you think because you've a science/engineering degree that you'll be respected by the 'Marys' then think again! Irish people are naturally suspicious of the 'smarter' ones, jealous even. The brainy people don't make the decisions! Not in this country. The people who make the decisions got their job because of being popular, being a teamplayer, having the right family connections, or just being lucky. No-one in Ireland will give a sh*t when you eventually emigrate to find a science job.

I think you might be referring to a disdain for students and people who study esoteric subjects and then go around thinking they are better than everybody else as a result. Everybody I know, or at least most of them respect science and engineering graduates as benefiting themselves whether its for when they fall sick or ill, or buy technology etc.


Your teamplayer-makes-it-to-the-top bit as well made me laugh because Irish society and it's economy is as cut throat with competition as any other country. Do you really believe people care more about teamwork than doing well financially?

Rocket19

dilbert2 wrote: »

But haven't you not answered your own question here in a way, when you rightfully point out that a lot of the arts subjects on offer now were once the privilege of the wealthy and their children. That is precisely the point, people who are wealthy and will more than likely inherit wealth can afford to give away 3 years (or more in some cases) to studying a hobby, but not many people in reality can, or could afford such a luxury.

There is also another reason why they were the preserve of the wealthy elite - because they were the only people who could afford them, and that also ties into this argument. It is bloody expensive to teach a subject and keep the staff in a faculty paid annually, and this is coming out of public funds.

So what we are left with here is a situation where anybody can go and study a subject at the expensive of public funding elsewhere (where it is needed) that once the preserve of a wealthy elite who could (a) spending three years doing a course with little practicality, even if it was expensive, and (b) not suffer the consequences of lack of employability as they more than likely had wealth to inherit.

And that is another problem, along with the squandering of public resources for courses with little payback - students are taking courses which are if we're to be honest with ourselves of little use to employers. If somebody's hobby is philosophy, well let them fork out the funds for 3 years to pay for their course, and the salaries of those teaching the subject - and leave the funds in more skills based degrees with real world benefits such as medicine, engineering, physics, computer science, biochemistry etc.

Ironic that, your opinion running counter to my argument has in fact been useful in further showing how crazy our system is when it comes to deciding it's future. I don’t believe university is a playground or a 3 year holiday at the expensive of the exchequer – and it is time to get our priorities right, and in particular giving a chance to students who want to develop everyday skills, which will benefit both themselves and the country.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're missing my point. I know academic study cost the state but I honestly believe it to be a neccessary form of expenditure.

There are of course, arguements which would suggest that "it's expensive, so leave it to the people who can afford the expense". You're right in suggesting that it is beyond a 'cultural thing'. Wealthier people were simply better able to afford putting time and money into this kind of study.
In a way, that's a practical view and certainly valid.

I would have thought however, that the majority of people nowdays would advocate a 'fairer' and more accessible approach to education
Nowdays, it's actually possible for a person growing up in near poverty to follow ther dreams or passions and study what they want - without financial limitations.
This approach has its drawbacks, but in essence, I think its a beautiful thing. I'm definitely a supporter of "education for all". I really really don't think a 'poor' person should be forced into vocational work for their entire lives simply because of financial constraints and social expectation. Just as there's nothing to stop a wealthy person pursueing a career as a plumber if that's what they want.
I know it's not always that simple but that kind of freedom is what makes a country like this great.

Not everyone in arts thinks of it as a "playground". Granted, not everyone in academia will be earning big bucks, but some are happy enough with that.
Many people who have the drive to complete a good arts degree will probably move on to post-graduate education anyway.
It's really ignorant to suggest that all academic-based degree-holders are dossers and are automatically destined for the dole.