sdonn wrote: » Our graduates are perfectly well qualified. What we lose in the fact that some courses are a bit on the easy side we gain in the fact that our standard of secondary education is undoubtedly higher. College for everyone means the courses can't be elitist (which has its own flaws, but nonetheless is truth, otherwise the failure rates would be very high). The mere fact that this country is so utterly reliant on mainly American multinationals to prop up our pathetic little economy is proof of how meaningless and see-through our "Celtic Tiger" was, really. I'm strongly of the opinion that this relaince is unhealthy and in the long term unsustainable; we've already lost Dell almost totally and coutless jobs in others. Granted this is because they're greedy capitalist bastards but it doesn't change the fact that these guys can and will move to cheaper places and if anyone else lowers their tax rate they could destroy us. It's like a quick quid loan really - moronic. We need to bolster our own indigenous businesses and export our talent and produce. Make Irish names the big multinationals, not just play mammy to the Americans.
the_monkey wrote: » WHAT ?????? From a f/cking american !!! The worst education system in the world !! and there if you have money you get a top degree handed to you !! un real ... just un-f*cking real, we have one of the best education systems in the world and some satan f*cking yank (evil of all the world and cause of all the wars) coming out with this CR*P!!!!!
Deleted User wrote: » Yea he's right.. I'm a prime example of the farce that is university. I went to exactly 12 lectures in all of second year, about 15 in all of third year, did all nighters for almost all my subjects and now i've a good degree from a good university.
Deleted User wrote: » Is that not what college is about? It's not about learning everything but how you can apply what you know?
df1985 wrote: » I see his point to be honest, people in my degree course (one of most respected courses in terms of business degress) got 2.1's or even better from 2-3 weeks of cramming for their finals and 6 months of drinking oursleves stupid. we had to work hard in january and may, and every now and then throw a project together in a few days when we'd been given a few weeks to do it, apart from that we would miss half the lectures from being hungover and watching daytime tv.
Holybejaysus wrote: » If you want a very basic example of what the ambassador is referring to, check out some of the spelling on this thread for a start-then look at some of the replies from the intellectual midgets on this site. The first reply couldn't even articulate a point of view, but merely suggested the ambassador "**** off and hire their own graduates then". This response was thanked by a number of people. :rolleyes: So yes, I would say the ambassador has a legitimate point. The multi-nationals are not going to dumb themselves down for you-it is up to you to raise your standards to theirs. Accept this advice, and you might get on in life. Here endeth the lesson.
andrewire wrote: » Context: The United States bluntly told the Republic's government that Ireland's education policies were not providing US firms with enough quality graduates. Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/us-complained-to-irish-pm-about-quality-of-graduates-15031578.html#ixzz18JgkLijl ---- Do you agree or disagree with that comment? I personally think he's right. I think some (not all) colleges and universities do not challenge you intellectually, they just limit themselves to 'teach the program' and that's it. It seems there's more emphasis on guidelines than actual learning. My personal experience tells me lecturers are more concerned about external examiners than what you learn in the classroom. For example, most of my lecturers always say: 'An examiner won't like that type of answer', etc. Is it all about my learning experience and not what the examiner will think?
PeakOutput wrote: » were did you see that? the ambassador said that the quality of irish graduates is not good enough for the american companies, presumably because they told him. it has nothing to do with percentages or quantity. if the quality was good enough they could find enough people to work for them here, they cant apparently. google in particular has said it wont recruit from specific universities as they have had such bad experiences with their graduates, its a ridicolous state of affairs
orourkeda wrote: » Perhaps they should f*ck off and hire their own graduates then
Deleted User wrote: » OK, A US company insists that it wants the top 0.1% of the educated elite working for them!
The US ambassador's talking out of his arse!
PeakOutput wrote: » they are dead right its been discussed to death in politics, generally it seems that people refuse to accept the facts and like to live on in blissfull ignorance believing we still have a decent education system they are the only ones who will suffer
Monty Burnz wrote: » Odd - as I understand it, China's 3rd level education sector is a shambles.
Dudess wrote: » I've always wondered about the "Extremely high standard of education" claim re Ireland. I mean, I'm sure it's all right, but extremely high? Based on what?
Sticky_Fingers wrote: » As someone who has recently completed a Phd and worked for 4 years on the advancement of knowledge I can tell you first hand that my IT education was far more beneficial to me then my big name Uni one.
Students can be a nuisance, I know because I have supervised them myself but that is part of the job. Its not a necessary evil, it is vital part of what universities are all about
Pawning a second rate and shoddy education on them because they just so happen to be on the lowest rung of the academic pecking order is scandalous. If a lecturers research work is so vital that he/she cannot be bothered to make time for their students or teach them properly then they have no place at any university.
PeakOutput wrote: » thats true, this year america dropped form number one to number 12 in the rankings that take into account the total quality of a countries univerisities. china moved to first
PeakOutput wrote: » read what you just said again and then what i said and see how what you said dosnt contradict what i said at all no university gives a **** about its undergrads, undergrads are a necessary evil in univerisities. at undergrad level university aims to teach you the basics of a given subject in a way that makes you learn it yourself and in the process teaches you how to do your own research and find things out for yourself etc. its all about post grad research and staff research. that is the main function of a university(traditionally) as i said the advancement of knowledgethe main function of an IT (traditionally) is to teach the practical application of this knowledge. you can call it horse manure all you want but ask any lecturer what the main differences between a university and an it(iv been to both aswell by the way) are and they will tell you the same thing. as i said the lines are blurring with the awarding of university status to some ITs
Sticky_Fingers wrote: » Thats complete horse manure. The Uni staff didn't give a flying f@ck about the students, we were a bothersome distraction to their research and treated us as such. The IT staff on the other hand actually took an interest in our projects (some of which were pretty impressive stuff). As for advancement of knowledge, some of the modules I studied in the IT doubled up with what I have done previously and I can vouch that there was no dumbing down or glossing over the details, if anything it was more detailed since the principles learned were used to show how stuff actually works. Book learning is all well and good but until you actually see how its been applied to the real world then its pretty useless.
PeakOutput wrote: » this is a pretty bad explanation but, thats how it is meant to be, if you study the same subject(software engineering) in and IT and a university you will get taught two completely different ways. universities are theory driven as their main objective is the advancement of knowledge(discovering new things, coming up with theories etc stuff like, were as an it is more about the practical implemenation of existing knowledge. the lines are blurring but that is the traditional distinction
digme wrote: » except china keeps beating the sh!t out of them in everything
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)
