Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2013-01-20 04:20:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
Sure whatever, the fact is companies need fewer graduates full stop, and they're far more selective about who they take.

Generally they'll take people with demonstrable skills as opposed to 'soft' undefinable skills.

You can pout, stamp your feet and insult all you like but the numbers are against you.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hp … pdate1.pdf
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/10- … 49193.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/worst-col … l?page=all

Unemployment rate: 6.7% (average for all graduates with bachelor's degree: 4.9%)
Unemployment rate for recent grads: 9.2% (average for top 100 majors: 7.7%)
Median salary: USD48,000 (median for all grads with bachelor's: USD54,756)
Median salary for recent grads: USD32,000 (median for top 100 majors: USD37,000)
Projected job growth for this field, 2010-2020: 6% (average: 14%)
Likelihood of working retail: 1.4 times average

Author G.K. Chesterton once called literature "a luxury," which might be true for cash-strapped English grads. A hallmark of most liberal arts programs, English hasn't fared well in the down economy. Nearly one in ten recent English grads struggles to find work, and starting salaries are low, a full 14% below the median for the top 100 majors. More problematic: That situation doesn't improve much with experience. Even older English grads stand to make nearly USD9,000 less than the median bachelors degree holder, who pockets USD54,756 a year.
So on average 'arts' graduates are more likely to be unemployed and likely to earn much less, even well into their careers - assuming they make it out of retail.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-20 04:43:36)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2013-01-20 04:33:28
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
oh yeah, that thing in the US where people who do 'english studies' or 'communications' being at the bottom of the pile.

i'm stumped.

oh no, wait, that's the US, where liberal arts over there are literally kept as "a luxury" for rich-kids at elite small schools. huh!?!?!

you're being disingenuous, as you know very well yourself that those same subjects are not treated with anywhere near the same regard in the british/european establishments. the fact is it's you who is "pout[ing]" and "stamp[ing]" your feet, because you know all too well that the way it works over here, most of the people that run the country have english, history, or classics degrees from universities like oxford. and it kills you. it's probably why you left (and probably why now you'll invent some sort of technocratic rant about 'that's why the economy is in such a ruddy state', like a dumb bigoted little  daily mail reader). you can't cite some yahoo news articles (lol) about the US job-market in a recession and then compare it to quite separate cultural values we place on humanities educations' over here. america: where there are more than about 1,000 colleges, and only 10% of them are even worthy of the name/entrance test. not surprised the amorphously sounding 'english studies' isn't faring well. you are displaying some amazing self-evasion if you can't admit to yourself that it is very, very different in the more traditional and hierarchical UK.

so once again, my advice hasn't been countered, at all: go to a top uni, do a hard subject, do well. and 'hard' subjects aren't limited exclusively to ones that require textbooks and scientific calculators. nor a departmental demographic of 95% socially awkward males. dilbert's just dealing with, like, a whole lot of trauma right now.

(oh and heaven forbid any of those humanities graduates pick up 'definable, hard' skills in 3/4 years of university. guess the humanities kids are incapable of learning to program, or take up that second or third language, or take up part-time work with concrete experience in an office. i have 2 friends who are now working full-time, as PHP and mobile app developers respectively, with knowledge they picked up in their spare time (for freelance work), during an english degree. the PHP dev has a master's degree in english, as of my graduating year. highly educated in something intellectually nourishing (there's nothing to say a degree should be 3 years of job training), and now he's working in a 'technical' industry with ease. the way you portray humanities grads as nebulous, airy individuals with no capacity to ever learn a skill, is ridiculous and facile [it derives from the fact you still regard humanities study with a condescending air; you couldn't do it, so you relegate it to being nothing of merit, of course!]. as if science grads are a master-race with a more finely-honed brain for the myriad all-so-demanding 'technical' tasks of the office. please. corporate office environments are not fucking bletchley park).

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 04:41:38)

2013-01-20 04:43:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
As for the UK:
Just under half of UK employers say the class of a graduate's degree is one of the most important factors they take into account when deciding who to recruit for graduate schemes and jobs, according to a survey published this summer.

