Snobbery in education.

mrkiscool2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

STEM and Science aren't the same thing, you are the one implying the are. All science subjects are part of STEM but not all STEM subjects are science. Logic is obviously something they don't teach in humanities. Also, you can't be qualified to discuss something. You can have more knowledge about it, sure, which gives your argument more merit, but anyone can discuss anything. Even if they have no fcuking clue what they are talking about, they can still discuss it. Again, ties back into not grasping logic in your undergrad.

mrkiscool2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry, don't mean to double post. When you get a Ph.D, you have specific knowledge about a specialist area of whatever the hell you are doing! You have to, because the research you have done has never been carried out before! Also, I know some wonderful chemistry PhD candidates and post-doc researchers who are amazing people and are extremely passionate about the one branch of chemistry they are involved in!

Avatar MIA

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sorry, don't mean to double post. When you get a Ph.D, you have specific knowledge about a specialist area of whatever the hell you are doing! You have to, because the research you have done has never been carried out before! Also, I know some wonderful chemistry PhD candidates and post-doc researchers who are amazing people and are extremely passionate about the one branch of chemistry they are involved in!

A PhD is considered the pinnacle of education, but as you point out it's 5 or so years researching a very specific area. And most PhD topics would make you Zzzzzzzz

They are self perpetuating funding programmes for Universities. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but we probably all know more PhD's that you'd not trust to take an order at McDonald's than you'd rely on to find a cure for some serious disease.

Optimalprimerib

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

Of course there is a difference between courses and educational institutes. A degree from Trinity will almost certainly be of a higher standard that a degree in Graphic Design and Lawnmower Maintenance from some obscure IT in a small town in the provinces. That's not snobbery, that's fact.

I have an extremely well regarded MBA. I got onto this programme by having a 1st from Trinity alongside the required work experience. This in turn opened up the doors that allowed me to have the career I now have. I wouldn't have the job (or indeed the view) I now have if I had taken the easy option of arsing around getting a 3rd rate MBA from Smurfit Business School in UCD.

The only reason I was looking through this thread was for your input. it did not disappoint oh great one.

Maireadio

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I've never been asked for college documents at any job interview ever.

Really? At the interview for my first post-graduation job (at a UK government science agency), I had to bring a college transcript and my graduation parchment to the interview. They were looked at and photocopied.

I'm a TCD science grad and I have no problem with Ivy League grads being considered a higher calibre. They are. I entered my degree at the low ebb for science points (though they were 430 the year I entered TCD so not very low, but low compared to now, and the year I entered, the points were much higher in TCD than any other institution. I wouldn't get into TCD science now). I aced LC biology and also did well at Maths and Art, but I only started studying the Feb before the LC and my abilities in other areas was less than impressive. Anyone entering an Ivy League college will have a much, much better pedigree than I had entering college. They'll be well-rounded, and will be top performers across many different subjects. They also wouldn't have sat around scratching their arse for most of the senior cycle, not studying.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then the poster in question has a whinge when someone dares to say that STEM degrees tend to be more valuable and more difficult.

More economically valuable, maybe, though that would need to be scrutised further to evaluate the effect one's alma mater has on earnings. Intellectually more valuble? Hardly. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is STEMie.

As for more difficult. Like said, I'm a science grad who did a postgrad with legal elements. I found law much, much harder to get my head around than science. Much harder. Not everyone has a legal mind, and law requires lateral thinking. There is no doubt in my mind that I would have found a law degree much harder than a science degree, which I didn't find very difficult at all. How does one quantify difficulty?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mrkiscool2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Erm your Ph.D is, not your Undergrad or previous Ph.D. I think the point he is making isn't that his Science degree is better than your Ph.D., rather that you have transferred into STEM for some reason known to yourself. I think claiming that you have as much basis in STEM than someone who has a undergrad in STEM isn't the same. Again, you have a very specific knowledge of a very specific part of STEM, a science undergrad would have a far more broad basis in STEM. At least that's the point I feel he was trying to make.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yeah, or ya know, good old fashioned nepotism? Honestly, in a country where a father and son were both president, it couldn't be more apparent...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dude that's nothing to do with what I said. You're seeing one thing and taking it extremely personally and exaggerating.

