-[I]- Gender Gap in University Applicatons - Rant
April Goodwin-Smith
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
about how there are more women applying to university
these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
Canadian universities, and about American universities,
and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
Argh.
There are at least two factors left out of the equation:
trades and the colonization of women's blue collar
work by the universities.
In Canada, it takes four years of apprenticeship for
a person to get their Red Seal in their trade - full
journeyman, licenced to drill. How convenient that
our inherited class system prevents us from counting
these people in the "going on to further education"
statistics.
Registered Nursing used to be a two year program - a very
intense two years, but nowhere near a university. Now it
requires a four year degree.
Teaching used to be a single year of "Normal School"
after highschool (12 years of schooling). Now it requires
a four year degree AND a two year PDP program (both
of which take place in universities).
Secretaries required some shorthand and typing, which they
could get from highschool. Now I've seen Executive Assistant
positions that not only want a four year degree, but also a
Masters (another 2 years at the University) - & 60 words
a minute typing - with extreme accuracy, thankyewverymuch.
Just as an aside - do I think that employment fields should
be demarcated along gender lines? No, but they are. BC
(& Canada too, I think) has an initiative to encourage women
to enter the trades - extra money for tuition - but you don't see
more women in the trades. It is hard enough for a young guy
with connections to secure an apprenticeship - and a lot of
young men "going into the trades" are actually just working
hopefully for some journeyman on the promise that he one
day might let them apprentice under him.
Anyways.
Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
Argh.
April.
Free Lunch
"April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca> wrote in
<2%JBh.1033185$R63.732977@pd7urf1no>:
Those comments would apply to the country to your immediate south, as
well, except that I don't think that trade apprenticeships are as common
as they used to be and many of these are now administered by community
colleges (2 year colleges that offer Associate degrees). Also, women are
more common in many of the degree programs they were discouraged from
being in before, but it does appear that they are not going into the
trades with much regularity at all here, either.
--
The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a
humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because
philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor
good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
-- John W. Gardner
Sofia
> There are at least two factors left out of the equation:
> trades and the colonization of women's blue collar
> work by the universities.
I have two sisters, but neither of them are particularly interested in
secretarial work or nursing. My younger sister fell in love with Oscar
Wilde, and Shakespeare after getting her A' level English Literature at
school, but after bringing up her family, she went to University and has
recently just taken her exams of a long, hard 2 year degree English Lit'
course.
My older sister is more a Rincewind type character - a Geology/Ecology
freak actually, and also recently taken her exams after a long, incredibly
practical 2 year course. She says it was such great fun, she's thinking
about staying on even longer!
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Lesley Weston
agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 17/02/2007 12:57 PM:
> I keep seeing similar stories in the media:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
> about how there are more women applying to university
> these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
> Canadian universities, and about American universities,
> and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
>
> And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
> our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
>
> Argh.
>
> There are at least two factors left out of the equation:
> trades and the colonization of women's blue collar
> work by the universities.
>
> In Canada, it takes four years of apprenticeship for
> a person to get their Red Seal in their trade - full
> journeyman, licenced to drill. How convenient that
> our inherited class system prevents us from counting
> these people in the "going on to further education"
> statistics.
There's another thing too. We've been so successful at denigrating the type
of further education that leads to journeyman status that no-one of either
sex wants to pursue this path any more; they all want to get degrees. So we
have a huge number of people with degrees in unreal subjects doing jobs that
don't need a degree of any sort (or trying to find work that they consider
suitable for their highly-educated selves), and nowhere near enough
tradespeople building, fixing and maintaining the world.
<snip>
> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
Not while a degree brings in so much more money. Not as much as a trade, of
course, but we don't seem to be mentioning that any more.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
8'FED
> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
The Flinders University website used to proudly boast, IIRC, that 64%
of students are female. IME, such things tend to be approved of both
by women who see it as an advancement for feminism /and/ by men who
are naturally happy to have a plentiful supply of women around. :-)
Some departments, including IT, are still very male-dominant. I am
*very* much in favour of this to change. Never mind high ideology [1];
I just feel socially uncomfortable in an environment that lacks a
balance of men and women.
Any men of the type who are concerned about "testicular health" are to
be ridiculed and ignored as usual.
Adrian.
[1] Not necessarily to cast aspersions upon high ideology, but I
rarely think about it much.
Graycat
>I keep seeing similar stories in the media:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
>about how there are more women applying to university
>these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
>Canadian universities, and about American universities,
>and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
>
>And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
>our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
>
>Argh.
>
>There are at least two factors left out of the equation:
>trades and the colonization of women's blue collar
>work by the universities.
We have the discussion here too, but it seems mostly focused on the
fact that boys don't do as well in school as girls, and therefore
don't get into popular university programs to as large an extent.
Medical school and Law school are two examples that are becoming
female dominated (at the student level), where it used to be the other
way around. Things like Maths, IT and Engineering aren't showing the
trend as much, because women are apparently less interested in those.
Women also in general do better in university, get better grades and
so on.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Winterbay
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>
>> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
>> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
>> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
>> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
>> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
>
> The Flinders University website used to proudly boast, IIRC, that 64%
> of students are female. IME, such things tend to be approved of both
> by women who see it as an advancement for feminism /and/ by men who
> are naturally happy to have a plentiful supply of women around. :-)
>
> Some departments, including IT, are still very male-dominant. I am
> *very* much in favour of this to change. Never mind high ideology [1];
> I just feel socially uncomfortable in an environment that lacks a
> balance of men and women.
At the universities I have been to the computer science-programs have
been totally male dominated but the programs that have named them selfs
IT-science or something similar has had a majority of women.
And in chemistry there has always been a majority of women for some
reason (not that I complain though :))
/Winterbay
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
<snip>
>> In Canada, it takes four years of apprenticeship for
>> a person to get their Red Seal in their trade - full
>> journeyman, licenced to drill. How convenient that
>> our inherited class system prevents us from counting
>> these people in the "going on to further education"
>> statistics.
> There's another thing too. We've been so successful at
> denigrating the type of further education that leads to
> journeyman status that no-one of either sex wants to pursue
> this path any more; they all want to get degrees. So we have
> a huge number of people with degrees in unreal subjects
> doing jobs that don't need a degree of any sort (or trying to
> find work that they consider suitable for their highly-educated
> selves), and nowhere near enough tradespeople building, fixing
> and maintaining the world.
>
There are two big problems with trades: (1) the difficulty an
apprentice-wannabee has in getting someone to apprentice them,
and (2) the irregularity of the work with regards to hours and
location. Number two is the reason for the Red Seal idea - that
a journeyman be able to go to the work when it dries up where
they are currently located. That's a helluva way to live. Just one
example of problems with "labour mobility" - if you have an aging
parent, and need to find them a place in a government-run assisted
living arrangement (as most people do), you cannot move the parent
into a new provincial location. Another problem is moving the kids
from one provincial education authority to another - *what* a
nightmare. And changing medical systems. And you can forget
extended medical & dental benefits, because, ho ho, you are an
indendant contractor, and blah de blah de blah.
I confess: if my kid didn't show a strong preference for something
in the trades field, I would be encouraging a university education.
I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
April.
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
>> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
>> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
>> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
>> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
> The Flinders University website used to proudly boast, IIRC, that 64%
> of students are female. IME, such things tend to be approved of both
> by women who see it as an advancement for feminism /and/ by men who
> are naturally happy to have a plentiful supply of women around. :-)
>
One of the reports I read about American universities, where they
have a very rigourous entry process involving resumes and essays
and who knows what else, said that some universities there actively
chose students so that there would be an even 50/50 split of male/
female on campus. They said they did this because otherwise they
would become an undesireable university, and that "not even the
women would want to apply to them".
Argh.
April.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca>
> There are two big problems with trades: (1) the difficulty
> an apprentice-wannabee has in getting someone to apprentice
> them,
Someone I know who works in the field of finding people
employment told me that when joiners, plumbers etc. specify
"Must be time-served" in their advertisments the reaction the
agency gives is "So you're looking for someone over forty,
then?" None of the companies who insist on properly
apprenticed craftspeople have any interest in actually
apprenticing any themselves, of course.
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The only thing worse than being talked about
is having nothing to declare except my handbag."
-Oscar Wilde, according to Humphrey Lyttleton
Sabremeister Brian
April Goodwin-Smith (agoodw...@shaw.ca) spake thusly:
<snip>
> Anyways.
>
> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
Hmm...
Consider students ...
Have they never heard the term "target rich environment"?
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Yan, tan, tethra, huthuthut!"
Arthur Hagen
> In a speech called 2%JBh.1033185$R63.732977@pd7urf1no,
> April Goodwin-Smith (agoodw...@shaw.ca) spake thusly:
> <snip>
> > Anyways.
> >
> > Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> > this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> > tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> > pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> > the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
>
>
> Hmm...
> Consider students ...
I'd rather not.
Regards,
--
*Art
April Goodwin-Smith
> The speaker: "April Goodwin-Smith":
>> There are two big problems with trades: (1) the
>> difficulty an apprentice-wannabee has in getting
>> someone to apprentice them,
> apprenticed craftspeople have any interest in actually
> apprenticing any themselves, of course.