The CBI/Pearson education and skills survey 2012 found that 46% of employers said one of the most important factors they took into consideration when recruiting was whether a graduate had a first, 2.1, 2.2 or third class degree. The report commented, 'This has risen in significance in recent years, suggesting that employers have tightened their selection criteria as the number of graduates emerging from higher education increases.'

However, other factors were regarded as even more important, including relevant work experience (68%), degree subject (70%), and employability skills (81%), so if you are concerned about your degree class, bear in mind that strengths in other areas are even more highly valued. While some recruiters specify that they are looking for candidates with a 2.1, many others are looking for a minimum 2.2.

The survey was based on research carried out in January and February 2012 with 542 employers, collectively employing 1.6 million people. The researchers found that one in five of all UK jobs required graduate level skills and this proportion was likely to rise in the years ahead.

Which degrees do employers prefer?
Overall, four in five graduate jobs do not require a specific degree discipline. However, when asked if they had any particular preference, 50% of employers said they preferred candidates with STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) backgrounds. The next most popular subject was business, preferred by 17%. Only 28% had no preference.
http://targetjobs.co.uk/news/294796-emp … hen-hiring
So while 4/5 jobs don't require a specific degree, 67% of employers would prefer to put a STEM or Business Studies graduate into the role.

Your personal anecdotes aside, the figures are not with you. Bad luck.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-01-20 04:46:38)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2013-01-20 05:03:49
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
is that seriously the way you, a STEM student, read those statistics? amazing. those two statistics, 50% and 17% for business, are not part of a final, total 100% chunk, leaving 33% of the 'pie' for humanities grads. that's a 'preferred' subject, stated or possibly listed out of a range of possible preferences (if any). 4/5 jobs DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE A PREFERRED SUBJECT.

the 17% of employers that said they 'prefer' business do not EXCLUSIVELY AND ONLY recruit business-background grads. you are acting like the sums are final. it's a preference. 4/5 don't even enforce that preference. so it hardly leaves the definite, conclusive 33% you are making out to humanities grads; that statistic doesn't even exist.

funny too that the superior sciences, wanted more by all graduate employers, are only wanted by 50%. not quite the domination you were hoping for, is it? look at that: humanities and STEM grads, two opposing factions from the world of higher education. STEM only get half of the preference (where even stated). well there goes your little theory about STEM dominating the ever-shrinking grad market! and THAT SUPPORTS EXACTLY my idea that most graduate-level 'corporate' office-type employers don't even have a preference about your specific subject. which is EXACTLY what i said in my first post. so, my reading, which puts individual grade and achievement first, and subject second, reflects EXACTLY the changing graduate workplace. in response to a 'tightening' of standards, which you speak of (the grad job market is expanding, not shrinking, fyi), employers instead place emphasis on the grade attained. whereas you fantasize that graduate employers place a new emphasis on applicants having STEM degrees, bizarrely (which they evidently do not).

hey, wait, this report is looking exactly like my very first post, actually... you know, the one you refuted:

-top uni first and foremost, to get in the shortlisting.
-candidate's personal grade.
-subject.

and then, over-riding all that, as i said, social skills and networking/experience. gee! my first post mirrors this 'report' exactly! the one you try to re-present with a spurious reading of statistics (disingenuous, again, tch tch) in order to 'prove' me wrong. what an odd fellow, in the face of things. OH and here's the icing on the cake. you speak of humanities grads not having enough 'hard skills' for the workplace, because of their crappy subject. well, let's see where the graduate employers identify most weakness:

"10% complained of a lack of numeracy skills". ok, yep, 10%. hardly an egregious sum; like i said, the corporate workplace is clearly not bletchley park, if only 10% are being flagged up as having bad numeracy skills required for their job. i can't say i've ever needed more than my A*-level GCSE maths skills in my current corporate job. funny how there's no topology of a torus coming up in the office number-crunching routines!

"15% were not satisfied with literacy and standards of graduates english". HAHAHAHA. the piece de resistance. so an even bigger problem flagged up by the graduate employers is, quite obviously, the STEM graduates who are piss-poor at written communication and presenting themselves. hilarious. so much for those humanities grads that drag down the workplace with their head-scratching lack of all skills.

great job, dilderp! PM me any other neat little queefs you have: this has already cost me 3 of my half-hour rations . who woulda guessed that the fresh graduate working in the UK graduate jobmarket right now knows more about the lay of the land than a disgruntled, grudge-bearing expat who moved away under his mom's wing a decade ago. who woulda guessed!!!

