Snobbery in education.

Anita Blow

I think some institutions also do a better job at nurturing their than others. Trinity's scholarship programme is arguably the best example of this in the country- they identify their brightest students in their given field and given them serious benefits which generates good will towards the college which means that after graduation when these people go on to become very successful, they have an affinity for the place that gave them a leg up and that's reflected in alumni donations, reputation etc. They also fund the student's postgrad education (Masters/PHD) for 3 years after graduation, which retains their brightest students, increases research output and improves their academic reputation.
So there's very real differences in how some third-level institutions operate and nurture their students that contributes to their reputation rather than suggesting there's no difference between them

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you did go to an Ivy league school why is it so important to you to go onto a message Board and get people to say that people have to admit to you that they went to a less prestigious school than TCD?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kurtosis

On the topic of how difficult concepts from different disciplines are, I used to think scientific concepts were objectively "harder" than those from the humanities, until I started working beyond my own area of expertise/comfort zone.

This graph sums it up pretty well.

maudgonner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe we do, in some cases. But not across the board. And in plenty of cases there is no equivalent course in Trinity or the other universities. Some ITs specialise in areas that make them the absolute leaders in their field. As, by the way, do some colleges who are 'not even' at IT level. I worked in animation for a time and by far the most sought after candidates came from Ballyfermot CFE.

Does attracting top-tier academics ensure that students receive a good education? Not always. I'm sure we can all think of professors who were gifted in their fields but terrible educators. I think that ITs often provide a better education in less academic, more practical areas - as befits the name. I don't think Universities and ITs are interchangeable, but then they were never meant to be.

Overall, I'd love to see the ITs up their game, have remote delivery of lectures to leverage the best talent they have (something that universities should also aim to do) and improve the standards. But I strongly disagree that this means courses need to be centralised. There's a place for ITs in the Irish 3rd level system, trying to turn them into universities, or just getting rid of them altogether, is foolish IMO.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

maudgonner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Specialised courses can't be provided in every institution, there simply isn't the demand for the courses (or the employment opportunities for graduates). But when ITs do specialise, the results can offend be as impressive (or moreso) than any other institution. So it's not possible to say, across the board, that IT qualifications are never as good as universities. That was the point I was making.

But most ITs offer general courses as well as specialised ones. What happens when a Waterford student can't afford to travel away from home to study Business, or Comp Sci, or Engineering? As is very often the case. Ideally they would be able to study locally. We have failed to deliver remote access to learning on any kind of reasonable scale (shamefully so). Until we do, there are thousands of kids who will simply have no option to go to college under your system. As things stand there is a need for ITs and unless we find another way to fill that need then we can't just shut them down.

Certainly, we've all had professors like that -- but it doesn't follow that all gifted professors are poor educators.

Yes, but the point is that not all gifted professors are good educators. So can we judge the quality of the education by the academic achievements of the professors? No, at least not until students reach the final, more specialised stages of their education, IMO. While it's fantastic to have access to eminently talented academics, to be inspired by them, having them teach 1st year courses every day of the week is not necessary. So saying that unless a college attracts top-tier academics its courses cannot be of good quality does not hold water, at least not for the more basic modules provided.

But if we accept that a degree from an IT is more vocational, and a degree from a university more academic, and then we compare degrees on the basis of academic orientation, the university degrees still inevitably come out on top.

Sorry, not sure what you're getting at here?

The Regional Technical Colleges, established in the late 1960s, should not have to be the template for delivery of education services in the 21st century, though. I'm entirely agreed with you about remote delivery of courses -- but I'd then ask why, if a student can participate "virtually" in a TCD course, why he also needs the Letterkenny Institute of Technology delivering a variant of that course down the street. It seems redundant to me.

True. But there's also no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, surely? What was good about the RTC model should be preserved, while adapting to suit our needs now.

And I would agree that there could be more of a pooling of resources. As I've said, we should be making much more use of remote delivery of lectures. I'd have no objection to having a uniform curriculum for courses across all ITs (and possibly universities too) with shared resources. But I think that delivering lectures is only one component of a course. Practical experience (labs, tutorials or whatever) would have to be delivered locally, and there would have to be some degree of one-on-one support available locally for students too. Also, college is about more than just lectures, so I wouldn't be in favour of going totally down the distance-learning route. Campuses and shared environments are valuable in terms of personal development and sharing of knowledge, particularly for undergrads.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Okay that may be the case but is this a genuine issue.

This thread started off about snobbery in education but we're talking about something different now.

In previous roles I've highered people from all sorts of backgrounds. Guys with degrees from local technical colleges, to a guy with a masters degree in physics from Trinity. Ya know the only thing in common with them all? Nothing! Apart from coming out of college you are almost essentially useless in most workplace environments.