>
Bingo.
(I know that you knew what I meant and were just
corroborating my point, but it annoys me enough that
I needed to shout intemperately again.)
April.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Can I just say that I am quite happy to have an increase in young women in
my classes. Not because I'm an old lech... OK, not *just* because of that.
;o)
I find the girls are a delight to teach (this is 2nd, 3rd year University);
they're interested, keen, and will ask questions if they're confused. In
contrast, a significant number of the lads just muck around and get grumpy
when something is difficult, or when unasked-for help is offered.
It may be a lazy view (I am male after all) but a class full of girls makes
my job an awful lot easier.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"Aah! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
naomi
"8'FED" <dra...@netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:er8k3s$i4a$2...@mud.stack.nl...
My husbands workplace has just had three new computer techs start. Two of
them are female. He commented on the fact to me, because he hadn't met any
famale technicians before and it blows my excuse of needing him to fix my
computer because I am a girl. I think he is happy to be able to share the
workload around because they've been really snowed under.
n
SteveD
>My husbands workplace has just had three new computer techs start. Two of
>them are female. He commented on the fact to me, because he hadn't met any
>famale technicians before and it blows my excuse of needing him to fix my
>computer because I am a girl. I think he is happy to be able to share the
>workload around because they've been really snowed under.
Having worked in technical workplaces with varying levels of gender
disparity, I have to say I prefer those more equally balanced. It doesn't
hurt to have a certain number of staff older than their 20s, either - in
fact, it provides a bit of stability and a barrier against excessive
management interference.
The current workplace team, unfortunately, is 100% male and mostly young.
As a result, it's a bit... laddish.
I hate to resort to cliche, but it could use a woman's touch. Possibly
with a baseball bat.
-SteveD
Arthur Hagen
> Can I just say that I am quite happy to have an increase in young women in
> my classes.
Oh? Just /where/ do the young woman have their increase?
> Not because I'm an old lech... OK, not *just* because of that.
> ;o)
Oh, I see!
Regards,
--
*Art
James Mitchelhill
Good god, but it's difficult to talk about this without making huge
generalisations. Suffice to say that the following is personal experience
and quite possibly not representative of anything but my own flawed
perceptions at a specific time and place.
The most annoying thing about people asking questions in university classes
is that most of the time they're not doing so to enhance their own
knowledge of the subject (if they were, then they'd actually read the book
the lecturer's just ripped off), but to project the appearance of
intelligence.
The female members of the classes I attended at university seemed much more
likely to do this than the men, many of whom were genuinely clueless. Then
again, the woman who randomly asked if going to war with Iraq meant there'd
be rationing here in the middle of a discussion about Hegel's political
philosophy managed to make cluelessness into something of an artform. When
she was caught plagiarising once, her excuse was that, no, honestly, she
couldn't have plagiarised because, right, it was her sister who wrote the
essay. But I digress...
As part of our degree, the one trip we got to go on was a weekend in
Brussels. The fine art people got to go to Prague in the first year for a
week and then to various other beautiful places in subsequent years, but
the collection of outcasts doing politics and international relations only
ever got one bloody weekend in Brussels. We went to NATO (both the military
HQ SHAPE and the political HQ). Both were reasonably interesting, but on
the final day, when I'd have been much happier wandering around the city,
we went to the World Customs Organisation.
The WCO's function is to advise and assist customs organisations worldwide
and agree on a standard method of classifying commodities for tariff
purposes. This is about as interesting as it sounds. It's necessary, but
mind-numbingly boring. They happen to have a very nice building in central
Brussels, filled with hugely expensive artworks. Their café makes nice
coffee. It's bureaucracy raised to the highest level. After fifteen minutes
of the talk they gave us, I would quite happily have cut my throat with a
dirty knife just to escape. You've never really understood the meaning of
'boredom' until you've heard a highly-paid bureaucrat describe the
intricacies of how television sets ended up classified as electrical
goods/audiovisual goods/domestic broadcast signal receivers and displayers
(I'm making that up, some protective mechanism in my brain has excised the
actual content of the talk from my brain).
Anyway, after an hour spent listening to this, wondering if I could use the
pencil they'd given me to make notes on their WCO notepaper to pierce my
brain via a nostril, the talk came to an end and I was ready to leave.
There were a couple of hours free before we had to get the train, and I
quite liked the thought of spending them in a Belgian pub, drinking various
types of Leffe that I hadn't got round to trying. And then the people
around me, who you must remember were politics students, started asking
questions.
Now the WCO, such as it is, is of no relevence to the vast majority of
politics and international relations. It's a footnote in the annals of
international cooperation. But people started asking questions. This wasn't
because they were interested in the organisation or what it did - how could
they be? It was so they could appear to be clever (ah, I've got back to my
original point). There was no way they'd ever use the answers for anything.
I seriously considered walking out at this point, but my brain had shut
down most functions in order to avoid violently attacking people with the
pencil, so my motor cortex was rather impaired. And it was mostly the women
who were asking these questions.
In my experience, and I accept it may not be at all representative,
university classes are something to do while reading the books that
actually teach you something. A handful of lecturers actually inform and
educate during the lectures and have entertaining stories to tell during
the seminars, but the real learning goes on in the library. In order to
continue the pretense that such meetings are important, people feel the
need to ask questions about the material presented (and generally cribbed
from a book the lecturer read a decade or two ago and has mysteriously left
off the reading list). And while doing this, they seek to score meaningless
points from the lecturer and classmates.
I'm not going to engage in any serious discussion of whether women at
university seem more likely to do so because they're more skilled in the
social form, while university-aged men, particularly those doing subjects
like politics, are not renowned for any kind of social skills, although it
may be worth noting that men seem more likely to ask questions in order to
take the piss out of the lecturer.
--
James Mitchelhill
ja...@disorderfeed.net
http://disorderfeed.net
Fi...@club.lemonde.fr
> I keep seeing similar stories in the media:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
> about how there are more women applying to university
> these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
> Canadian universities, and about American universities,
> and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
> And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
> our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
[...]
Well, yes, you have to understand that if males are more numberous
than females in university it is due to their superior intellect,
whereas if perchance women become more numerous that men in university
it is obviously due to the neutering[1] of poor young alpha males by
rabid females. Once you understand that the natural place of a woman
is either in the kitchen or on the sofa you know all their is to know
about education...
> Anyways.
> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
ohhhh, _nice_
<cuts the sentence in order to reuse it once translated to french>
ah, errr, if you don't mind, that is?
> Argh.
Indeed.
FiX
[1] first written as "nuttering", quite accurately ;-)
Graycat
>In my experience, and I accept it may not be at all representative,
>university classes are something to do while reading the books that
>actually teach you something. A handful of lecturers actually inform and
>educate during the lectures and have entertaining stories to tell during
>the seminars, but the real learning goes on in the library. In order to
>continue the pretense that such meetings are important, people feel the
>need to ask questions about the material presented (and generally cribbed
>from a book the lecturer read a decade or two ago and has mysteriously left
>off the reading list). And while doing this, they seek to score meaningless
>points from the lecturer and classmates.
Interesting. I see lectures as a convenient way of not having to read
the booring books.
James Mitchelhill
I doubt the lecturers would agree with you. ;)
Lectures can be useful for giving a general overview of what opinions are
out there. Seminars are, in my experience, worse than useless.
James Mitchelhill
> On 17 fév, 21:57, "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodwinsm...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> I keep seeing similar stories in the media:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
>> about how there are more women applying to university
>> these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
>> Canadian universities, and about American universities,
>> and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
>
>> And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
>> our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
> [...]
>
> Well, yes, you have to understand that if males are more numberous
> than females in university it is due to their superior intellect,
> whereas if perchance women become more numerous that men in university
> it is obviously due to the neutering[1] of poor young alpha males by
> rabid females. Once you understand that the natural place of a woman
> is either in the kitchen or on the sofa you know all their is to know
> about education...
University applications have nothing at all to do with intellect or
intelligence. They may have done once. It's not about being clever, it's
about being able to put words on paper in a way that conforms to certain
expectations. I got through university without ever having to engage my
brain simply through knowing a couple of tricks about writing essays and
doing exams. (I occasionally chose to use my brain when dealing with things
that interested me, but this wasn't at all necessary.)
The reason more women are applying to university has nothing to do with the
intelligence of women or men, but everything to do with the way gender
politics are played out through education.
Winterbay
I have to agree with Elin, the lectures are generally much more
entertaining and informative then the books. I think I am the only one
in my current class of 30 people who have even opened the book for more
then a quick glance and as a reference library and everyone has so far
passed the exams just nicely...
And the handouts from the lectures do tend to be what the lecturers base
the examination questions on so a reading of the book (or books as it
might be) is generally good only if you are more interested in the
subject then passing the exam...
/Winterbay
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> Seminars are, in my experience, worse than useless.
>
Seminars, n.:
From "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion.
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
---------------------------------------------------------------
I came home from work the other day and found that someone had
stolen all my furniture, and replaced it with exact replicas...
