Design a new college system

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 18

Topic closed

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Design a new college system

2012-04-06 00:34:21

#251

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

don't agree that it's easier, really. two different types of work and thinking. i excelled in math and science at pre-college level and had the option of taking that path for university, but it wasn't in my career interests. some people are better dealing with "facts", as jay puts it, whilst others are better at mooting out ideas, synthesizing arguments and reasoning views in the grey area between right/wrong and facticity. i'm not sure you can compare them so to say they're "easier" is a bit of a giant fallacious leap in logic. grades over here in the UK certainly do not reflect that humanities/arts are easier than maths/science; the humanities kids aren't sailing away with 20% more top grades or anything. but then again i get the impression from talking to several americans that your broad major/minor degree system sucks for humanities and makes it far easier in the states than it is over here in the uk.

again, time and time again what seems to be the case here in discussions it that everyone likes to make out they have the toughest time and the hardest, most demanding course that equals the greatest intellectual achievement. isn't that funny? everyone disclaims and justifies their posts with a little subordinate clause about how so-and-so is easier or less worthy. it's kinda pathetic. and here's me saying that all courses should be treated equally and with equal funding, without feeling the need to constantly stress my passive-superiority over math majors or any such thing. i really wonder what makes the science types feel the need to defend/justify their grades by saying how everything else is alll so much easier, anyway. . either america's education system is seriously slanted to one direction and sucks in the other, or this forum has an odd bias.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 00:37:09)

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

2012-04-06 01:01:55

#252

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6323|New Haven, CT

Uzique wrote:
don't agree that it's easier, really. two different types of work and thinking. i excelled in math and science at pre-college level and had the option of taking that path for university, but it wasn't in my career interests. some people are better dealing with "facts", as jay puts it, whilst others are better at mooting out ideas, synthesizing arguments and reasoning views in the grey area between right/wrong and facticity. i'm not sure you can compare them so to say they're "easier" is a bit of a giant fallacious leap in logic. grades over here in the UK certainly do not reflect that humanities/arts are easier than maths/science; the humanities kids aren't sailing away with 20% more top grades or anything. but then again i get the impression from talking to several americans that your broad major/minor degree system sucks for humanities and makes it far easier in the states than it is over here in the uk.

Yep, they are definitely different. I don't respect the humanity majors here because I've taken political science and history classes and experienced personally how easy they are. Saying that is the case is not exactly a fallacious leap in logic for an American university, especially considering the surfeit of political science majors in the top 25th percentile of Yale's classes. Conversely, one of my friends from high school spent a semester at Oxford studying political philosophy, however, and he said it was by far the most strenuous academic experience he'd had.

again, time and time again what seems to be the case here in discussions it that everyone likes to make out they have the toughest time and the hardest, most demanding course that equals the greatest intellectual achievement. isn't that funny? everyone disclaims and justifies their posts with a little subordinate clause about how so-and-so is easier or less worthy. it's kinda pathetic. and here's me saying that all courses should be treated equally and with equal funding, without feeling the need to constantly stress my passive-superiority over math majors or any such thing. i really wonder what makes the science types feel the need to defend/justify their grades by saying how everything else is alll so much easier, anyway. . either america's education system is seriously slanted to one direction and sucks in the other, or this forum has an odd bias.

When you have a less enjoyable undergraduate experience because your workload is harder, it's impossible not to justify it in some manner. Earning potential, academic achievement, and societal benefit are the obvious avenues of approach.

