BF3s Book Club

Pages: 1 … 52 53 54 55 56 … 147

Index »
Community »
Everything Else »
BF3s Book Club

2012-01-05 17:52:08

#1326

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

The old polytechnics have moved into research - just picking one random example.
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/

Uzique's information is about 20 years out of date.

The argument "They used to be Polytechnics therefore their research is invalid" is .... invalid.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-05 18:13:00

#1327

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Engineering is certainly not vocational. That refers to a trade school, which falls somewhere between high school and college here in the US. Engineering is a degreed and certified profession, similar to law and medicine here in the States. I can't speak to the situation in the UK, as I am unfamiliar with it.

Maybe it's a difference in terminology...I don't know.

Depends on the definition of vocational.

People in 'the arts' tend to look on any course with direct practical application as 'vocational'.

Depending on where its taught an engineering course can be entirely academic or vocational, or any mix in between.

Historically the Universities would have focused on the academic side, the Polytechnics on the vocational side.
The old Universities tend to be snobby about Polytechnic degrees as they're having their market pulled from under them and the quality of Polytechnic courses has needed to catch up.

The bottom line is a course consists of a curriculum and staff to teach it. Did it matter that my mechanics tutor was conducting world-leading research in joint replacement technology? No, he was a crappy tutor and smelled of formaldehyde.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-05 18:22:33)

Fuck Israel

2012-01-05 18:20:32

#1328

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Engineering is certainly not vocational. That refers to a trade school, which falls somewhere between high school and college here in the US. Engineering is a degreed and certified profession, similar to law and medicine here in the States. I can't speak to the situation in the UK, as I am unfamiliar with it.

Maybe it's a difference in terminology...I don't know.
Depends on the definition of vocational.

People in 'the arts' tend to look on any course with direct practical application as 'vocational'.

Depending on where its taught an engineering course can be entirely academic or vocational, or any mix in between.

Again, I think it's a terminology/colloquial thing. In the US, "vocational" schooling generally speaks directly to trade schools, which has absolutely nothing to do with university.

For someone to argue that engineering is "vocational" (ie, application and not theory/academic in nature) is someone arguing from a position of ignorance. There is a huge theoretical/academic base required before an engineer can apply anything practically...especially in research.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-01-05 18:24:13

#1329

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

Depends, in a vocational engineering course the engineer would be handed the equations and told to go use them.

I was required to derive them all from first principles, then apply them.

There are different levels of engineering degree, hence different universities have different reputations - unrelated to the research they're doing.

As I said, 'vocational' has the same general definition as in the US, its just faggy arts majors who use a different definition

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-05 18:26:53)

Fuck Israel

2012-01-05 18:27:17

#1330

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

Which uni are you at anyway Uzique?

2012-01-05 18:31:04

#1331

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

We don't really have "vocational" engineers. We call them technicians--and they go to trade schools.

Engineers are degreed from universities and are steeped in the foundational theory.

2012-01-05 18:38:14

#1332

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

Dilbert_X wrote:
The old polytechnics have moved into research - just picking one random example.
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/research/

Uzique's information is about 20 years out of date.

The argument "They used to be Polytechnics therefore their research is invalid" is .... invalid.

they haven't really moved into research. they were granted full university status, yes, and have started offering full university courses, yes... but when it comes to citations, research influence, prestige, research assessment quality (rae, which is the most important thing)... only a select minority remain as being 'academic institutions' in the worldwide sense. these are the russell group and the 1994 group, which is the same style of affiliation/grouping of universities in terms of research interests and collaboration that you get with the ivy league. so yes, all other universities are technically offering 'academic' degrees, but in terms of pure citations/influence and research evaluation, they are still a long league below. that's the distinction i'm making between jay's type of 'engineering college great for graduate employment prospects' (i.e. vocational) and the academic research institutions, which are focused on ivory-tower type 'knowledge for knowledge's sake'. the latter group normally don't worry about graduate employment prospects or vocationally-tailored education because they assume that the hardcore academic courses they offer will carry some cv 'weight' (whether or not it does really is your opinion).

there are definitely two different classes of university in the uk - and in the usa too, from what i understand. dilbert you say my views are out of date by 20 years, but 4 years ago i was applying to these universities. i've been in the system for the last 4 years. i've looked around all of the options at undergraduate and postgraduate level. i'm interested in academia. you act as if i'm out of touch with something that i do everyday as my 'career'... which is a bit silly, really. i think you're just being a difficult contrarian again, which really makes a change when it comes to this subject, doesn't it? in any other thread - if i hadn't piped up - you'd be saying the same denigrating things about polytechnics. you have many times before. but now because i'm trying to make a slightly elitist distinction (in consideration of pure academia alone)... well now of course you have an objection to raise. sigh, how utterly tiresome. and boring. you'll argue against anyone tirelessly with your standard lines, just to rub them the wrong way: whether it's me with academia/intellectualism/whatever or someone like feos with america/israel/iraq. same shit, different thread tbh. and everyone can see that.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 18:44:03