Orjan Westin
> On 19 Feb 2007 08:18:02 -0800, Fi...@club.lemonde.fr wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, you have to understand that if males are more numberous
>> than females in university it is due to their superior intellect,
>> whereas if perchance women become more numerous that men in
>> university it is obviously due to the neutering[1] of poor young
>> alpha males by rabid females. Once you understand that the natural
>> place of a woman is either in the kitchen or on the sofa you know
>> all their is to know about education...
>
> University applications have nothing at all to do with intellect or
> intelligence. They may have done once. It's not about being clever,
> it's about being able to put words on paper in a way that conforms to
> certain expectations.
As always, such a statement is, at best, only true in a rather localised
sense. In other places, it's about having rich and/or influential parents,
or having good grades in lower levels of education. At least if you talk
about how people manage to get a place at university.
If you talk about why, well, there are many reasons. I read an article just
today about attitudes among young people, and it seems that in the US, kids
apply for university to make their parents happy, while Japanese kids do it
to become happy themselves. Swedish youths were said to do it to get a good
job.
> I got through university without ever having to
> engage my brain simply through knowing a couple of tricks about
> writing essays and doing exams. (I occasionally chose to use my brain
> when dealing with things that interested me, but this wasn't at all
> necessary.)
I feel sorry for you, to have wasted years and money like that.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Orjan Westin
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:25:35 +0100, Graycat wrote:
>
>> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In my experience, and I accept it may not be at all representative,
>>> university classes are something to do while reading the books that
>>> actually teach you something. A handful of lecturers actually
>>> inform and educate during the lectures and have entertaining
>>> stories to tell during the seminars, but the real learning goes on
>>> in the library. In order to continue the pretense that such
>>> meetings are important, people feel the need to ask questions about
>>> the material presented (and generally cribbed from a book the
>>> lecturer read a decade or two ago and has mysteriously left off the
>>> reading list). And while doing this, they seek to score meaningless
>>> points from the lecturer and classmates.
>>
>> Interesting. I see lectures as a convenient way of not having to read
>> the booring books.
>
> I doubt the lecturers would agree with you. ;)
I would, although it's now eleven years since I was a lecturer at
university.
If you followed and understood what I talked about in my lectures, you'd
pass the exams without problems. I talked about principles and concepts,
while the literature talked about minutiae.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
>
Alec Cawley
> Can I just say that I am quite happy to have an increase in young women in
> my classes. Not because I'm an old lech... OK, not *just* because of that.
> ;o)
>
> I find the girls are a delight to teach (this is 2nd, 3rd year University);
> they're interested, keen, and will ask questions if they're confused. In
> contrast, a significant number of the lads just muck around and get grumpy
> when something is difficult, or when unasked-for help is offered.
>
> It may be a lazy view (I am male after all) but a class full of girls makes
> my job an awful lot easier.
I certainly find ground with roughly equal numbers both more effective
and more fun to be in than groups biased one way or the other. I would
always try to keep the numbers more balanced than two to one either way.
Arthur Hagen
>
> If you talk about why, well, there are many reasons. I read an
> article just today about attitudes among young people, and it seems
> that in the US, kids apply for university to make their parents
> happy, while Japanese kids do it to become happy themselves. Swedish
> youths were said to do it to get a good job.
In the US, kids apply for university because it's near impossible to get a
job without it. It's much like high school in Europe.
>> I got through university without ever having to
>> engage my brain simply through knowing a couple of tricks about
>> writing essays and doing exams. (I occasionally chose to use my brain
>> when dealing with things that interested me, but this wasn't at all
>> necessary.)
>
> I feel sorry for you, to have wasted years and money like that.
Why, if he liked it? There's a little Victor Tugelbend in many of us.
Regards,
--
*Art
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill skrev:
>> Lectures can be useful for giving a general overview of what opinions are
>> out there. Seminars are, in my experience, worse than useless.
>>
>
> I have to agree with Elin, the lectures are generally much more
> entertaining and informative then the books. I think I am the only one
> in my current class of 30 people who have even opened the book for more
> then a quick glance and as a reference library and everyone has so far
> passed the exams just nicely...
Frankly, in a proper education system this should not be possible.
> And the handouts from the lectures do tend to be what the lecturers base
> the examination questions on so a reading of the book (or books as it
> might be) is generally good only if you are more interested in the
> subject then passing the exam...
Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all these days? The
actual questions on an exam are almost irrelevant. What you actually do is
answer the questions that will enable you to best display vast knowledge
and intelligence. If this is actually written down on the question sheet
then that's a bonus. In the more likely case that it's not, then you need a
paragraph, maybe two at most, to twist the question that's written down
into the one you actually want to answer.
The advantage of this is that by presenting information that's hidden away
in books and journals the lecturer has either completely forgotten about or
doesn't know exists (or from another subject-domain entirely in more
impressive cases) they're faced with a choice of either going off in the
middle of marking a huge pile of exams to recreate your research, or
assuming that you've done large amounts of independent study that goes far
beyond what they've actually taught you. One of these options is more
likely than the other and results in excellent grades with minimal work.
This is best suited to humanities subjects. If it works in physics or
medicine then the education system's in even more trouble than I thought.
James Mitchelhill
It probably was a waste of time and money, but given the circumstances it
was the best use of three years I could come up with. I dropped out of
education when I was sixteen and did a couple of A-levels as evening
courses. I got 'E' grades for them, but given that I did them in less than
half the time as people in full-time education do, I don't feel too ashamed
about that. It doesn't look great on a CV or application form though. I
spent two years working in ridiculously low-paying retail jobs.
My choices were somewhat limited. Going to university was essentially a way
to escape that and the only way I was able to move out of my parent's house
(which for reasons I won't go into here was something of a priority). It
was a bad course - it was shut down to new applicants the year after I
joined. I didn't get a lot out of it academically, at least in the usual
way, but I did use the university library fairly extensively to read things
unrelated to the course.
So yes, it was a waste of time and money, except in the ways that it
wasn't.
Sabremeister Brian
James Mitchelhill (ja...@disorderfeed.net) spake thusly:
Actually, I think I managed it on my GCSE physics exam.
I went to a grammar school (the supposed top 30% of the kids in the
area), and it was at a time when, with it's last dying gasps, the Tory
government of the day was introducing varied exam papers to try and
improve results. The thickos got a P paper, with really easy
questions, but you couldn't get more than a D (lowest pass being E).
Those in the middle got a Q paper, with harder questions, and the
highest grade being a B. The brightest got the R paper, with the hard
questions, and the top grade being the hypothetical A+ (it was also at
a time when they were trying to turn letters into numbers: E=5 D=6 C=7
B=8 A=9 A+=10). Most papers sat at the school that year were R papers,
and the rest were Q papers. I forget how many Q papers I had, but I do
know that everybody doing physics got an R paper.
They were all three hour exams. The physics one was the only one I
finished in under two hours. It would have been well under two hours
if I hadn't spent so much time on the last question, which was
something like "explain why it would be impractical to build a
spaceship capable of interstellar travel with current technology". I
spent about twenty minutes calculating acceleration rates and fuel
masses over three sheets of paper, then I waffled for a few paragraphs
and even worked in a bit about one of Xeno's paradoxes (although I
didn't know it was one of them at the time - thank you SoDIII, which I
am currrently re-reading).
It was the only GCSE I got an A for.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
There is nothing wrong with my...
um..
er...
Memory!
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> "explain why it would be impractical to build a
> spaceship capable of interstellar travel with current technology".
Huh? We already did it. The launch was thirty years ago, and in another
ten years or so the ship, which is already over 100AU - about twelve
light-hours - from here, will reach interstellar space. The likelihood
of it reaching another solar system, in the fulness of time, is good.
Well, it's non-zero, anyway.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Alec Cawley
> Sabremeister Brian said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> "explain why it would be impractical to build a
>> spaceship capable of interstellar travel with current technology".
>
> Huh? We already did it. The launch was thirty years ago, and in another
> ten years or so the ship, which is already over 100AU - about twelve
> light-hours - from here, will reach interstellar space. The likelihood
> of it reaching another solar system, in the fulness of time, is good.
> Well, it's non-zero, anyway.
Thats a space probe, not a space ship. Implicit in the concept of "ship"
is carrying humans. In a mode that does not amount to a suicide mission.
Sofia
> The current workplace team, unfortunately, is 100% male and mostly young.
> As a result, it's a bit... laddish.
>
> I hate to resort to cliche, but it could use a woman's touch. Possibly
> with a baseball bat.
LOL! That's funny! It reminds me of a film I went to see last Tuesday
called "Notes of a Scandal", with Judy Dench and Kate Blanchet as teachers
in a school. When the Blanchet character (married to Bill Nighy with 2
children) began to have an affair with one of her students, the Dench
character became more of a bully and a battleaxe than she'd been the whole
way through the movie - you would have loved her! :-)
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net>
> Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all
> these days? The actual questions on an exam are almost
> irrelevant. What you actually do is answer the questions
> that will enable you to best display vast knowledge and
> intelligence. If this is actually written down on the
> question sheet then that's a bonus. In the more likely case
> that it's not, then you need a paragraph, maybe two at
> most, to twist the question that's written down into the
> one you actually want to answer.