2012-04-06 01:08:34

#253

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6105|eXtreme to the maX

We're talking about educational systems and what could and should be done with the available money, not peoples personal experiences particularly.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2012-04-06 01:19:07

#254

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

i still furrow my brow a little at this attitude exhibited by students that take a humanities class as a minor elective (or what ever you want to call it) and then claim the entire thing is 'easy'. do you take the same class and are you marked to the same standards as the humanities majors that do it fulltime? over here the entire concept of that is bizarre and dumb, tbh. if you put a physics undergrad in a literary theory class they'd understand nothing. it would be like taking a geographer and placing him in a quantum physics class. it really confuses me how the american system works and still aims to actually have a level of specialisation. it doesn't add up. no wonder so many ivy leaguers drop out of our top unis.

and dilbert, yes, i know. the way it works is all subjects get funding. it's a good system. just there's no money being circulated right now because of government funding allocation cutbacks. the system itself is fine, though.

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

2012-04-06 01:36:51

#255

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6323|New Haven, CT

Uzique wrote:
i still furrow my brow a little at this attitude exhibited by students that take a humanities class as a minor elective (or what ever you want to call it) and then claim the entire thing is 'easy'. do you take the same class and are you marked to the same standards as the humanities majors that do it fulltime? over here the entire concept of that is bizarre and dumb, tbh. if you put a physics undergrad in a literary theory class they'd understand nothing. it would be like taking a geographer and placing him in a quantum physics class. it really confuses me how the american system works and still aims to actually have a level of specialisation. it doesn't add up. no wonder so many ivy leaguers drop out of our top unis.

Yes, you are treated as another student in the class. The professor does not differentiate his grades based on your major, and doesn't necessarily know that you are taking an international relations class as a engineering major, for example. Your major is generally a set of required courses you have to fulfill, not your entire course of study, so it is easy to take classes offered in departments that aren't your major. The same is true for political science majors taking history classes, English majors taking economics classes, and so forth. You need 36 credits to graduate from Yale, and a political science degree requires 11 credits in the department. If I wanted to, I could easy give up my three years of engineering work after this semester, take the minimum three credits per semester during my senior year, write a senior research paper, and get my BA in political science.
There is no specialization achieved out of an American undergraduate education, except for the most rigorous ABET engineering courses.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2012-04-06 01:37:29)

2012-04-06 03:51:20

#256

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6715

its a bit different when you're only taking an introductury course where they know there would be people from different majors and first years students compared to going into more details when you have the background for it. anyone can do ECON101, but i doubt people without an econ background can waltz through advanced econmentrics class... same could be said for any subject really.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-04-06 05:09:02

#257

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
its a bit different when you're only taking an introductury course where they know there would be people from different majors and first years students compared to going into more details when you have the background for it. anyone can do ECON101, but i doubt people without an econ background can waltz through advanced econmentrics class... same could be said for any subject really.

Economics is just the application of formulas (F|P,i%,n) 'tis rough. Toss in some statistical analysis and you've got yourself a degree.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-04-06 05:12:47

#258

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6731|St. Andrews / Oslo

The worst thing about American exchange students over here (Scotland), is that they waltz into History/Philosophy/whatever tutorials introducing themselves saying "Uhh, yeah, I'm actually a physics student, but my college says I need to do x credits in History, so that's why I'm taking this class" and then proceed to sit silent, useless and completely without interest throughout the semester. Which is the problem. University should be about indulging into the subject of your choice/interest, not being forced to do shit you don't care about. That's what high school/general education is for. It ruins the experience for everyone else who actually cares about the subject to have some science geek sit there staring at the clock.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2012-04-06 05:19:28

#259

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

I always enjoyed my English and History courses and was usually the one the teacher called on when he or she wanted the correct answer They were a nice change of pace, and much less of a mindfuck than engineering courses. I actually had two professors tell me that I was wasting my time as an engineer and that I should study the humanities full time instead

Last edited by Jay (2012-04-06 05:19:55)

2012-04-06 05:21:46

#260

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6715

Jenspm wrote:
The worst thing about American exchange students over here (Scotland), is that they waltz into History/Philosophy/whatever tutorials introducing themselves saying "Uhh, yeah, I'm actually a physics student, but my college says I need to do x credits in History, so that's why I'm taking this class" and then proceed to sit silent, useless and completely without interest throughout the semester. Which is the problem. University should be about indulging into the subject of your choice/interest, not being forced to do shit you don't care about. That's what high school/general education is for. It ruins the experience for everyone else who actually cares about the subject to have some science geek sit there staring at the clock.