#1333

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

So they're focused on educating people - so what?

in terms of pure citations/influence and research evaluation, they are still a long league below

For the purposes of a first degree, pretty well no-one give a fuck.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-05 18:50:25

#1334

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

wel they do in academia, which is exactly what i'm talking about. no one in the employment world cares about citations/research influence, sure... and i don't have a quarrel with that. at the end of the day there are two types of cv: the employment cv and the academic resume. that sorta shit matters on one and not the other. for an implied 'second degree' at a prestigious uni, you ain't gonna get in unless you were a sparkling diamond from a polytechnic. 99% of the people i know at postgraduate level are here from worldclass universities (and from a truly worldwide base, location-wise, too). for postgraduate education in academia (i.e. not business/law/medical school), the competition is really fierce. there aren't many places and there is pretty much nil funding, so you had better have your shit together. 80% of universities in the uk are ex-polytechnics and really are run more like degree-granting businesses than research institutions. if your interest is academia/research (and that's what we're talking about here), then you'll struggle to hop from oxford brookes to oxford itself. my $0.02 from someone that has had all the talks about a 'career in academia' and has been made aware of the massive elitism, snobbery and pickishness you'll get whilst climbing that particular 'career' ladder. if you're talking about "giving a fuck" in the real-world sense... well then of course. but the real world doesn't give a shit about particular elitisms or distinctions in any profession. that's just the way it goes.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 18:57:46

#1335

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6326|eXtreme to the maX

Its an outdated attitude, if the entry committee at Oxbridge cares about research coincidentally done in the same building as someone earned their degree in then they're cretins and I hope the funding changes push them all into retirement.

Its as dumb as which regiment their grandad was in in India, these duffers need to go.

Fuck Israel

2012-01-05 18:59:18

#1336

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5806

Does the U.S. even have trade schools anymore? I mean credible trade schools. I see commercials for things like ITT Tech, and Lincoln Technical school all the time. Having known people who went to these and how employers look at them they seem like junk. They'll drop more debt on a kid for a 9 month program than someone would be taking on after doing two years at a state college with no financial aid.

2012-01-05 19:03:31

#1337

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

no, it's not dumb at all dilbert. every university has its own degree-granting powers - a first from liverpool john moores is not the same as a first from cambridge. so how can you really distinguish and separate the wheat from the chaff? you need to be elitist and discriminatory, somehow. lower-ranked universities that are not so well known for good teaching or good research will reward much easier degrees - it's as simple as that. it's not as if there's a centralised examination/essay marking board that grades oxbridge papers alongside london metropolitan papers. you have to put a student's degree in context, and that context is normally the awarding body (and by extension what standard of excellence they will measure by). what's wrong with that? how else will the system work, on a general level? of course individual applications and interviews matter a lot, too... but that's the next level. can a bottom-end provincial university provide the facilities and learning to produce an academic genius? certainly. but it's very rare and is definitely an exception. and that genius will still get recognized and will get an interview, like anyone else. i'm just saying that generally the highly-rated universities produce the vast majority of postgraduate students, or 'career academics'. surprise surprise. what are you really taking objection to here? i mean, really? seems like a kneejerk reaction against anything you perceive as 'intellectualist' or 'elitist'. you've got to draw some lines somewhere. there's a lot of schools out there with hugely disparate standards and results. the RAE is the standard benchmark and common measurement, here. it's the most rigorous, objective method (furthermore with some worldwide validity).

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 19:07:42

#1338

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6852|949

Macbeth wrote:
Does the U.S. even have trade schools anymore? I mean credible trade schools. I see commercials for things like ITT Tech, and Lincoln Technical school all the time. Having known people who went to these and how employers look at them they seem like junk. They'll drop more debt on a kid for a 9 month program than someone would be taking on after doing two years at a state college with no financial aid.

buddy just graduated from ITT Tech and got a 10k raise at his IT job.