>
> The advantage of this is that by presenting information
> that's hidden away in books and journals the lecturer has
> either completely forgotten about or doesn't know exists
> (or from another subject-domain entirely in more impressive
> cases) they're faced with a choice of either going off in
> the middle of marking a huge pile of exams to recreate your
> research, or assuming that you've done large amounts of
> independent study that goes far beyond what they've
> actually taught you. One of these options is more likely
> than the other and results in excellent grades with minimal
> work.
>
> This is best suited to humanities subjects. If it works in
> physics or medicine then the education system's in even
> more trouble than I thought.
Thank you. This is the first time I've actually understood how
on Earth I managed to pass Celtic Civ.
And no, it doesn't work in physics, which is a bit of a
bugger, since that was what I was actually there to study...
(Being discalculic didn't help, of course.)
Sofia
>
> I confess: if my kid didn't show a strong preference for something
> in the trades field, I would be encouraging a university education.
>
> I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
> terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
Glad you've finished, and your kid found it interesting too. One of my
sisters has just turned 40, and the other is 44, and they both have 3 kids
who are also taking a great interest in their studies - one loves taking
hers to watch the theatre with her, the other loves taking hers to collect
rock samples up on the cliffs with her - they all enjoy themselves and say
it hardly feels like studying at all!
Lesley Weston
agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 18/02/2007 10:44 AM:
> "Lesley Weston" wrote...
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
> <snip>
>>> In Canada, it takes four years of apprenticeship for
>>> a person to get their Red Seal in their trade - full
>>> journeyman, licenced to drill. How convenient that
>>> our inherited class system prevents us from counting
>>> these people in the "going on to further education"
>>> statistics.
>> There's another thing too. We've been so successful at
>> denigrating the type of further education that leads to
>> journeyman status that no-one of either sex wants to pursue
>> this path any more; they all want to get degrees. So we have
>> a huge number of people with degrees in unreal subjects
>> doing jobs that don't need a degree of any sort (or trying to
>> find work that they consider suitable for their highly-educated
>> selves), and nowhere near enough tradespeople building, fixing
>> and maintaining the world.
>>
>
> There are two big problems with trades: (1) the difficulty an
> apprentice-wannabee has in getting someone to apprentice them,
> and (2) the irregularity of the work with regards to hours and
> location. Number two is the reason for the Red Seal idea - that
> a journeyman be able to go to the work when it dries up where
> they are currently located. That's a helluva way to live. Just one
> example of problems with "labour mobility" - if you have an aging
> parent, and need to find them a place in a government-run assisted
> living arrangement (as most people do), you cannot move the parent
> into a new provincial location. Another problem is moving the kids
> from one provincial education authority to another - *what* a
> nightmare. And changing medical systems. And you can forget
> extended medical & dental benefits, because, ho ho, you are an
> indendant contractor, and blah de blah de blah.
Well yes, all of this is true, but the answer is to fix things so that none
of it is true, not to make all the potential tradespeople into unhappy and
non-useful graduates. Not that you or I or any other afper (SFAIK) *can*
actually fix this, but we can still complain about it.
I met many students when I was working who were trying unsuccessfully to
get into Dentistry or Medicine because a B.Sc. in biology (which takes four
years) is useless by itself, unlike a Journeyman qualification which also
takes four years. I can think of at least three who were the offspring of
tradesmen and would have been fine as tradespeople themselves, but only one
who decided voluntarily to give up on Dentistry, and even he did a Ph.D.
instead.
>
> I confess: if my kid didn't show a strong preference for something
> in the trades field, I would be encouraging a university education.
Neither of my sons has done either, despite plenty of encouragement for
both, though both did some university courses before losing interest and one
almost became a welder but decided just before the final exams that that
wasn't how he wanted to spend his life. One is now doing part-time courses
(on top of a full-time and highly-demanding job, plus a young family and
working on building a house) which will eventually lead to a degree, so that
he can qualify for the job that he's already doing. The other, the almost
welder, talks of going back to University sometime; meanwhile he teaches
people to dive and drives a truck. Both seem to be happy with their lives.
>
> I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
> terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
Yes, but your degree is not in Unreal Studies, and the work you are using it
to do needs doing and needs your particular degree to do it. The people who
would have been happy in one of the useful trades if they hadn't been
diverted into degree courses (notwithstanding the above) will probably have
unnecessary degrees and are now doing unnecessary work or flipping burgers
or on the dole.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
Perhaps it depends on the subject. Science degrees involve labs as well as
lectures and seminars, and no book can supply what you get from a lab and a
lab-instructor. Fine-arts degrees have similar requirements.
Lesley Weston
ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 19/02/2007 2:18 PM:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:20:03 -0000, Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>> James Mitchelhill wrote:
>>> On 19 Feb 2007 08:18:02 -0800, Fi...@club.lemonde.fr wrote:
>>>
>>> I got through university without ever having to
>>> engage my brain simply through knowing a couple of tricks about
>>> writing essays and doing exams. (I occasionally chose to use my brain
>>> when dealing with things that interested me, but this wasn't at all
>>> necessary.)
>>
>> I feel sorry for you, to have wasted years and money like that.
>
> It probably was a waste of time and money, but given the circumstances it
> was the best use of three years I could come up with. I dropped out of
> education when I was sixteen and did a couple of A-levels as evening
> courses. I got 'E' grades for them, but given that I did them in less than
> half the time as people in full-time education do, I don't feel too ashamed
> about that. It doesn't look great on a CV or application form though. I
> spent two years working in ridiculously low-paying retail jobs.
With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a university? That
deserves congratulations by itself. I know that there are now far more
university places in the UK than there were in my day, but I would have
thought you would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which was
supposedly what was required then and in practice was far less than what was
actually needed.
The Stainless Steel Cat
Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
The tutorials are fine with even numbers; with thirty people in the class I
can answer the questions from the girls and the smaller number of keen
lads, and still spend some time on the grumpy ones. The lecture is a
different matter entirely. With over 160 people in the class it only takes
a small group to get bored and disruptive to ruin the lecture for everyone.
Last week the usual suspects were chatting and giggling like children. The
worst thing is that these guys won't take a telling to either shut up or
just not come to the lectures. The class is quite difficult, and needs the
students to concentrate. Sometimes it seems that this is asking too much of
your average 20-year old lad.
OTOH, the students who make it into the next year to do honours apply
themselves equally regardless of gender. They're uniformly a pleasure to
work with.
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
"I *am* playing all the right notes. Just not necessarily in the right
order."
Eric Morecambe
James Mitchelhill
> in article oieh9d4mdkcy$.1q872s6x...@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at
> ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 19/02/2007 9:40 AM:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:25:35 +0100, Graycat wrote:
>>> Interesting. I see lectures as a convenient way of not having to read
>>> the booring books.
>>
>> I doubt the lecturers would agree with you. ;)
>>
>> Lectures can be useful for giving a general overview of what opinions are
>> out there. Seminars are, in my experience, worse than useless.
>
> Perhaps it depends on the subject. Science degrees involve labs as well as
> lectures and seminars, and no book can supply what you get from a lab and a
> lab-instructor. Fine-arts degrees have similar requirements.
Sure. I'm speaking primarily from a humanities background.
But fine art degrees are a source of annoyance to me. There's parts of fine
art degrees that deal with art history and technique. I have no problem
with this. It seems like a reasonable thing for any art degree to cover.
But the way the actual art is graded is nothing short of collective
insanity. In other subjects there's basic ground rules about what
constitutes good work. In the sciences it's generally fairly easy to
distinguish between a well thought out and investigated hypothesis and
shoddy work. In the humanities you can tell the difference between a
well-thought out argument that draws on and citicises a representative
range of sources and empty waffling. There are standards that everyone
understands and rational ways of disagreeing with them.
This is not true of fine art. Not even vaguely so.
The sole purpose of a fine art degree seems to be to inculcate its
participants into a certain social set and give them the tools to produce
large amounts of meaning-free verbiage of the correct form. And this is
necessary for actually getting any work as an artist. In fact, it's much
more important than things like talent, intelligence and ability.
The important thing for anyone taking a fine art degree is not lectures,
seminars or, indeed, the actual work produced, but the ability of the
student to cultivate friendships with the teaching staff, because, frankly,
that's the only way to get decent grades.
I like art. I have deep loathing for the social structures that surround
it.
James Mitchelhill
> in article e0i1n80etian$.15f2vnxezd20i$.d...@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at
> ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 19/02/2007 2:18 PM:
>
> With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a university? That
> deserves congratulations by itself. I know that there are now far more
> university places in the UK than there were in my day, but I would have
> thought you would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which was
> supposedly what was required then and in practice was far less than what was
> actually needed.
It wasn't a good university. The course also shut down the following year
because my year had so few applicants. This turned out to be spectacular
timing by the university, since they made the decision not to advertise
just after 9/11 had made politics interesting again. Subsequent years in
universities that still offered the degree showed a sharp rise in the
number of people applying.
I think they'd have accepted me as long as my application form hadn't
actually been filled out in crayon.
Richard Heathfield
Long URL may fold:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Mission=Voyager_1&Object=Jupiter&Sort=Planet
Quote: "Although launched 16 days after its sister ship Voyager 2,
Voyager 1 was placed on a faster trajectory that brought it to Jupiter
four months ahead of Voyager 2."