You're the one calling places backwater and making comments about various institutions. Then when someone says generally science degrees contain more difficult concepts or are generally harder to get into you can't take it and whatever gears you have in your mind transform that into "I'm more intelligent than you and art degrees are worthless".

In short if you can't take it don't give it.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

Then when someone says generally science degrees contain more difficult concepts or are generally harder to get into you can't take it and whatever gears you have in your mind transform that into "I'm more intelligent than you and art degrees are worthless".

How do you mean, "more difficult"? As a science grad myself, I genuinely don't get it. How are you qualified to make that judgement?

And science courses being hard to get into is a very recent development and I except it will be a transitory one too.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It should be noted that I work alongside grads from these universities and I have yet to meet one that talks like you do.

If people are that secure in the fact they went to a certain college then they don't constantly try to talk it up and talk other colleges down unless they feel insecure about it or something.

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

How do you mean, "more difficult"? As a science grad myself, I genuinely don't get it. How are you qualified to make that judgement?

And science courses being hard to get into is a very recent development and I except it will be a transitory one too.

More difficult to get into generally that should have read also more valuable economically.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

More difficult to get into generally that should have read also more valuable economically.

You said:

generally science degrees contain more difficult concepts

How do you know that?

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

You said:



How do you know that?

Because I'm well read. We can agree to disagree but that's my opinion. I'm not saying art students aren't capable of difficult concepts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In both cases look up what generally means.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

Because I'm well read. We can agree to disagree but that's my opinion. I'm not saying art students aren't capable of difficult concepts.

Well, as I said earlier, a law degree would be much more of a challenge to me than a science one was. Does that mean I found scientific concepts more easy to understand than legal ones? Does it follow then that legal concepts are more difficult to understand?

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pot meet kettle.

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

Well, as I said earlier, a law degree would be much more of a challenge to me than a science one was. Does that mean I found scientific concepts more easy to understand than legal ones? Does it follow then that legal concepts are more difficults to understand?

What was your science degree?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As I said dude I don't feel the need to defend myself against put downs. They're more indicative of the poster than the target.

OldNotWIse

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yea once again there's a confusion about science courses. A lot of self directed learning is required to do well.

In UCD's science degree during the final year you do a lab project where under the guidance of a supervisor you undertake a project with a clear set of aims. Depending on the supervisor you could be very independent. During mine I was thrown in the deep end and told to design my own experiments and make up my own buffers and I even got experience with some of the biophysical techniques like NMR.

I did Science in TCD and we had a similar setup in the final year. I was unfortunate with my tutor and I was basically used to make up stock materials that he needed for his own research. I remember trying to "bump up" what I had been doing in my project and presentation and make it sound better than "I made stuff for this guy to carry out his own work on" I heard only good things about UCD's Science course after, and regretted my choice. Anyway c'est la vie

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

What was your science degree?

Natural Sciences in TCD. The specialisations from third year on are small classes so I won't divulge that as I may be identifiable. But the "softest" specialisation would probably be Environmental Science which I didn't do. Other specialisations in Biochemistry, Immunology, Microbiology, Genetics, Chemistry, Physics, Astrophysics, Neuroscience and Physiology. I did one of those and achieved a 2:1.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OldNotWIse

Maireadio wrote: »

Natural Sciences in TCD. The specialisations from third year on are small classes so I won't divulge that as I may be identifiable. But the "softest" specialisation would probably be Environmental Science which I didn't do. Other specialisations in Biochemistry, Immunology, Microbiology, Genetics, Chemistry, Physics, Astrophysics, Neuroscience and Physiology. I did one of those and achieved a 2:1.

Me too! :pac: