Snobbery in education.

pragmatic1

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless you studied one you really wouldn't know though, would you? If we are just throwing out baseless views here, I'm going to go ahead and say I always found science easy in school and that I bet it's just as easy in college.

I found science easy in school too, that's why I did it. It wasn't too bad at college either until my final year, which was a nightmare.

Eugene Norman

Roadtoad wrote: »

Anyone here interested in trusting their kid's health to an 'I.T.' Doctor with 290 leaving cert points (if such a qualification existed) ?

Presumably if a medical degree existed in an IT it would be as difficult as anywhere else to get into since these kind of degrees need accreditation.

Some it course have high entry points.

steddyeddy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Unless you studied one you really wouldn't know though, would you? If we are just throwing out baseless views here, I'm going to go ahead and say I always found science easy in school and that I bet it's just as easy in college.

I AM GOD

pragmatic1

Roadtoad wrote: »

Anyone here interested in trusting their kid's health to an 'I.T.' Doctor with 290 leaving cert points (if such a qualification existed) ?

Lots of people trained at ITs are responsible for developing pharmaceuticals and ensuring that they're manufactured to a high standard of quality, safety and efficacy. Theses pharmaceuticals might then be prescribed by a doctor in the event that your child becomes ill.

steddyeddy

Roadtoad wrote: »

Anyone here interested in trusting their kid's health to an 'I.T.' Doctor with 290 leaving cert points (if such a qualification existed) ?

Beaten too it but all IT courses need accreditation.

coffee_cake

I have no idea what the squabbling in this thread is on about

Must be my inferior education

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

I have no idea what the squabbling in this thread is on about

Must be my inferior education

Are you an arts grad from an IT (in Ireland)?

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yet you and he fail to acknowledge that some courses are more difficult and in depth and demand a higher calibre of undergraduate. Something that's clear on any campus.

Some courses just can't be non-rigorous or bridges would collapse and planes fall from the sky.

Courses are different in different areas. I wouldn't have a clue how challenging a degree in Literature is and I wouldn't presume that the person studying it is of a lesser calibre than I am. They just are interested in studying different things and I don't compare apples and oranges. Especially if I've never tasted one of them.

I work in a university, I know how different courses are perceived.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But in that light what's wrong with people saying that science degrees are harder and produce a higher calibre of graduate?

coffee_cake

steddyeddy wrote: »

Are you an arts grad from an IT (in Ireland)?

I must be. And I'm not earning enough. Or too much. I'm a bit confused on that one

Alf Veedersane

bluewolf wrote: »

I must be. And I'm not earning enough. Or too much. I'm a bit confused on that one

Do you know what a tracker mortgage is?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

But in that light what's wrong with people saying that science degrees are harder and produce a higher calibre of graduate?

Why would you say that when you don't know anything about the Arts graduate? Who may very well be orders of enormity more able than the science graduate, but simply not interested in science?

Science degrees are seen as harder, but I suspect the reality is that many arts degrees are just as challenging, but in a different way.

Some degrees like literature and philosophy are very intellectually challenging. Many science degrees are very technically challenging. Many degrees are both. They can't really be compared.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmmm it would depend on the IT. All and all most science graduates would be of higher calibre than philosophy students.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Hmmm it would depend on the IT. All and all most science graduates would be of higher calibre than philosophy students.

What does higher calibre mean to you?

Being a science grad alone doesn't make you a superior graduate to anyone else. I don't understand the reasoning behind this thinking.

steddyeddy

I think it's all about progression. You don't focus on where you started as you will either overly praise yourself or punish yourself depending on where you went. I never went to an IT but I don't seek to judge those who did.

If you went to an IT then there's nothing stopping you ending up with a PhD.

As regards the UK/US colleges I can only speak for science but I think the rankings don't paint an accurate picture. First of all comparing the US and UK universities is comparing apples and oranges.

I'm based in a high ranking British university half of the time and the other half in American government research. I have indirect experience with US institutions and I think the situation in the UK is better. Graduates from UK universities seem more well rounded. There's a tendency in the US to become super focused on one area. For instance a biochem grad in the UK will have more genetics knowledge than a US biochem grad.

There's also a major major funding problem hitting some US universities. One colleague in Berkeley is so underfunded (she's a high impact scientist) that she's paying her post doc out of her own money.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

What does higher calibre mean to you?

Being a science grad alone doesn't make you a superior graduate to anyone else. I don't understand the reasoning behind this thinking.

What does it mean to you? You're defending the earlier posts talking about higher calibre of grads?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nice straw man dude.

Not necessarily true. You can't measure a science graduate directly against
a philosophy graduate, as Candie notes

You're comparing science to philosophy? Which is ludicrous.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

What does it mean to you? You're defending the earlier posts talking about higher calibre of grads?

Because those colleges and unis take the absolute creme de la creme of undergrad. They have an enormous number of applicants from home and abroad and choose the incredibly exceptional, they've got the funding and faculty to produce the leaders of industry and innovation in every area that we know they do.

To claim that Carlow IT is the equivalent of MIT is ridiculous, even on the basis of intake alone, which is not the same as saying that Carlow grads aren't of a high calibre. It's all relative.

I don't think a science grad is exceptional just because they're a science grad. I have two different science degrees, but I have no reason to believe that I was a higher calibre of graduate than someone with two arts degrees. They're not comparable and demand different intellectual input.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

What does higher calibre mean to you?

Being a science grad alone doesn't make you a superior graduate to anyone else. I don't understand the reasoning behind this thinking.

Once again Candie you were the first to mention calibre. It's a double standard.

Did he denigrate schools? Or did he just acknowledge that some
schools are better financed, have superior faculty as a result, teach a more
difficult or in-depth curriculum, and consequently have a higher calibre of
graduate?

What do you mean by that and how can you be outraged when I use it when you use it?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're comparing science to philosophy? Which is ludicrous.

That's what you did. You said a science grad is of a higher calibre to a philosophy grad. How can you say that if you don't compare them?

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

That's what you did. You said a science grad is of a higher calibre to a philosophy grad. How can you say that if you don't compare them?

The poster in question misread my post and insinuated that I said an IT was equivalent of Harvard. I gave waffle back as it was a straw man.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Once again Candie you were the first to mention calibre. It's a double standard.



What do you mean by that and how can you be outraged when I use it when you use it?

See I'm talking about the calibre of unis and how they can choose the best of the best, and you're taking about degree courses and saying the graduates of one are better than the other.

Also, I'm not outraged. I really hate how the word outraged is used when someone disagrees with you. I don't really care if you think science is intrinsically better than literature, certainly not enough to be even slightly miffed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

See I'm talking about the calibre of unis and how they can choose the best of the best, and you're taking about degree courses and saying the graduates of one are better than the other.

Candie you said: Or did he just acknowledge that some
schools are better financed, have superior faculty as a result, teach a more
difficult or in-depth curriculum, and consequently have a higher calibre of
graduate?

So now you don't mean the calibre of the graduate is better just the uni?

Also, I'm not outraged. I really hate how the word outraged is used when someone
disagrees with you. I don't really care if you think science is intrinsically
better than literature, certainly not enough to be even slightly miffed

Grand so. By the way I'm not comparing ITs to Harvard I am however comparing the assignment of value to a college to the assignment of value to a degree type.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Candie you said: Or did he just acknowledge that some
schools are better financed, have superior faculty as a result, teach a more
difficult or in-depth curriculum, and consequently have a higher calibre of
graduate?

The reputation of the Uni is dependent on them churning out the leaders of tomorrow, when you're talking Ivy League or Pac 10 anyway.

They take the best, give them the best education (because they can, with all the money and best faculty etc), and we're not supposed to acknowledge that because of all those advantages they produce the notable graduates?

How is that comparable to dismissing someones education as un - or less - worthy?

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've two degrees from a uni with an instantly recognisable name, did a masters in the US, a PhD split between the US and Europe, and I can safely say that in my observation you just can't dismiss any degree as being less challenging or worthy than another. I now work in a uni and still stand by that observation.

One eyed Jack

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All about the transferable skills