If, in a terminology dispute about space vehicles, I have to choose
between trusting NASA or trusting you, then I hope you'll forgive me,
but I'm plumping for NASA.
> In a mode that does not amount to a suicide mission.
Nobody has ever died on Voyager, in three decades of operation... so
it's lookin' good.
Hendrik Schober
> [...]
> I find the girls are a delight to teach (this is 2nd, 3rd year University);
> they're interested, keen, and will ask questions if they're confused. In
> contrast, a significant number of the lads just muck around and get grumpy
> when something is difficult, or when unasked-for help is offered.
>
> It may be a lazy view (I am male after all) but a class full of girls makes
> my job an awful lot easier.
Last weekend I reviewed this semester's batch of
test papers. This is 3rd semester CS students (at
what's hyped^Wcalled "University of Applied Sience"
but what's actually a mere technical collage) being
taught C++ after two semesters of Java. (OMG) I do
read the lessons plus they have to do lab work with
me. Both lab work (that is, their answers to handed-
out questions regarding lab work) and their final
test each contribute 50% top their grade.
The recurring theme is that, in general, women tend
to do better than men. Often a lot better. (There
is the opposite, too, but that doesn't change the
big picture.)
In my last course, out of 31 students who started,
7 were women (~19.6%). 6 students (~19.4%) dropped
out during the semester -- all of which were men.
Of the top 3 students 2 are women. Of 11 students
whose results between lab and test differ <20%, 5
are women.
The semester before that, 3 out of 23 students were
women (~13%). 5 students (~21.7%) dropped out --
all men. The three women were all in the top half
of the students.
I don't have any older numbers accessible here.
My wife (who's a joiner by trade and just finished
her CS studies) says that's because, if women decide
to study CS, they really do want to study CS. Men do
it just because it's cool and they always liked
playing computer games.
EUR 0.02
> Cat.
Schobi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot org
"My hope is that if more people start reading books,
the world will become a better place."
froarulv in afp
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a
> university? That deserves congratulations by itself. I know
> that there are now far more university places in the UK
> than there were in my day, but I would have thought you
> would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which
> was supposedly what was required then and in practice was
> far less than what was actually needed.
I managed to be accepted at a decent university (Edinburgh) on
the strength of a National Certificate in Science. Although
certain members of the faculty had their doubts about this,
and when I failed the first year said "See?" and wouldn't let
me retake it 8-(
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk>
Depends what you mean by humans. In Charles Stross'
"Accelerando", downloadable intelligence systems are used to
supply a Robert Forward style starwisp with a crew.
IIRC, the idea was that on their return, their experiences
would be re-uploaded into the originals, but since they've
mostly died they get cloned bodies instead.
Jeff Howell
> "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I keep seeing similar stories in the media:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6364337.stm
>> about how there are more women applying to university
>> these days than men applying. I see it in reports about
>> Canadian universities, and about American universities,
>> and by gum, look at that, now about UK universities.
>>
>> And there is always a general ringing of the hands about
>> our poor male youth of today with no ambitions.
>>
>>
>> There are at least two factors left out of the equation:
>> trades and the colonization of women's blue collar
>> work by the universities.
>
> We have the discussion here too, but it seems mostly focused on the
> fact that boys don't do as well in school as girls, and therefore
> don't get into popular university programs to as large an extent.
> Medical school and Law school are two examples that are becoming
> female dominated (at the student level), where it used to be the other
> way around. Things like Maths, IT and Engineering aren't showing the
> trend as much, because women are apparently less interested in those.
Interesting. Mostly I've noticed the same trends - more girls in most
programs except CS and to a lesser degree Engineering... but here at UB,
that's definitely not true for the Mathematics department, which has a
near 50/50 split at least among undergrads.
--
Jeff
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
<snip>
>> I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
>> terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
> Yes, but your degree is not in Unreal Studies, and the work
> you are using it to do needs doing and needs your particular
> degree to do it.
>
Er...no, actually. I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English.
Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get. Don't you be fooled. It's
not the subject of the degree that matters; it is the degree itself.
The work I am doing is based on my experience as a cashier-
trainer plus my volunteer work while finishing the last two years
of my degree. I couldn't be promoted where I had been working
because I didn't have a degree. I wouldn't have gotten access to
the volunteer opportunities unless I was completing a degree.
Yes, there are people with degrees who don't know what to
do with the degrees. There are people who win money and
lose it within a year, too. That's just lack of knowledge about
what to do with the resources you've got.
Actually, the hardest part about getting my degree was the
huge resistance in my family. "What are you gonna do with
a degree in *that*?" There was a lot of fear & unconcious
sabotage. Going back & finishing in my late 30's, I could
see the same mechanisms being played out with the young
students from backrounds similar to mine.
One of my favorite examples of the immediate-gratification
mentality I am talking about is my aunt. Everyone knew in
the 60's that computers were the coming thing, and that a
smart person would get themselves some training in that
field. So she trained as a keypunch operator. Immediate
pay-off, no-nonsense, focused training. Definitely no bunnies
being fluffed here. And it didn't provide her with work for
even five years before it was outmoded.
I'm not saying that the true, four-year apprenticeship trades
are this narrow. But most of the Industry Training promoted
by gov't and business is this short-term, short-sighted crap.
And neither of those two powerful groups will get behind the
trades and put any money in securing apprenticeships for the
people they want to work in the trades. Quickie, On-The-Job
training with a narrow focus and a shelf-life of minutes is all
they'll fund.
*ahem*
I think I'm gonna trip the breaker on this hot button of mine
or I am never going to get to work. Which I couldn't have
gotten access to without a degree, I might add.
rant dribble gibber
April.
peachy ashie passion
> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In my experience, and I accept it may not be at all representative,
>>university classes are something to do while reading the books that
>>actually teach you something. A handful of lecturers actually inform and
>>educate during the lectures and have entertaining stories to tell during
>>the seminars, but the real learning goes on in the library. In order to
>>continue the pretense that such meetings are important, people feel the
>>need to ask questions about the material presented (and generally cribbed
>
>>from a book the lecturer read a decade or two ago and has mysteriously left
>
>>off the reading list). And while doing this, they seek to score meaningless
>>points from the lecturer and classmates.
>
>
> Interesting. I see lectures as a convenient way of not having to read
> the booring books.
>
OOoh gods yes.
I'm so far behind on my assigned reading this semester it's laughable.
Fortunately, if I pay attention in class, I still learn it all, only
in people talk as opposed to academic gobledygook.
And then it leaves more time for reading actually interesting stuff.
I spent time yesterday on Chinese history and the Constitution of South
Africa. Someone in another group suggested that as radio stations
require a license, it is unconstitutional for them to pick and choose
what music groups to play. Several hours on the website of the
governing body of broadcasts in South Africa did not clarify this issue,
though I learned many new and interesting things.
IOW James, just because you were bored dooesn't mean everyone was. :)
I like knowing stupid things.
Graycat
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:52:16 +0100, Winterbay wrote:
>
>> James Mitchelhill skrev:
>>> Lectures can be useful for giving a general overview of what opinions are
>>> out there. Seminars are, in my experience, worse than useless.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree with Elin, the lectures are generally much more
>> entertaining and informative then the books. I think I am the only one
>> in my current class of 30 people who have even opened the book for more
>> then a quick glance and as a reference library and everyone has so far
>> passed the exams just nicely...
>
>Frankly, in a proper education system this should not be possible.
In my experience the lecturers teach you the general principles,
theories and so on. The books go in-depth and tell you details. The
exams are on the general principles, theories and so on. What the
student is expected to do is use the lectures as a guide to
understanding the books well enough to distill them into general
principles, theories and so on. I tend to skip that step.
>> And the handouts from the lectures do tend to be what the lecturers base
>> the examination questions on so a reading of the book (or books as it
>> might be) is generally good only if you are more interested in the
>> subject then passing the exam...
>
>Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all these days? The
>actual questions on an exam are almost irrelevant.
Not if you want good grades.
>What you actually do is
>answer the questions that will enable you to best display vast knowledge
>and intelligence. If this is actually written down on the question sheet
>then that's a bonus. In the more likely case that it's not, then you need a
>paragraph, maybe two at most, to twist the question that's written down
>into the one you actually want to answer.
Don't try this on a law exam :o) Generally speaking, showing that you
understand the question is about as important as answering it right.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Orjan Westin
>
> The sole purpose of a fine art degree seems to be to inculcate its
> participants into a certain social set and give them the tools to
> produce large amounts of meaning-free verbiage of the correct form.
> And this is necessary for actually getting any work as an artist.
Um... I think your definition of artist is very different from mine.
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all these days? The
>>actual questions on an exam are almost irrelevant.
>
> Not if you want good grades.
>
>>What you actually do is
>>answer the questions that will enable you to best display vast knowledge
>>and intelligence. If this is actually written down on the question sheet
>>then that's a bonus. In the more likely case that it's not, then you need a
>>paragraph, maybe two at most, to twist the question that's written down
>>into the one you actually want to answer.
>
> Don't try this on a law exam :o) Generally speaking, showing that you
> understand the question is about as important as answering it right.