2012-01-05 19:07:50

#1339

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

I'm confused, isn't a university more or less defined by academic research? I don't see how an institution that doesn't do any research can be granted "full-university status", the whole point is to educate their students to become researchers themselves.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-05 19:08:10)

inane little opines

2012-01-05 19:15:41

#1340

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

i think that's an idealistic and very outdated view, shocking. the whole point of 80% of universities now (which is exactly what i am making the distinction about) is to give someone a basic level of qualification to enter them into the workplace with more earning power. 80% of universities don't really give a shit about research or 'furthering academic knowledge'... they're there to offer a degree certificate for x amount of fees, with the idea being that the person will have an increased earning-potential and a qualification that will open up doors for them in the 'real world' workplace. that's the reality. that's where i'm distinguishing between jay's idea of an 'academic college' and a university that is, to use the old phrase, an "ivory-tower" institution. the ideals of education have changed so much, and so perversely, that nowadays the common sentiment from most people towards the ivory-tower ideal is one of revulsion and contempt. dilbert is a great example: he wants to basically behead the old academic oxford dons, because they're 'useless', and promote nasty elitism and aren't all-inclusive for every mong. to put it in the analogy and thinking of this whole 'real world value' system... academia as a career can be compared to law. not everyone is going to get an equal shot at being employed by one of the world's top and most prestigious law firms - there is elitism and where you trained, and to what level, really matters. dilbert has a problem with universities exercising that sort of distinction because it's "elitist" and old-fashioned... but, of course, he'd have no problem with a star engineer that graduated from a top-renowned engineering job getting a job at a top firm. doh.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 19:41:40

#1341

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

Uzique wrote:
i think that's an idealistic and very outdated view, shocking. the whole point of 80% of universities now (which is exactly what i am making the distinction about) is to give someone a basic level of qualification to enter them into the workplace with more earning power. 80% of universities don't really give a shit about research or 'furthering academic knowledge'... they're there to offer a degree certificate for x amount of fees, with the idea being that the person will have an increased earning-potential and a qualification that will open up doors for them in the 'real world' workplace. that's the reality. that's where i'm distinguishing between jay's idea of an 'academic college' and a university that is, to use the old phrase, an "ivory-tower" institution. the ideals of education have changed so much, and so perversely, that nowadays the common sentiment from most people towards the ivory-tower ideal is one of revulsion and contempt. dilbert is a great example: he wants to basically behead the old academic oxford dons, because they're 'useless', and promote nasty elitism and aren't all-inclusive for every mong. to put it in the analogy and thinking of this whole 'real world value' system... academia as a career can be compared to law. not everyone is going to get an equal shot at being employed by one of the world's top and most prestigious law firms - there is elitism and where you trained, and to what level, really matters. dilbert has a problem with universities exercising that sort of distinction because it's "elitist" and old-fashioned... but, of course, he'd have no problem with a star engineer that graduated from a top-renowned engineering job getting a job at a top firm. doh.

Right, I believe the difficulty in this discussion is added to by the fact that we're discussing universities in 3 (or more) different cultures and maybe our definitions don't line up properly. Around these parts, university is characterised by academic research. An institution that confines itself solely to teaching is not a university. Every lecturer (be they doctors or professors) is required to do lots of research for as long as they're teaching at uni, if they're not doing any research in their respective fields they will not be allowed to teach unless it's under very special circumstances such as guest lecturers, f.ex. people high up the food chain in business & politics with substantial knowledge in a particular field of study at uni.

This guarantees the quality in education which is expected of a proper university. Specialists who engage in extensive research will be able to provide much more detailed information and be able to teach students in what they're at uni for: learning how to analyze academic research and how to use this skill in studies of their own.

Teaching-only institutions do exist here, but we don't call them universities. I don't really see it as being ivory-tower elitism, it's simply a fact that subjects at a proper uni are taught much better and are much more difficult because of the whole emphasis on academic research (and doing this on your own), thus, the value of a degree from a teaching-only "uni" is not the same as one of an actual uni. Usually there is distinction in these as well, for example, engineering graduates from these have different titles.

Oh and considering the confusion I had before in regards to the usage of the term 'professor', I'd like to note that these are the cream of the crop of the academia and have made very substantial contributions to their respective fields of study (and, if they're teaching, continue to do so). A lecturer isn't always a professor.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-05 19:47:59)

inane little opines

2012-01-05 19:47:54

#1342

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

i think you're getting confused. when we talk about 'research heavy' or 'research focused' institutions we mean universities that are renowned for producing world-class research: heavyweights, pioneers, innovative schools, etc. we're not saying that the 'non-academic' institutions don't involve any research AT ALL... just it doesn't register in any international or worldwide way. the focus is on producing graduates for a workplace, not on really contributing to the bigger academic picture. to even become a professor you have to have a long career of research so i would have thought it goes without saying that some amount of research-output is present in every institution. your post in that sense is kinda redundant. what we're discussing is the difference between the schools that uphold the classical tradition of research/knowledge-for-knowledge's sake, and the 'modern' institutions that, whilst being universities in structure and course content, are really more about pumping out an able workforce for the 'real world'.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 19:50:26

#1343

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

I am confused, lol. That clears it up.

sec

inane little opines

2012-01-05 19:59:57

#1344

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

We need more worker bees. Uzique is a Queen bee.