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 05:20:27)

2013-01-20 11:49:29
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Uzi, the premise you are basing your argument upon is rather wobbly. We can all agree that there are essentially two predominant personality types in the world, yes? We have a spectrum of introverts and extroverts and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that all STEM graduates are socially awkward introverts, and that all non-STEM graduates are rock star extroverts. If this were the case, then you would have a strong case that the two are nearly equally set up for life, but it's not the case, it's just a stereotype.

Western society heavily idealizes the extroverted personality type over the introverted type, and this does give a huge advantage to your stereotypical glad-handing backslapper. They're generally better at self-promotion, office politics, and all of the other 'soft skills' you are basing your argument on. The problem is that superficiality like that will only take you so far. It will certainly get you in the door, and allow you to rise to a certain level, but the major handicap of the personality type is that it tends to be an intellectual follower rather than a leader, even though they are far more likely to be placed in leadership positions because our society looks at loudmouth, aggressive, brash people as leadership types. I say they become intellectual followers because the type is tuned into politics that they are terrified of taking unpopular positions. The idealization of this personality type led to much of the risk taking on Wall Street that led to the last crash. We call them men of action, because they act first and think later, and we glorify them. Should we?

The flip-side is the quiet, cautious, sometimes shy, sometimes not, introverted type that would rather deal with ideas than with people. Some of them can fake being an extrovert rather convincingly, at least in small doses, but most of them would rather be left alone than do the self promotion and political games that seem to be necessary to get ahead in many industries. It is far more important for this type to possess hard skills that are quantifiable so that they can overcome their perceived lack of leadership qualities due to not preening like a peacock.

Basically, what I'm saying is that all those quiet kids who were in your classes with you, that you probably didn't notice because you were too busy strutting, are fucked. They're the ones that end up serving latte's at Starbucks because they lack the personality type that interviews well and can self promote their strengths while glossing over their weaknesses. Sometimes the personality type succeeds in 'soft skill industries', like J.K. Rowling, but most of the time they do not. They are the ones with the well below average earnings that Dilbert listed.

I'm sure you personally will do fine in life because you have the empty personality that companies seem to like. I'm sure you'd make a fantastic politician or salesman, but your peers without hyper-extroverted personalities would've been much better off if they had gone into a field that rewarded hard skills like math, science and the like. God help you if you ever come up against an extroverted STEM graduate in the business world though, you'll lose your shirt.
"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
2013-01-20 11:56:26
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

i hate being an introvert.
2013-01-20 12:05:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

13urnzz wrote:

i hate being an introvert.
Because you've been told your entire life that it makes you inferior

Just look at what all the helicopter parents push: make a bunch of friends, perform in a bunch of group extracurricular activities etc. Then they also want these hyper-social kids to get straight A's. Doesn't work like that.

Introverts and extroverts have their own skill sets, and can succeed equally well as long as they tap into their strengths and work to overcome their weaknesses. It does bother me that vapid, empty-headed, fashion chasers seem to get so far in the world, but again, we've idealized the personality type to the point that you absolutely have to be hyper-extroverted to graduate from most MBA programs, and that leeches into the rest of society. I blame Dale Carnegie.
"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
2013-01-20 12:10:15
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

√
2013-01-20 12:17:44
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
this sounds like an awful lot of self-denial and prevaricating... so many pejoratives epithetically tacked-on to these 'extrovert' tags... not just an extrovert, but an "empty-headed" extrovert. someone can't possibly be a successful extrovert, it has to be down to them having an "empty personality". pretty funny. meanwhile you get to valorize yourself as the quiet, reticent, super-intelligent hardworker. are you mythologizing your own kingdom and redemption after this world, too? you make yourself sound like a christian in the time of the early roman empire or some shit. you're just a person doing averagely so-so in life, quietly earning your way into the mainstream middle-class, diligently putting a bit to the side for your 401k. you don't need to constantly bitch and moan about people who are different to you being 'empty' or 'fake' or 'fashion chasers', or any of this other sly denigrating bullshit that serves to take away from their successes. it's such an immature playground impulse: "oh, he's doing better than me, but that's on account of so-and-so unfair advantage, and so-and-so shitty personality trait; at the end of the day i know i'm the better person". jesus, that's so lazy and immature. but of course it's a soothing balm to your own life's shortcomings, isn't it?