Well that explains it. Law's a little different to the humanities and soft
sciences where you can get away with almost everything. (Strictly speaking,
twisting the question does show you've understood it. One of my preferred
techniques was attacking the question and arguing that it was either
meaningless, stupid or both. This worked suprisingly well.).
Alec Cawley
> With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a university? That
> deserves congratulations by itself. I know that there are now far more
> university places in the UK than there were in my day, but I would have
> thought you would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which was
> supposedly what was required then and in practice was far less than what was
> actually needed.
No. That was standard for the weaker Universities which are having
trouble filling their courses. The three-Cs-or-better is the level that
you needed for any course well-regarded enough to be oversubscribed.
Oxbridge, of course, wanted four A*s and then an interview.
However, it has all been re-organised recently into a points based syste
in which you can theoretically get in anywhere with seventeen Es.
Graycat
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:52:28 +0100, Graycat wrote:
>
>> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>
>>>Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all these days? The
>>>actual questions on an exam are almost irrelevant.
>>
>> Not if you want good grades.
>>
>>>What you actually do is
>>>answer the questions that will enable you to best display vast knowledge
>>>and intelligence. If this is actually written down on the question sheet
>>>then that's a bonus. In the more likely case that it's not, then you need a
>>>paragraph, maybe two at most, to twist the question that's written down
>>>into the one you actually want to answer.
>>
>> Don't try this on a law exam :o) Generally speaking, showing that you
>> understand the question is about as important as answering it right.
>
>Well that explains it.
I've studied other stuff too, history for example, and basically
didn't open a course book for the whole year. But then, I learn a lot
better from listening than reading anyway.
>Law's a little different to the humanities and soft
>sciences where you can get away with almost everything. (Strictly speaking,
>twisting the question does show you've understood it. One of my preferred
>techniques was attacking the question and arguing that it was either
>meaningless, stupid or both. This worked suprisingly well.).
Well, our questions are usually in the form of a description of a
situation, you then have to identify the relevant legal issues and
resolve them. So changing the question usually results in you getting
the whole thing wrong, since the whole point is being able to identify
the problem.
-Wee Rocket
> Nobody has ever died on Voyager, in three decades of operation... so
> it's lookin' good.
It came damned close to killing Kirk and the whole crew, though.
-Rock http://www.rockyfrisco.com
--
The World's Best Free News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
James Mitchelhill
> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:52:28 +0100, Graycat wrote:
>>
>>> James Mitchelhill <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Oh good lord, don't they teach people *anything* at all these days? The
>>>>actual questions on an exam are almost irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Not if you want good grades.
>>>
>>>>What you actually do is
>>>>answer the questions that will enable you to best display vast knowledge
>>>>and intelligence. If this is actually written down on the question sheet
>>>>then that's a bonus. In the more likely case that it's not, then you need a
>>>>paragraph, maybe two at most, to twist the question that's written down
>>>>into the one you actually want to answer.
>>>
>>> Don't try this on a law exam :o) Generally speaking, showing that you
>>> understand the question is about as important as answering it right.
>>
>>Well that explains it.
>
> I've studied other stuff too, history for example, and basically
> didn't open a course book for the whole year. But then, I learn a lot
> better from listening than reading anyway.
Most of the history I studied at undergraduate level was political history.
Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but I generally found it essential to go
back to the primary sources to find out what I wasn't being told, and to
the secondary sources to find out what the primary sources were lying
about.
If you don't do that, it doesn't seem to me like you're learning anything
except rumour. It's impossible to form your own opinions on the material
because you lack anything to base those opinions on. I'm sure it's possible
to pass the courses without doing much actual reading, it's just that I
don't think it should be.
Lesley Weston
OK, that makes sense. Still, the end result is that you have a degree, which
is nice.
Lesley Weston
daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 20/02/2007 4:08 AM:
> The time: 20 Feb 2007. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
>> With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a
>> university? That deserves congratulations by itself. I know
>> that there are now far more university places in the UK
>> than there were in my day, but I would have thought you
>> would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which
>> was supposedly what was required then and in practice was
>> far less than what was actually needed.
>
> I managed to be accepted at a decent university (Edinburgh) on
> the strength of a National Certificate in Science. Although
> certain members of the faculty had their doubts about this,
> and when I failed the first year said "See?" and wouldn't let
> me retake it 8-(
What is a National Certificate in Science? And who are these members of the
faculty, so that we can say rude things about them?
Lesley Weston
agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 20/02/2007 7:34 AM:
> "Lesley Weston" wrote ...
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
> <snip>
>>> I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
>>> terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
>> Yes, but your degree is not in Unreal Studies, and the work
>> you are using it to do needs doing and needs your particular
>> degree to do it.
>>
>
> Er...no, actually. I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English.
> Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in offering
examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone here might
have majored in whatever I name.
> Don't you be fooled. It's
> not the subject of the degree that matters; it is the degree itself.
I suppose that goes along with the gummint persuading everyone to take
degrees; now, if they're not to look inconsistent, they have to persuade
everyone that Unreal Jobs need a degree in Unreal Studies. Even more
inconsistent, I mean.
>
> The work I am doing is based on my experience as a cashier-
> trainer plus my volunteer work while finishing the last two years
> of my degree.
But it does need doing - I got that right, at least.
> I couldn't be promoted where I had been working
> because I didn't have a degree. I wouldn't have gotten access to
> the volunteer opportunities unless I was completing a degree.
Sounds familiar.
> But most of the Industry Training promoted
> by gov't and business is this short-term, short-sighted crap.
> And neither of those two powerful groups will get behind the
> trades and put any money in securing apprenticeships for the
> people they want to work in the trades. Quickie, On-The-Job
> training with a narrow focus and a shelf-life of minutes is all
> they'll fund.
As in Newfoundland, where every second woman is a qualified, and unemployed,
hairdresser.
Lesley Weston
al...@spamspam.co.uk wrote on 20/02/2007 11:04 AM:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>
>
>> With two A-levels, both E-grades, you were accepted at a university? That
>> deserves congratulations by itself. I know that there are now far more
>> university places in the UK than there were in my day, but I would have
>> thought you would still need a minimum of three with at least C, which was
>> supposedly what was required then and in practice was far less than what was
>> actually needed.
>
> No. That was standard for the weaker Universities which are having
> trouble filling their courses. The three-Cs-or-better is the level that
> you needed for any course well-regarded enough to be oversubscribed.
> Oxbridge, of course, wanted four A*s and then an interview.
OK, that makes sense. In 1962, my mediocre A-levels were not enough to get
me into any of my chosen universities (not Oxbridge) to read zoology, but
were more than enough to get me into a Polytechnic for the same course, or
into a teacher's training college. I decided I didn't want second best and
got a job instead as a research technician, for which I was heavily
over-qualified. Now such a job needs at least a B.Sc. and preferably a
Master's.
>
> However, it has all been re-organised recently into a points based syste
> in which you can theoretically get in anywhere with seventeen Es.
>
I suppose it shows really strong motivation, which might be mistakenly
considered enough.
Richard Heathfield
> in article jyECh.1069996$5R2.112745@pd7urf3no, April Goodwin-Smith at
> agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 20/02/2007 7:34 AM:
>
<snip>
>> I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in
>> English. Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
>
> No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in
> offering examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone
> here might have majored in whatever I name.
Allow me, then. :-)
Conflict Resolution
Gender Studies
Health and Social Policy
International Relations and Security Studies
Peace Studies
Social Science
Sociology
Of course, it's a non-exhaustive list.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
> in article Xns98DD7C51...@130.133.1.4, Daibhid
> Ceanaideach at daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 20/02/2007
> 4:08 AM:
>> I managed to be accepted at a decent university
>> (Edinburgh) on the strength of a National Certificate in
>> Science. Although certain members of the faculty had their
>> doubts about this, and when I failed the first year said
>> "See?" and wouldn't let me retake it 8-(
>
> What is a National Certificate in Science? And who are
> these members of the faculty, so that we can say rude
> things about them?
It's a certificate provided by the Scottish Vocational
Education Council[1] which is roughly indicative that you've
learnt something up to "Higher standard"[2], but haven't
actually taken a Higher. Usually taken in vocational subjects
(hence the name; I also have an NC in Library and Information
Science, which is absolutely no help at all in getting me a
job in a library).
Unfortunately I don't remember who exactly said what, as I was
in a state of shock at the time. To be fair, they did let me
retake the exam the next year, leading to a fun year in which
I couldn't claim benefit, because I was a student, but
couldn't get a student loan because I wasn't actually
matriculated. Given how well I handle stress, I'm amazed I
filled in my name correctly when the exams came round again...
[1] At least when I took it, I believe they've now merged with
the Scottish Exam Board to form the Scottish Qualifications
Authority.
[2]Scottish A-level.
April Goodwin-Smith
"April Goodwin-Smith" wrote:
<snip>
> Of everything that frosts my fanny (Canadian: buttocks) in
> this whole rigamarole, what makes me rant is the apprehensive
> tone of barely concealed fright that the universities will become a
> pink ghetto, with toooo many women on campus, and men shunning
> the place as potentially detrimental to their testicular health.
ohhhh, _nice_
<cuts the sentence in order to reuse it once translated to french>
ah, errr, if you don't mind, that is?