2012-01-05 20:00:06

#1345

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6219|...

Uzique wrote:
the difference between the schools that uphold the classical tradition of research/knowledge-for-knowledge's sake, and the 'modern' institutions that, whilst being universities in structure and course content, are really more about pumping out an able workforce for the 'real world'.

If this is the case I can't consider the latter as being a proper university, really. Next to teaching students the aim ought to be to produce world class research. If that isn't done and the university in question doesn't try to seriously compete nationally as well as internationally I don't see how it could uphold the quality standard that is expected (not to mention that research has always been an integral part of the existence of a uni)

Schools focused on pumping out graduates will simply cause an inflation in academic titles and the like which will, in time, force the research intensive unis to further distinguish / seperate themselves from these.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-05 20:01:07)

inane little opines

2012-01-05 20:15:57

#1346

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

AussieReaper wrote:
We need more worker bees. Uzique is a Queen bee.

you keep trying to troll but you just come across like a dumb cunt, every time. my only point here is to counter jay's constant "i've seen it all and i know academia" attitude. drawing a line. it has nothing to do with me. i've already expressed my surprise when dilbert made it personal matter - as i said before, i could be a bricklayer and could still point out the same fundamental institutional differences. anyone can see them. my perspective just means i know it more in-depth, but it doesn't place any implicit value-judgement on that. you're just looking for an opportunity to queef for the sake of it. get over it and get a new hobby, mong. may i suggest spray tanning.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 20:19:18

#1347

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

Uzique wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
We need more worker bees. Uzique is a Queen bee.
you keep trying to troll but you just come across like a dumb cunt, every time. my only point here is to counter jay's constant "i've seen it all and i know academia" attitude. drawing a line. it has nothing to do with me. i've already expressed my surprise when dilbert made it personal matter - as i said before, i could be a bricklayer and could still point out the same fundamental institutional differences. anyone can see them. my perspective just means i know it more in-depth, but it doesn't place any implicit value-judgement on that. you're just looking for an opportunity to queef for the sake of it. get over it and get a new hobby, mong. may i suggest spray tanning.

Can you give me some fashion advice too?

2012-01-05 20:22:53

#1348

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6631|'Murka

my only point here is to counter jay's constant "i've seen it all and i know academia" attitude.

my perspective just means i know it more in-depth

irony much?

How is what you're doing any different than what you're ranting about with Jay? Other than you think you're right, of course...

2012-01-05 20:28:40

#1349

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

AussieReaper wrote:
Uzique wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
We need more worker bees. Uzique is a Queen bee.
you keep trying to troll but you just come across like a dumb cunt, every time. my only point here is to counter jay's constant "i've seen it all and i know academia" attitude. drawing a line. it has nothing to do with me. i've already expressed my surprise when dilbert made it personal matter - as i said before, i could be a bricklayer and could still point out the same fundamental institutional differences. anyone can see them. my perspective just means i know it more in-depth, but it doesn't place any implicit value-judgement on that. you're just looking for an opportunity to queef for the sake of it. get over it and get a new hobby, mong. may i suggest spray tanning.
Can you give me some fashion advice too?

i think you're beyond sartorial help. definitely call a dentist though m8. it must be hard for you being such a funny guy when you have that smile.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2012-01-05 20:30:51

#1350

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6373|what

Uzique wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Uzique wrote:

you keep trying to troll but you just come across like a dumb cunt, every time. my only point here is to counter jay's constant "i've seen it all and i know academia" attitude. drawing a line. it has nothing to do with me. i've already expressed my surprise when dilbert made it personal matter - as i said before, i could be a bricklayer and could still point out the same fundamental institutional differences. anyone can see them. my perspective just means i know it more in-depth, but it doesn't place any implicit value-judgement on that. you're just looking for an opportunity to queef for the sake of it. get over it and get a new hobby, mong. may i suggest spray tanning.
Can you give me some fashion advice too?
i think you're beyond sartorial help. definitely call a dentist though m8. it must be hard for you being such a funny guy when you have that smile.

The trick is to not laugh at your own jokes.

Pages: 1 … 52 53 54 55 56 … 147

Index »
Community »
Everything Else »
BF3s Book Club

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer