Intro to Arts repeat

Mr_Maestro

So failed Intro to Arts, which I expected to happen as I did nothing for it. Just wondering how is it repeated? Will I have to do it next semester or will there be a chance to pass the subject this semester ??

Fail this but get A's and B's in everything else. Ridiculous subject.

Mr.Saturn

I believe it's done via a 2000 word essay due around midterms. From my loose, hardly-reliable experience, it seems to be a very common module that folk have to repeat. My experiences with it were excruciating.

NoWayJose!

Supposedly you have to write an essay on why you think you should pass the subject.

RayM

Intro to Arts has been abolished. Good news for incoming students.

Although anyone who failed this year will still have to repeat it.

Maldesu

I saw that. Thankfully I never had to do it, but some of my friends did have to when it was being tested and they hated it. Hope they are too lazy to try fix it up and it stays gone

hdowney

thank fook for that. hape of crap

Mr.Saturn

Its redundancy was only heightened by the fact that there's writing clinics freely available and most courses run some sort of tutorial as to relevant skills and facilities needed to succeed.

Kicker they're still bleeding the 230 repeat fee, but I guess it would be too complicated to try and organize something else to satisfy credit requirements at this stage.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Im interested in why people hated this module so much - and why so many people seemed to fail it.

20% going for attendance and participation? 20% for a "to-do" plan?

It seems remarkably babyish for third level. Did people just not take it seriously (as in, a waste of time)? Is it that if someone is failing because they can't be arsed turning up or doing work they are still going to fail something like this, but if they are actually serious humanities students they may fail this because it feels more like kindergarten, and they focus on their real subjects instead?

Mr.Saturn

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Im interested in why people hated this module so much - and why so many people seemed to fail it.

20% going for attendance and participation? 20% for a "to-do" plan?

It seems remarkably babyish for third level. Did people just not take it seriously (as in, a waste of time)? Is it that if someone is failing because they can't be arsed turning up or doing work they are still going to fail something like this, but if they are actually serious humanities students they may fail this because it feels more like kindergarten, and they focus on their real subjects instead?

That seems to be the consensus I've heard from those who've failed it. Others just calculate the bare minimum level of work necessary to get through it and leave it at that. If 1st year Arts GPA actually counted for diddly, I imagined its low-scoring/failure rate would have dropped drastically.

It's just a lot of basic stuff, but drawn out over, I think, 10-12 contact hours (7, I think, lectures and 3 tutorials). Lots of assessments that take time away from other subjects. Like when I did it, there was a timetable assignment that asked to plot one's 12 weeks of lectures (yes, really) and when I asked why:

(A) What use is a timetable in week 6?

(B) Why wouldn't I just use my UCDConnect calendar anyways?

The response was something to the effect of 'because that's not what the rubric asked'.

Canard

I made a timetable using all the available information and the b1tch still gave me a D in that to-do plan. I personally hated it because it was 100% irrelevant (my subjects require referencing next to never), horrifically organized and we did plagiarism one week after I learned about it in another module...which is how I assume most people before used to learn about these things.

hdowney

Jesus. I am so glad I don't gotsta do it. Cos I am doing 'study skills' in the Access and it is pretty much the same dang thing in Intro!