in all these talks i stress the equal importance of science and humanities (and they come up a fucking LOT). i'm always saying that there's plenty of room at the table, and silly enmities do not even need to exist. the graduate workplace is far more complicated than 'degree determinisms', and, besides, when you really get into the high-level stuff, the numerical and the literary types aren't even in the same room. i always find it's the scientists who euphemise 'soft skills' whilst smugly putting forward their own employment/salary figures - being quite willfully ignorant of the wider societal and economic factors that financially favour their given industry at any one historical moment moment (hint: it's not because you're inherently more valuable and special human beings); this shit literally begins on the university campuses, with snide jokes in laboratories, frustrated science professors venting steam over 'misallocated' research funds, etc. it's a silly and socially retarded tribalism that gives people of the scientific community a strange sense of community, in an otherwise dog-eat-dog and competitive work environment (and, to boot, with just as much room for narcissism and glory-hunting as the worst and most irresponsible types of business; don't tell me certain ethically-grey areas of biological experimentation are any less to-fault than an extrovert money-maker). hit them with some facts like "engineering, computer science, and technology degrees have the highest unemployment rates of any degree in the UK", or "most business and public leaders have humanities degrees", and they'll start bluffing hot air again about 'empty personalities' and 'hollow fakery with no substance'. yawn. what is it with your persecution-syndrome? or your messiah complex? it makes it all too easy for me to riposte right back at you with the same tired and worn-out stereotypes about scientists being socially stunted. all i see are a bunch of adult man-babies prevaricating and making excuses for themselves. forming your identity through the outward contempt and hatred of someone who is intellectually 'different' from you is a very clan-like school playground tactic, don't you think? "they smell funny" is basically what you are saying; "they are fake", in inane high-school cheerleader terms. you're just couching it a 'new clothes' schema you picked up off reddit/ted talks on youtube: 'the introvert and the extrovert'. marginally more technical-sounding, and certainly grounded in psycho-/socio-logical fact... but, of course, like all things, twisted to your silly little emotional insecurities. it's a thin and flimsy veneer of pseudo-intellectual pretense covering up the same yawning chasm of insecurity that you've always had.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 12:25:53)

2013-01-20 12:41:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:

this sounds like an awful lot of self-denial and prevaricating... so many pejoratives epithetically tacked-on to these 'extrovert' tags... not just an extrovert, but an "empty-headed" extrovert. someone can't possibly be a successful extrovert, it has to be down to them having an "empty personality". pretty funny. meanwhile you get to valorize yourself as the quiet, reticent, super-intelligent hardworker. are you mythologizing your own kingdom and redemption after this world, too? you make yourself sound like a christian in the time of the early roman empire or some shit. you're just a person doing averagely so-so in life, quietly earning your way into the mainstream middle-class, diligently putting a bit to the side for your 401k. you don't need to constantly bitch and moan about people who are different to you being 'empty' or 'fake' or 'fashion chasers', or any of this other sly denigrating bullshit that serves to take away from their successes. it's such an immature playground impulse: "oh, he's doing better than me, but that's on account of so-and-so unfair advantage, and so-and-so shitty personality trait; at the end of the day i know i'm the better person". jesus, that's so lazy and immature. but of course it's a soothing balm to your own life's shortcomings, isn't it?
What shortcomings? Everything I typed out was directed at you personally. Everything about you is designed to fit an image, from the way you dress, to the music you like, to the drug stories you like to entertain others with. As for my own success, I'm doing quite well thank you. I sit for my PE exam, and graduate with an MBA next year. Once I do so I'm going to jump to the power distribution side of my industry, and then into power plant design and commissioning.