Speaking from my own area of specialty, IT, a college qualification is literally just the beginning as the things you've learned as part of your course may already be redundant, the industry just moves that fast.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Computer science as in what? Logic gates, binary mathematics, etc...? Any regional IT course that I've ever seen has included these. I think you're mistaken if you think the vast majority of any computer related degree is not hugely theory based.

maudgonner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't know if it's common, but it certainly happens - not just in ITs. I had a number of lecturers in University that had Masters degrees but not a PhD.

I'm pretty sure I had instructors in my HDip (in a University) that didn't even have a Masters - it was quite an unusual course though, so an exception rather than the rule.

Ush1

maudgonner wrote: »

I don't know if it's common, but it certainly happens - not just in ITs. I had a number of lecturers in University that had Masters degrees but not a PhD.

I'm pretty sure I had instructors in my HDip (in a University) that didn't even have a Masters - it was quite an unusual course though, so an exception rather than the rule.

I believe you can lecture while doing a masters, though I'm not sure up to what level.

edbrez

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not due to funding or resources. It's because the brighter students go to the universities instead of the ITs.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We most certainly do differ. I would characterise your posts as: Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.

I have never disagreed that earnings differentials exist among graduates of
different fields. Those differentials are well documented and indisputable.
However, you have attempted in this thread to use the earning potential of a
degree as a proxy for the degree's intellectual worth. As far as you're
concerned, a degree in music is worthless because musicians don't earn much
money -- which is really just crass philistinism.

Hmmm. Not quite. I talked about the earning differences between degrees as well as the differing workloads and concept difficulties.

You're correct -- I do not agree that one field is inherently more
conceptually difficult than another, and I say that as someone who has completed
a PhD in a humanities field and is currently pursuing a PhD in a STEM field. You
have failed completely to substantiate that claim, even after multiple requests
from several posters. In addition, despite your claims about being "well read,"
you don't seem to be able to talk intelligently about any of the Arts subjects
that you are otherwise eager to denigrate.

So you think health and safety degrees are the same as your finance degree.

As regards to difficulty could you talk me through Incredible natural-abundance double-quantum transfer experiment (INADEQUATE) nuclear magnetic resonance?

I wouldn't make authoritative pronouncements about France without ever
having visited France or having read anything about France. But that's exactly
what you are doing with the liberal arts. No surprise then that people see
through your unsubstantiated assertions and your "because I say so" arguments.

No but you know it's French like deep down you know some degrees are harder than others. A fact I'm not too hung up on TBH but it's fund pointing out the hypocrisy.

steddyeddy

edbrez wrote: »

It's not due to funding or resources. It's because the brighter students go to the universities instead of the ITs.

h no you can't say that. Pbear says there's no intellectual disparity between degrees.

Anita Blow

I'd be of the opinion that there absolutely is a disparity in quality between degrees, but not necessarily between disciplines. Philosophy or languages as a disciple is just as difficult as any maths or chemistry degree. It all depends on the specific degree course you're doing. A person who graduates with with a degree in philosophy requiring 550+ points is arguably more intellectually superior to someone who graduated from a science course that required 250 points.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Jargon ha ha

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Maireadio

steddyeddy wrote: »

We most certainly do differ. I would characterise your posts as: Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.

As the most butt-hurt person in this thread, I hope you didn't type this with a straight face.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Back to the topic at hand please folks.

steddyeddy

Maireadio wrote: »

As the most butt-hurt person in this thread, I hope you didn't type this with a straight face.

Considering the amount of counselling sessions booked over the mention of arts degrees I'd disagree with that.

As regards snobbery. I previously said that some institutions are more prestigious than others. Depending on your field of study this seems to have more or less of an effect on your employment. Myself and a few others detailed that in our respective science areas it's the person that's more important.

I do believe different degree types have different workloads, concept difficulty and employability as well.

Where snobbery comes into it if you seek to put other institutions or people down based on their choice of degree or institution.

zcorpian88

A former girlfriend of mine used to have little digs at her uncle because her university (NUIG) outranked his college (Trinity) a few years ago in some all important guide to the best institutions in Ireland. They had the odd friendly debate over this, that and the other thing while I being uninterested and start staring into space or at my phone.

I couldn't give a shyte to be honest as long as both places put out enough people to fill whatever posts they desire.

I don't like all this elitism of which college is the best, what difference does it make? Lot of these graduates are still on the dole anyway or heading back to do yet another degree or another masters or even PhDs because God forbid they'd have to settle for an average job in the meantime.

Geuze

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It would be rare for existing staff in IoT to have PhD, but many new/younger staff would have.

pragmatic1

Geuze wrote: »

It would be rare for existing staff in IoT to have PhD, but many new/younger staff would have.

All my lecturers had PhDs. Although a PhD is fairly common in science compared to other areas.