Aussie uni's require only two courses that need to be taken outside your faculty, better than spending a whole year on generalization courses like in America. Im happy finishing my degree in 3 years instead of 4

2012-04-06 05:25:08

#261

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

More than a year. AFAIK everyone needs two full years of English, one full year of History, one full year worth of electives in Humanities of some sort, and I'm sure the non-geeks have science and math requirements as well (I assume statistics and chem/physics/bio). The first two years in a normal school are supposed to be general and make you well rounded so that you can make an informed decision regarding your major, the last two years are where you specialize.

Last edited by Jay (2012-04-06 05:29:28)

2012-04-06 06:07:13

#262

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

Jay wrote:
I always enjoyed my English and History courses and was usually the one the teacher called on when he or she wanted the correct answer They were a nice change of pace, and much less of a mindfuck than engineering courses. I actually had two professors tell me that I was wasting my time as an engineer and that I should study the humanities full time instead

... at a pog college. oh wow what a compliment. i'm sure english was so much less of a "mindfuck" than your super-duper intellectual-godmode engineering course. think you'd receive the same reception at the oxford english department? jay i'm willing to bet you'd be kicked off my course within a month. that english paper you wrote and pasted on the forum ages ago wouldn't even get you looked at for entry to my course, let alone recommended and sent-up with high honours and a pat on the back. but carry on deluding yourself, master of the universe.

i am convinced that the terrible undergraduate education system in america is directly related to the widespread idiocy you see here. i really can't understand why anyone would want to pay so much money for an undergraduate education in the usa that amounts pretty much to dipping your fingers in the pot of a few subjects and then writing an essay with crayons.

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

2012-04-06 06:11:23

#263

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

You're welcome to go back to your oh so awesome life anytime.

2012-04-06 06:28:21

#264

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

i'm not the one saying i have an oh-so-awesome life, though. never once in this thread have i asserted x subject over y subject. whereas you are constantly, always making remarks about it. you can't discuss anything non-engineering without making some snide remark or qualifying statement that places it in some modified, evaluative position to your own interest and intellectual activity (read: a lower position). "economics is just the application of formulae". "my professor said i should have done humanities, rolleyes!!!!". it's pathetic. are you that insecure that you need to try and write-down every other subject so it isn't as supposedly demanding or difficult? because it's not true. you think economists at the l.s.e. are just applying easy formulas all day long, like that shit you did in first-year? yawn! bores! you think english students at high-ranking depts. all over the world are doing book reports and close reading, like you had the misfortune to do? what simpletons!

it's astoundingly arrogant and funnily wrong. and i'm just saying, maybe in the us at some ranking-nowhere college you passed your english class with a decent mark. but it would be the great mistake of your american education system to then extrapolate that to think you could even gain entry to a decent english department anywhere elsewhere. astronomically wrong and egotistical.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:29:39)

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

2012-04-06 06:40:34

#265

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

No, I never said anything about one being better than another. I said that I personally would never major in English because it doesn't appeal to me. If money wasn't an issue, I probably would've majored in History. I still maintain a dream of retiring early and becoming a high school or college history teacher. It would give me joy.

I don't care what people study. It's their life, and their money for the most part. I don't think Dilbert takes issue with it either. I don't recall seeing him say that math and science are the only path that should be offered, he simply stated that math and science deserve priority for PUBLIC FUNDING, a very different matter. Money spent by the public is supposed to further the publics goals. This necessarily means that your ideal of all subjects being treated equal is untenable. The public doesn't necessarily benefit from paying a student to study Kant, whereas the public does benefit if someone learns to design and build a bridge. He's done nothing but argue that funding should be narrowed to more closely match the publics needs. You took that as a personal assault on everything you define yourself by.

If I'm reading what he has been arguing correctly, he envisions a system like the one of old where people paid their own way to go to school, except with the addition of state funded scholarships for those that are willing to enter public service afterwards in order to make good the investment.

2012-04-06 06:45:19

#266

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

the thing is you set up a diametric opposition between funding for "studying kant" or in dilbert's case "stone-age farming methods", and then ENGINEERING on the other hand. what you don't realize is that loads of this funding money goes into abstract theoretical science and maths as well, which has about about much actual, tangible impact on our lives as does a better understanding of philosophy and culture. i.e. minute, qualitative, generally furthering human knowledge though with no direct practical application. and that's fine. i can tell it's fine because when you guys argue against funding academic stuff, you never complain about the person doing a PhD in the philosophy of science. it's a bias that is inherent in all of your reasoning. personally my argument is based on nothing more complicated than the fact that instituting a 'market demand' or 'societal need' model on education and the furthering of knowledge would be disastrous. knowledge doesn't have a supply-demand curve.

and lol, okay sure, you never talk down about other subjects or talk up your own. are you kidding? go re-read your posts on this page, or on any page where this sort of discussion comes up for that matter. you are constantly trying to cover yourself and qualify yourself in some super- position to everything that you discuss; it's automatically 'beneath you' by the tone and language you use. on this page alone you've implied economics, history and english is all naturally within your grasp, to do at college-level if your whimsical fancy wanted to. lol. it's hilarious.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 06:47:04)

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

2012-04-06 06:50:18

#267

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5357|London, England

I don't disagree with you. There's absolutely no way the government could accurately predict what degrees will be needed down the line, and it would end up being corrupted by business anyway. "We need you to fund the scholarships of future bankers because or we're dooooooooomed!" etc. It's a philosophy that falls in line with his uber-regulated command economy desire.

2012-04-06 06:56:53

#268

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6105|eXtreme to the maX

Depends what you mean by 'public service'.

On the average it makes sense for the govt to subsidise study for people who will be socially useful or contribute to national competitiveness later in life. This is why when education was largely govt funded medical students at university got far more funding than people doing catering at polytechnics.

I'm not envisioning any particular system, just saying the system where costs were held down and places on all courses - and courses which weren't socially useful especially - were limited wasn't a bad system.

(I'm pretty sure the system under Thatcher was largely a hangover from the previous Labour govt, I'll have to check)

The best option at this point would probably be for the govt to drastically limit the amount Universities can charge in fees, pay an amount roughly equivalent to dole for living expenses, and provide low interest loans for fees and other top-up costs. Some meddling would be needed to ensure the nation gets the people it needs - more nurses and pharmacists and fewer golf-course management professionals for example.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2012-04-06 06:58:02

#269

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

and so if we only fund sciences and maths and masculine, useful, build-shit degrees now... what happens in 20 years time? we have a generation of engineers and scientists, fully funded. okay great. we've had no study of the arts or culture or history or philosophy or anything for 20 years. the academy has ground to a halt. academic discourse has dried up. there is no debate anymore and no new research, no new ideas or theses being developed. we have essentially said nothing about our society or our world or our experience for 20 years. then what? the supply-demand model kicks up and starts giving funding to philosophy majors? and we have no scientists for 5 years, because we're reached some arbitrary generational 'quota'? yeah, great system. i can bet you that asia and the developing world's universities would overtake ours in a second if we adopted that sort of approach. and it's inherently anti-intellectual. what sort of societies produce anti-intellectualism? working class societies, societies with a focus on the mass; fascist societies, in short. and they've just been a hotbed of progression and human advancement in the last century, haven't they? yes, let's kill off all academic funding for "pretentious" subjects and focus on engineering. i'm sure our civilization will thank us for it in 100 years time.

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

2012-04-06 06:59:52

#270

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6105|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:
the thing is you set up a diametric opposition between funding for "studying kant" or in dilbert's case "stone-age farming methods", and then ENGINEERING on the other hand. what you don't realize is that loads of this funding money goes into abstract theoretical science and maths as well, which has about about much actual, tangible impact on our lives as does a better understanding of philosophy and culture. i.e. minute, qualitative, generally furthering human knowledge though with no direct practical application. and that's fine. i can tell it's fine because when you guys argue against funding academic stuff, you never complain about the person doing a PhD in the philosophy of science. it's a bias that is inherent in all of your reasoning. personally my argument is based on nothing more complicated than the fact that instituting a 'market demand' or 'societal need' model on education and the furthering of knowledge would be disastrous. knowledge doesn't have a supply-demand curve.

The bottom line for me is all the examples of humanities 'research' you bring up are backwards looking, the equivalent science research forward looking.
No-one ever made progress looking backwards AFAIK so I just don't see the point.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2012-04-06 07:02:05

#271

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|6695|NJ

It's a waste of time and money. Get a trade job cert and into the work force. College = a ton of debt for a 50k to 150k job. Most labor jobs/trade jobs end up making that in a shorter period of time without the headaches of a career.

Macbeth you're going to become a History teacher which means that you're going to be working 60+ hours a week and making 50-80k. You could just become a truck driver and make more money without the debt and when you're done with work you don't have to worry.

2012-04-06 07:07:08

#272

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6105|eXtreme to the maX

and so if we only fund sciences and maths and masculine, useful, build-shit degrees now... what happens in 20 years time? we have a generation of engineers and scientists, fully funded. okay great. we've had no study of the arts or culture or history or philosophy or anything for 20 years. the academy has ground to a halt. academic discourse has dried up. there is no debate anymore and no new research

So what? Society will evolve just fine without people studying it. Darwins finches didn't need Darwins help. Art and culture will continue just the same, so will intellectualism.

the supply-demand model kicks up and starts giving funding to philosophy majors?

There needs to be a demand side for that to happen.

What I think you fail to appreciate is academic communities are often closed communities, especially so for the humanities side. The world will progress just fine despite not being studied or having theses written about it.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2012-04-06 07:09:19

#273

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

i just typed a long response and the connection timed out... ballache. basically dilbert what i said is:

- the past is a resource for humanities, it's no different from science and maths relying on formulas and axioms proven 100 years ago.
- it's a starting point, not an end-in-itself, i.e. most 'historical' studies attempt something new to add to the current stock of knowledge.
- all phD's must be 'original', consider that for a second: an original thesis surely introduces a new idea to the collective pool, i.e. progression.
- PhD's are not the pinnacle of an academic's life and career. they're a start-point. as such they often look to the past. they represent people trying to get a mastery of their field, not wholly concerned with the totally present.
- post-doctoral work, on the other hand, is directly concerned with research/publishing/lecturing on the contemporary. totally now.
- in that sense relying on a list of PhD topics i produced merely to prove that english is 'intellectually difficult' is not the best marker of 'contribution'.

just some points.

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

2012-04-06 07:10:29

#274

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6469

cpt.fass1 wrote:
It's a waste of time and money. Get a trade job cert and into the work force. College = a ton of debt for a 50k to 150k job. Most labor jobs/trade jobs end up making that in a shorter period of time without the headaches of a career.

Macbeth you're going to become a History teacher which means that you're going to be working 60+ hours a week and making 50-80k. You could just become a truck driver and make more money without the debt and when you're done with work you don't have to worry.

yeah because a life of labour and repetitive tasks and staring at a freeway is so much more compelling and fulfilling than teaching the youth.

what a fucking terrible post.

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

2012-04-06 07:13:44

#275

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5701|College Park, MD

Steve Jobs believed in both science and humanities tbh

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 18

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Design a new college system

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Design a new college system

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Board footer