no, it's not. it's called UNDER-graduate for a reason. do you know what that means? an honours degree in traditional academia is considered the minimum requisite before commencing an ACTUAL vocation as a scholar: that's what 'graduate school' is all about. that's why, on most graduate courses, taught or research, a major component is in teaching 'junior scholars' the skills necessary to do individual, self-directed research; and, in short, how to professionalize into 'an academic'.
none of that is taught on undergraduate courses. the business of the university, traditionally understood, is to produce scholars and be centres of learning. and nobody is even close to making an original contribution or doing proper, respected research after 3 years of 'under-'graduate study. it may happen, in the case of the odd savant or precocious student; but it's generally not the idea of undergraduate courses, which are synoptic and broad, not deep and specialized.
an undergraduate history or literature course will survey literally the entire field. undergraduates choose modules from a vast array of periods, areas, and sub-disciplines. the idea that they'll study anything at 'high level' is really laughable. you simply do not know what you are talking about. the entire idea of undergraduate humanities educations is to familiarise potential scholars with the broad sweep of the entire field.
once again you talk about the 'free MA'. it's an honorific title and nobody treats it as a master's degree as such. an MA from oxford or cambridge (or glasgow or any other ancient) doesn't mean diddly squat.
Its very weird and calls into question the standing of the people churning out these 'qualifications', and the other people who also hold them but aren't in government.
why does it? undergraduate education is a tiny part of their activities as scholars. supervising PhD students is a much bigger, and more proactive one. contributing original research and undertaking further study of their own is the chief part of the job. lecturing to rooms of green 18 year olds is not the primary activity of an academic, dilbert. academics' reputations and quality are staked on their own monographs and contributions to the field, not that they once gave a seminar to an undergraduate boris bloody johnson.
you talk such bollocks.
Last edited by uziq (2022-10-27 04:43:52)