Yes, certainly, please do use it. Would you post your translation
here? I'd be interested to see it.
> Argh.
Indeed.
You don't know the half of it, my little workaholic.
April.
April Goodwin-Smith
> James Mitchelhill wrote:
>
>><snip> A handful of lecturers actually inform and
>>educate during the lectures and have entertaining
>>stories to tell during the seminars, but the real learning
> Interesting. I see lectures as a convenient way of not
> having to read the booring books.
>
Me too - or at least as a guide post to what to skim and
what to read more carefully.
Except for one third year psych course where the instructor's
idea of riveting lectures was all of us highlighting our textbooks
together. Oh merciful heck.
April.
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
<snip>
>> I finally finished my degree at 40. The difference it made in
>> terms of the types of work open to me is just astounding.
> they both have 3 kids who are also taking a great interest in
> their studies - one loves taking hers to watch the theatre with
> her, the other loves taking hers to collect rock samples up on
> the cliffs with her - they all enjoy themselves and say it hardly
> feels like studying at all!
>
After I'd worked for ten years at the international corner store,
serving drunks and thieves and crabby people in suits, writing
essays and doing tidy experiments was so nice and sane. I got
a little bent out of shape at finals, but I'm okay now. Really.
April.
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
<snip>
>> Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
> No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in offering
> examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone here might
> have majored in whatever I name.
>
No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or Medicine.
The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled Higher and Deeper.[1]
April.
[1] - old joke:
Two farmers, Gordon and Frank, are talking.
Gordon says, "I hear your boy went to university and got
himself a BSC. What's that stand for?"
Frank says, "I don't rightly know, but from the stuff he
talks now, I reckon it stands for Bull Shit."
"Oh," says Gordon. "Next, I heard your boy went back
to university, and got himself another degree; an MS. What's
that stand for?"
Frank says, "Well, I reckon it stands for: More Shit."
"Oh," says Gordon. "So then what's this I hear about your
boy getting himself a PHD? What's that stand for?"
Frank says, "Well, I reckon is stands for Piled Higher
and Deeper."
megp...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:09:19 GMT, "naomi" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> >My husbands workplace has just had three new computer techs start. Two of
> >them are female. He commented on the fact to me, because he hadn't met any
> >famale technicians before and it blows my excuse of needing him to fix my
> >computer because I am a girl. I think he is happy to be able to share the
> >workload around because they've been really snowed under.
>
> Having worked in technical workplaces with varying levels of gender
> disparity, I have to say I prefer those more equally balanced. It doesn't
> hurt to have a certain number of staff older than their 20s, either - in
> fact, it provides a bit of stability and a barrier against excessive
> management interference.
>
> The current workplace team, unfortunately, is 100% male and mostly young.
> As a result, it's a bit... laddish.
>
> I hate to resort to cliche, but it could use a woman's touch. Possibly
> with a baseball bat.
>
And you're trying to get me to work there? Do you *enjoy* being
ranted at every night? Have you suddenly become a masochist when I
wasn't looking?
Dear heart, sometimes I *do* wonder about you.
Meg (I aten't dead) Thornton
--
James Mitchelhill
> Lesley Weston said:
>
>> in article jyECh.1069996$5R2.112745@pd7urf3no, April Goodwin-Smith at
>> agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 20/02/2007 7:34 AM:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in
>>> English. Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
>>
>> No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in
>> offering examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone
>> here might have majored in whatever I name.
>
> Allow me, then. :-)
>
> Conflict Resolution
> Gender Studies
> Health and Social Policy
> International Relations and Security Studies
I really shouldn't rise to this.
If you're not going to call politics, economics, history and law fluffy
subjects, then you can't really call international relations one. It's an
interdisciplinary subject covering aspects of all these things (and more!),
in varying depths depending on what the focus of study is. I've seen both
BA and BEcon variants.
It is true, however, that there's a tendency towards fluffiness in some
areas of the subject (it spawned conflict resultion and peace studies as
distinct areas of study). But IR as a whole is not a terribly fluffy thing.
Security studies is rather American and is even less fluffy than IR. They
tend to be big on bombs and graphs involving numbers of casualties on one
axis and distance from the airstrike on the other.
James Mitchelhill
You think you had it bad? I had one lecturer who often hadn't finished the
sentence he'd begun by the end of the lecture, or indeed half an hour after
the lecture was supposed to end. In a monotone drone. Mumbling.
SteveD
<brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>no book can supply what you get from a lab and a lab-instructor.
Third-degree burns in interesting places?
SteveD
>Except for one third year psych course where the instructor's
>idea of riveting lectures was all of us highlighting our textbooks
>together. Oh merciful heck.
So... how did you *feel* about zat, hmmm?
SteveD
wrote:
Well, I was merely mentioning that the remuneration is not bad, and if
they're desperate enough to employ people with near-zero IT experience,
someone with several years should have no problems landing said job. If,
of course, they wanted to.
-SteveD
Richard Heathfield
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:46:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Lesley Weston said:
>>>
>>> in offering examples of what I mean by [fluffy-bunny studies] by the
>>> fear that someone here might have majored in whatever I name.
>>
>> Allow me, then. :-)
>>
>> Conflict Resolution
>> Gender Studies
>> Health and Social Policy
>> International Relations and Security Studies
>
> I really shouldn't rise to this.
No, you shouldn't. :-)
(And I'm not going to, either.)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca>
> No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or
> Medicine. The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled
> Higher and Deeper.[1]
If you're being that strict, then why Education? It's social
science, for heaven's sake!
I'd also be tempted to add Agriculture to the list, although I
suppose the farmer's son in your story probably had an
Agriculture degree, while the farmer actually knew about
farming...
Chucky & Janica
<ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>>>Well that explains it.
>>
>> I've studied other stuff too, history for example, and basically
>> didn't open a course book for the whole year. But then, I learn a lot
>> better from listening than reading anyway.
>
>Most of the history I studied at undergraduate level was political history.
>Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but I generally found it essential to go
>back to the primary sources to find out what I wasn't being told, and to
>the secondary sources to find out what the primary sources were lying
>about.
I study history (general, not political), and we're *required* to go
to the primary sources. You can't be much of a historian if you can't
handle primary sources.
Janica
--
Beware of Trojans, they're complete smegheads.
- 13 & 13b of 12, the CMM Collective.
- www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Ed Weatherup
news:Xns98DE8217...@130.133.1.4...
[snip]
> I'd also be tempted to add Agriculture to the list, although I
> suppose the farmer's son in your story probably had an
> Agriculture degree, while the farmer actually knew about
> farming...
>
The finest ever look of horror was The Farmer (my boss at the time) being
told by the Agriculture student going baling "It's OK, I've got my college
notes on knotters!"
:-)
--
Ed.
Anery
> The time: 21 Feb 2007. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "April Goodwin-Smith" <agoodw...@shaw.ca>
>
> > No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or
> > Medicine. The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled
> > Higher and Deeper.[1]
>
> If you're being that strict, then why Education? It's social
> science, for heaven's sake!
>
> I'd also be tempted to add Agriculture to the list, although I
> suppose the farmer's son in your story probably had an
> Agriculture degree, while the farmer actually knew about
> farming...
>
been told a story about their chief agronomist. After he had finished
university, he took the place of an agronomist in that cooperative,
and when he first went to a field he confused weed with alfalfa.
Apparently he had difficulties with authority there for several years
after that incident.
On the other hand, during field work at my first workplace, I kept
being mildly irritated by the fact that our professional car driver
without any education in biology or agriculture whatsoever was able to
tell te difference between alfalfa, lentils and peas growing in the
field, while driving at 80 km/h (the irritation came from the fact
that I was not, and would have liked to).
Graycat
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:48:19 +0000 James Mitchelhill
><ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Well that explains it.
>>>
>>> I've studied other stuff too, history for example, and basically
>>> didn't open a course book for the whole year. But then, I learn a lot
>>> better from listening than reading anyway.
>>
>>Most of the history I studied at undergraduate level was political history.
>>Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but I generally found it essential to go
>>back to the primary sources to find out what I wasn't being told, and to
>>the secondary sources to find out what the primary sources were lying
>>about.
>
>I study history (general, not political), and we're *required* to go
>to the primary sources. You can't be much of a historian if you can't
>handle primary sources.
We were too for our own work - essays, papers, seminar courses and so
on. But not for the regular exams, they were just to check we'd got
the basics.
Lesley Weston
daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 20/02/2007 4:17 PM:
> The time: 20 Feb 2007. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
>> in article Xns98DD7C51...@130.133.1.4, Daibhid
>> Ceanaideach at daibhidc...@aol.com wrote on 20/02/2007
>> 4:08 AM:
>
>>> I managed to be accepted at a decent university
>>> (Edinburgh) on the strength of a National Certificate in
>>> Science. Although certain members of the faculty had their
>>> doubts about this, and when I failed the first year said
>>> "See?" and wouldn't let me retake it 8-(
>>
>> What is a National Certificate in Science? And who are
>> these members of the faculty, so that we can say rude
>> things about them?
>
> It's a certificate provided by the Scottish Vocational
> Education Council[1] which is roughly indicative that you've
> learnt something up to "Higher standard"[2], but haven't
> actually taken a Higher. Usually taken in vocational subjects
> (hence the name; I also have an NC in Library and Information
> Science, which is absolutely no help at all in getting me a
> job in a library).
Thank you for that explanation. It sounds like a good idea that doesn't
work.
>
> Unfortunately I don't remember who exactly said what, as I was
> in a state of shock at the time.
In that case, let's all curse the whole faculty, individually and
collectively.
Lesley Weston
agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 20/02/2007 8:36 PM:
> "Lesley Weston" wrote ...
>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Er...no, actually. I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English.
>>> Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
>> No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in offering
>> examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone here might
>> have majored in whatever I name.
>>
>
> No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or Medicine.
> The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled Higher and Deeper.[1]
But I'm in favour of ivory tower waffling, both Ph.D. and Sunk Lower and
Shallower. What I mean by Unreal Studies would be something like
Interpersonal Relationships or Advanced Basketweaving. It seems unlikely
that those two exist, so I'm probably not insulting anyone here. I hope.
Lesley Weston
Lab-instructors who go in for offering such things in class usually find
themselves seeking employment elsewhere.
Richard Heathfield
> in article dm6ot2hfua1d0lqrf...@4ax.com, SteveD at
> use...@vo.id.au wrote on 21/02/2007 2:12 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:25:56 GMT, Lesley Weston
>> <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> no book can supply what you get from a lab and a lab-instructor.
>>
>> Third-degree burns in interesting places?
>
> Lab-instructors who go in for offering such things in class usually
> find themselves seeking employment elsewhere.
...or set up in business on their own account...
Winterbay
> in article Z_PCh.1080363$R63.868241@pd7urf1no, April Goodwin-Smith at
> agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 20/02/2007 8:36 PM:
>
>> "Lesley Weston" wrote ...
>>> April Goodwin-Smith wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> Er...no, actually. I have a Bachelor of Arts with a major in English.
>>>> Just about as fluffy-bunny as you can get.
>>> No, I would count that as a Real Study. I'm somewhat hampered in offering
>>> examples of what I mean by the other by the fear that someone here might
>>> have majored in whatever I name.
>>>
>> No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or Medicine.
>> The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled Higher and Deeper.[1]
>
> But I'm in favour of ivory tower waffling, both Ph.D. and Sunk Lower and
> Shallower. What I mean by Unreal Studies would be something like
> Interpersonal Relationships or Advanced Basketweaving. It seems unlikely
> that those two exist, so I'm probably not insulting anyone here. I hope.
>
There was a course at the GOthenburg University in "Advanced Bread
baking". WOuld that fit the image of "Unreal Studies"?
/Winterbay
Richard Bos
> I managed to be accepted at a decent university (Edinburgh)
BTW (and unrelated): are you still in that city?
Richard
-Wee Rocket
I once asked a theology student what DD and LLD stood for and he
explained: "Doezy Doats and Little Lambzy Divey."
-Rock http://www.rockyfrisco.com
--
The World's Best Free News Service: http://www.rationalreview.com/
Hendrik Schober
> [...]
> There was a course at the GOthenburg University in "Advanced Bread
> baking". WOuld that fit the image of "Unreal Studies"?
What's "Advanced Bread"? Can one eat it?
> /Winterbay
Schobi
--
Spam...@gmx.de is never read
I'm HSchober at gmx dot de
"I'm a Jack of all trades, master of none. Means I can be
unintentionally misleading about a wide variety of subjects."
Len Oil
Richard Heathfield
> Winterbay <Peter....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> There was a course at the GOthenburg University in "Advanced Bread
>> baking". WOuld that fit the image of "Unreal Studies"?
>
> What's "Advanced Bread"? Can one eat it?
Nay, laddie - quite the reverse.
peachy ashie passion
s'okay.
I never heard of anything less fluffy bunny than health and social
policy either.
But I'm of the opinion that it's harder to study a moving target than
a staying still one. I reckon that constructing an experiment that
studies people and has some sort of scientific validity is one of the
more challenging things out there.
April Goodwin-Smith
> "April Goodwin-Smith" wrote:
>>Except for one third year psych course where the instructor's
>>idea of riveting lectures was all of us highlighting our textbooks
>>together. Oh merciful heck.
> So... how did you *feel* about zat, hmmm?
>
You'll like this. The class was taught by a real-live Phd psychiatrist
(which in BC needs medical training to use that title with the "Dr"
honorific), whose normal day-to-day job was helping people with
their generally uncomfortable psyches. And this Dr was absolutely
livid (LIVID) when people stopped turning up for lectures.
I am absolutely convinced that humans tend to go into areas that
are not natural or "easy" for them. I did: I can't make a decision
about my own life even if you give me a million dollars (US)
regardless of which choice I make as long as I just decide - but
I can help you ask all the right questions so that you can choose
a career/academic choice that you feel pretty good about. Many
of the people I've met who have gone into Psychology cannot guess
how someone will react in most day-to-day situations.
April.
April Goodwin-Smith
> The speaker: "April Goodwin-Smith"
>> No, REAL study is Nursing or Education or Engineering or
>> Medicine. The rest is all ivory tower waffling, Piled
>> Higher and Deeper.[1]
> If you're being that strict, then why Education? It's social
> science, for heaven's sake!
> I'd also be tempted to add Agriculture to the list, although I
> suppose the farmer's son in your story probably had an
> Agriculture degree, while the farmer actually knew about
> farming...
>
Sorry, I'm using the criteria of my family/class - if it doesn't
actually describe a job, it's just fluffy-bunny stuff. Agriculture
is the coals to Newcastle thing, so, yes. The man who told the
joke[1] to me was a farmer and my uncle.[3]
April.
[1] - honorific - I know it's not funny[2]
[2] - although that could just be my delivery - I tend to suck
at telling jokes. My uncle and family all laughed a lot, and
"Piled Higher and Deeper" is a stock phrase used often.
[3] - this is further complicated by this: most people with
education the farmers of my uncle's generation are going to
have met are either 2-yr college guys who know just enough
to get a job as a company rep flogging fertilizer, seeds, feeds,
meds, and so on to the farmer, or they'll be gov't agents with
a 4-yr or more credential telling farmers about the new rules,
laws, restrictions, and taxes the farmers now face.
Lister
wrote:
Edinburgh Pratchett meet ahoy!
Daibhid Ceanaideach
speaker: ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
Nope, I returned to Inverness after the course collapsed. I
still see Auld Reekie as a sort of "secondary home city"
though.
CCA
> Hendrik Schober said:
> > What's "Advanced Bread"? Can one eat it?
> Nay, laddie - quite the reverse.
It eats you?
CCA
Richard Heathfield
Yes, which is why baking it is considered sufficiently difficult to be
worthy of study at degree level.
Arthur Hagen
> Hendrik Schober said:
>
> > Winterbay <Peter....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> There was a course at the GOthenburg University in "Advanced Bread
> >> baking". WOuld that fit the image of "Unreal Studies"?
> >
> > What's "Advanced Bread"? Can one eat it?
>
> Nay, laddie - quite the reverse.
It's suppository?
Regards,
--
*Art
David Chapman
> Edinburgh Pratchett meet ahoy!
We already have regular Edinburgh meets. We just don't invite *you*.
:P
Lesley Weston
Yes, I think so. And someone here was talking a while back about a course
that required watching the lighter offerings on TV - just watching, no
essays or analyses or anything else.
Lesley Weston
agoodw...@shaw.ca wrote on 21/02/2007 7:14 PM:
<Piled Higher and Deeper>
> [1] - honorific - I know it's not funny[2]
I thought it was.
> [2] - although that could just be my delivery - I tend to suck
> at telling jokes. My uncle and family all laughed a lot, and
> "Piled Higher and Deeper" is a stock phrase used often.
By people outside your family too, unless I've heard it unbeknownst from a
member of your family or someone who knew a member of your family or someone
who knew someone who knew... I guess it's a phrase just begging to be
derived.
April Goodwin-Smith
> April Goodwin-Smith wrote :
>> [1] - honorific - I know it's not funny[2]
>
> I thought it was.
>
>> [2] - although that could just be my delivery - I tend to suck
>> at telling jokes. My uncle and family all laughed a lot, and
>> "Piled Higher and Deeper" is a stock phrase used often.
> By people outside your family too, unless I've heard it unbeknownst
> from a member of your family or someone who knew a member of
> your family or someone who knew someone who knew... I guess
> it's a phrase just begging to be derived.
>
Well, alright then, I'll confess that I laughed. And, I will make you
a present of the correct wording for the MS, which I had forgotten
earlier. It should be "More of the Same."
And you might indeed have heard it from a family member -
remember the thirteen kids in each generation. We're everywhere;
we're everywhere![1]
April.
[1] - short and dumpy would be your clue
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> short and dumpy
This has got to be the worst answer ever in the "Name all seven
dwarfs" category...
[snip]
--
Brian Howlett - Email to From: address deleted unseen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sex is like a Bridge game. If you have a good hand, no partner
is needed.