Yes, I am introverted, but I'm not shy, and I don't lack confidence. I understand my strengths and weaknesses. I know I can be absolutely charming to people during the span of a party, but that I have a hard time taking relationships beyond the acquaintance stage because most people bore me. Dealing with people for long periods of time tires me out, dealing with crowds can send me into a rage. That's me. I know me. I know that I suck at remembering peoples names and faces, but that I can remember everything about a conversation I had with that person from years ago once the introductions are re-made. I don't have the patience or acumen for politics, and I'm a much better writer than I am a public speaker. Like I said, everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, it's all about identifying them and putting in the effort to overcome them if you care.

You think I dislike you because I feel threatened by you, but it's not that, it's the fact that I really dislike hyper-aggressive loudmouths. They talk too much, don't listen to a word other people have to say, and it's tiring trying to compete with them for attention in a group conversation.

in all these talks i stress the equal importance of science and humanities (and they come up a fucking LOT). i'm always saying that there's plenty of room at the table, and silly enmities do not even need to exist. the graduate workplace is far more complicated than 'degree determinisms', and, besides, when you really get into the high-level stuff, the numerical and the literary types aren't even in the same room. i always find its scientists who euphemise 'soft skills' whilst smugly putting forward their own employment/salary figures - being quite willfully ignorant of the wider societal and economic factors that financially favour their given industry at any one history moment. hit them with some facts like "engineering, computer science, and technology degrees have the highest unemployment rates of any degree in the UK", or "most business and public leaders have humanities degrees", and they'll start bluffing hot air again about 'empty personalities' and 'hollow fakery with no substance'. yawn. what is it with your persecution-syndrome? or your messiah complex? it makes it all too easy for me to riposte right back at you with the same tired and worn-out stereotypes about scientists being socially stunted. all i see are a bunch of adult man-babies prevaricating and making excuses for themselves. forming your identity through the outward contempt and hatred of someone who is intellectually 'different' from you is a very clan-like school playground tactic, don't you think? "they smell funny" is basically what you are saying; "they are fake", in inane high-school cheerleader terms. you're just couching it a 'new clothes' schema you picked up off reddit/ted talks on youtube: 'the introvert and the extrovert'. marginally more technical-sounding, and certainly grounded in psycho-/socio-logical fact... but, of course, like all things, twisted to your silly little emotional insecurities. it's a thin and flimsy veneer of pseudo-intellectual pretense covering up the same yawning chasm of insecurity that you've always had.
I don't care what people studied in college, honestly. I value people mostly by what they are able to teach me, or barring that, what they have to offer as a friend. Looking at my close circle of friends there's three former Eng-Lit majors, one poli-sci major, one religious studies major, one finance major, one psychology major, one biology major, one IT guy, and a bunch of engineers I met later in life at school that I keep in touch with but rarely hang out with. The thing they all have in common is that they are genuinely good people. I don't have to worry about them running off and finding a cooler group that enhances their self image, and because of that, I also don't see any of them ever rising above middle-management, and that's more than fine. The fact is that if they were more aggressive, and more extroverted, they would 'get further in life', but they would also not be people I would want anything to do with. The trade-off is that we don't sit around telling each other how awesome we are, and I think that's wonderful. Anyway, I'm not the topic, and we're off track. I haven't posted in a few weeks because there just hasn't been any topic worth addressing here, and you're quickly turning this into another thread I don't care enough to post in
"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
2013-01-20 12:46:41
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6737|Toronto | Canada

we've talked about this before, but if the difference between humanities degrees between the UK and NA is as stark as you say we're basically comparing apples to oranges here.  from my experience (being a physics/math major with friends in bio/chem but mostly humanities) our science programs are much, much more rigorous than any english/poli sci/etc degree.  and this is at one of the most highly regarded schools in the world, not any generic american fluff college.  i have a history and philosophy minor and in any of the classes i take under that i get significantly higher marks with at most 20% of the work of my other classes. on the other side, whenever any of my humanities friends take a science course (for breadth credit) they struggle on the tiniest things and their professors have to almost literally hold their hand and console them whenever they say the slightest bit of basic math needs to be used. 

im not trying to imply that anyone in sciences is smarter than someone in the humanities, its just that the culture of education here places the sciences far above humanities degrees.  people openly say they're taking a humanities degree just to breeze through university with the least difficulty possible all the time.  however, the majority of my friends are in non-science degrees as, in general, theyre more interesting people.  i get bored really easily with most of the painfully socially awkward people in physics (with the rare occasion of a good friend or two). especially the amount (~60% or more) of international students that almost refuse to speak to people outside their friend circle - even if they're your lab partner.
2013-01-20 12:53:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

we've talked about this before, but if the difference between humanities degrees between the UK and NA is as stark as you say we're basically comparing apples to oranges here.  from my experience (being a physics/math major with friends in bio/chem but mostly humanities) our science programs are much, much more rigorous than any english/poli sci/etc degree.  and this is at one of the most highly regarded schools in the world, not any generic american fluff college.  i have a history and philosophy minor and in any of the classes i take under that i get significantly higher marks with at most 20% of the work of my other classes. on the other side, whenever any of my humanities friends take a science course (for breadth credit) they struggle on the tiniest things and their professors have to almost literally hold their hand and console them whenever they say the slightest bit of basic math needs to be used. 

im not trying to imply that anyone in sciences is smarter than someone in the humanities, its just that the culture of education here places the sciences far above humanities degrees.  people openly say they're taking a humanities degree just to breeze through university with the least difficulty possible all the time.  however, the majority of my friends are in non-science degrees as, in general, theyre more interesting people.  i get bored really easily with most of the painfully socially awkward people in physics (with the rare occasion of a good friend or two). especially the amount (~60% or more) of international students that almost refuse to speak to people outside their friend circle - even if they're your lab partner.
It was always kind of awkward being one of maybe two people that would actually respond to the professor when he asked a question in class. I'm sure it's the same for you in that 99% of the people in a given class diligently copy down the profs notes, or fuck around on their phone/ipad/laptop without saying a damn word. I call myself an introvert, but compared to most of the people in my engineering courses, I was a hyper-extrovert
"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
2013-01-20 13:00:18
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6737|Toronto | Canada

i find the earlier year classes are usually too big to have questions (~150-200 people) and then the upper year professors are "too important"/waste of their time to ask questions in class. they just lecture. i have a couple professors that work on the ATLAS project at CERN and they're usually the worst at it, just spend the entire 50 minutes straight lecturing from powerpoint slides.  but i suppose that's why you get an hour of tutorial as well per week.  its pretty rare for a prof to ask a question in lecture
2013-01-20 13:04:28
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Ahh, my class sizes were ~30 people on average.
"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
2013-01-20 13:06:02
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6737|Toronto | Canada

thats what my labs, 3rd and 4th year classes are like.
2013-01-20 13:09:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

thats what my labs, 3rd and 4th year classes are like.
Do you actually see a benefit to having such well regarded professors if they don't give you the time of day as an undergrad? I could always pop into my profs' office if I had a question. I didn't attend a research university so I'm curious about the dynamic.
"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
2013-01-20 13:10:29
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
why would the professors working on ATLAS be any different? my alma mater had several, too, and my friends in physics never treated them as anything special or extra-ordinary. it's just another research project, is it not? it doesn't convey any special prestige. maybe they're just individually bad teachers? same for having senior/prestigious professors that never touch the undergraduates - you get this in all massive research-intensive universities, and it's the reason why smaller liberal arts or specialist-technical schools will be much better for the undergraduate-taught experience. undergrads rely on the research prestige of their institutions all the time, despite having absolutely nothing to do with research, at all, and despite hardly ever having face-contact with 'the talent'. and then they complain about it. one of the small ironies of the higher-education system in the west, methinks: massive focus on research in determining academic ranking, but only a tiny proportion ever go on to perform or experience research themselves. they enjoy both basking in the warm glow of research success, but then also suffer when their fresher and sophomore classes are taught by over-worked PhD donkeys (i am led to believe from a wide range of reading that this happens far more in the US system than in the UK/europe; american PhD's are stretched out to 6-7 years instead of our 3-4, precisely for this reason).

