Junkyard Tom wrote: » There's very little justification for having a large physical infrastructure with resulting tutors/lecturers/cleaners/security to deliver an awful lot of courses/degrees across the third level sector. We have a thing called 'the internet' now. I'd expect an awful lot of courses/degrees to be delivered digitally in the coming years.
reason vs religion wrote: » I This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview...Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it.
LirW wrote: » Catch 22: to get a well-paying job it's almost always requirement to have a degree.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » "You idiot" brilliant! I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of reporting it, I'll let it sit there with the rest of your inane post like the turd it is. How do you know I'm not a hapless victim of one of these Mickey Mouse courses, unemployable, unless a Japanese/Korean multinational comes to my end of the peninsula with a sudden vacancy for a graduate with 0 experience, but a BA in Eastern Feminist Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science.
Valmont wrote: » This isn't the case anymore. Tech giant Google doesn't even care if its employees have degrees. I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby; it had nothing whatsoever to do with my admittedly useless degree.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » IMO, a "Philosophy of Science" course would be very worthwhile and meaningful with many important applications to modern science. Not least in relation to ethics.
Deleted User wrote: » For a 4 year course it would be a bit much.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » I agree, but do we need schools in every college churning them out?
andekwarhola wrote: » I actually think 'free' fees benefit the middle-classes most. The class that can either pay it or save towards it. It hasn't led to an explosion in the rates of access for people from deprived backgrounds either. At a rough calculation, saving the monthly child benefit (as we do) that everybody recieves for each child for 18 years would give you aroud 30 grand per child as they hit third-level age.
osarusan wrote: » Making 'worthwhile' subjects free while introducing fees for others would probably result in loads more people applying for the 'worthwhile' subjects, until there are so many graduates that it's not a worthwhile subject anymore.
reason vs religion wrote: » It's both, you idiot. More lawyers graduate than are legal positions, which the poster I was replying to would see as wrong; I mentioned it to show that it's not merely a product of fees. Regardless, I believe people should be entitled to study what they want and think that the skills developed through a law degree are applicable widely. This "micky mouse courses" accusation is so trite and so stupid. It betrays your prejudiced worldview. The reality is that most history graduates don't become historians, most English literature graduates don't become novelists or critics, most law graduates don't become lawyers, most maths graduates don't become mathematicians, and so on. Instead, these students engage academically with an extensive body of knowledge and way of thinking, in the process developing skills like critical thinking, expression, sustained concentration, argument, synthesis of ideas, etc. You obsess over what you see as a worthless body of knowledge, unaware that what's important is actually what skills are developed through engaging with it. And there is much reason to think that gender studies (which I happen to think to be one of the most abstract and challenging subjects within the arts) develops all the same skills as other essay-based subjects that I presume you admire, like history.
LirW wrote: » A good friend of mine is a IT-dropout, started to work in a company that develops Casino games and makes more money with it than a graduate would. Development and Programming are two fields where it's all purely skill-based: you either can do it or you can't. It gets a lot more difficult in other fields like Finance or HR. It also has to do with the number of applicants. In a lot of cases a degree is the entry ticket for well-paying sectors. A few years down the line once the CV is right nobody gives a toss.
Valmont wrote: » I recently just landed my dream job based on skills I developed in my spare time as a hobby.
conorhal wrote: » I'd prefer to follow the German model, doing a science, engineering or nursing course... here, have your education on us! P.S. If you want to study some daft SJW arts course, your daddy can fund that for you... With limited funds to go around we should absolutely focus those funds to encourage students to study in the areas that are useful to our society, as opposed to producing entitled, over-educated baristas.
reason vs religion wrote: » The European vet school is irrelevant to the Irish situation. And I don't understand the relevance of your UK vet friend's experience
MarinersBlues wrote: » That is pretty much what the springboard scheme courses do. It is working very well for the students, employers and the state.
psinno wrote: » I think tuition and fees at a state university are only a fraction of the cost of a private university in the US.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