and yes, i agree, in america the emphasis in education, post-ww2, was all on creating a nation of engineers and technicians - the big push to reach superpower eminence in technology and innovation; a nation of makers and inventors. i guess that carries over into canada, as well, though i can't speak specifically for that. but i still don't agree with the generalisation that all humanities grads are taking it as a doss subject. i'd respect someone at a top liberal arts / private ivy / prestigious state as much as i'd respect any science grad. i don't think chicago or colombia or cornell lack rigour or standards. if all your friends at toronto in the humanities are genuine dossers, then that says something about your universities undergraduate humanities experience, i guess - it's not a 'rule'. some universities are stronger in sciences; others have immense research esteem but provide lacklustre teaching experiences (bristol is an example from the UK that gets pounded in teaching evaluations, whilst being world-class in research).

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-20 13:13:09)

2013-01-20 13:17:03
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6737|Toronto | Canada

well you really only get them as upper year professors and by that point they do care about their students. they have a dedicated office hour to the course every week and are fairly flexible about meeting you outside of that.

ie my past 2 quantum professors
Aephraim Steinberg - great lecturer that really took his time to answer questions thoroughly, very engaging.  apparently had the 'top' physics research of 2011
Ken Burch - probably my favourite professor ever.  really, really interested in the topics and explained concepts incredibly well.  my good friend works in his lab and im going to try to work with him this summer.
2013-01-20 13:24:20
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6737|Toronto | Canada

aynrandroolz wrote:

why would the professors working on ATLAS be any different? my alma mater had several, too, and my friends in physics never treated them as anything special or extra-ordinary. it's just another research project, is it not? it doesn't convey any special prestige. maybe they're just individually bad teachers? same for having senior/prestigious professors that never touch the undergraduates - you get this in all massive research-intensive universities, and it's the reason why smaller liberal arts or specialist-technical schools will be much better for the undergraduate-taught experience. undergrads rely on the research prestige of their institutions all the time, despite having absolutely nothing to do with research, at all, and despite hardly ever having face-contact with 'the talent'. and then they complain about it. one of the small ironies of the higher-education system in the west, methinks: massive focus on research in determining academic ranking, but only a tiny proportion ever go on to perform or experience research themselves. they enjoy both basking in the warm glow of research success, but then also suffer when their fresher and sophomore classes are taught by over-worked PhD donkeys (i am led to believe from a wide range of reading that this happens far more in the US system than in the UK/europe; american PhD's are stretched out to 6-7 years instead of our 3-4, precisely for this reason).
i wouldnt really call someone working on ATLAS and LHC and such at CERN to be "just another research project". its really the biggest and most complex experiment ever built, involving basically all of the top minds around the world.  id say its an incredibly elite group of the top ~1000 physics/math/cs/engineering minds in the world.

you get bad teachers everywhere. i have bad science teachers and bad humanities teachers. i also have good ones of each, it happens.  i do agree that some small schools can be better for undergraduate degrees in some instances, but its absolutely not the case that the top professors dont touch the undergrads.  i think at this point ive had almost the entire upper echelon of the physics department teach me.  the head of the department was my first year professor.  i make plenty of face contact with them and have quite a few friends that do research for them directly - im planning on doing it myself soon but i work at a lab elsewhere currently.  ive also never had a PhD student be a professor, they're usually our TAs
2013-01-20 13:55:16
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

https://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=77997,filename=Not_This_Shit_Again.gif
2013-01-20 14:52:22
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6322|Graz, Austria

Jaekus wrote:

skills-not-applicable-to-the-civilised-world
Serving democracy groceries to enemies customers one bullet potato at a time.
2013-01-20 15:22:12
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

lol, hotlink exceptions;

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/21025/ss/hotlink.JPG
2013-01-20 16:37:53
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

You need to clear your cache. I have a new avatar now. It is a haunter.
2013-01-20 16:40:37
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

you need to stop hotlinking. unless it's to google, yahoo, or twitter.
2013-01-20 17:11:14
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4327
"get free healthcare for life, free college, super low interest loans, pensions"

hmmm...

lets see after 4 years of service you get free healthcare for life, college, and a pension?  that is news to me lol.  i must have signed the wrong document or something.
What are you looking at dicknose

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard