Is the Arts course a burden to UCD

Chakar

That wouldn't be feasible anyway the whole point of university is the mass education of individuals and to reduce the size of the Arts classes wouldn't be be economically viable as we all know that people want to do Arts so big classes are necessary.

hullaballoo

I suppose it depends on where people have their priorities, but I think they should make it economically viable. I'd imagine the problem is having to increase the number of teaching staff.

pretty*monster

*sigh*
I promised myself I'd avoid posting until after my exams but this was too good to resist.

Ok -
First of all in my opinion there is not necessarily a correspondence between students who got relatively low points in the leaving and students who don't take their arts degree seriously. Among the people I know there are those who got very high points and those who barely scraped enough to get in here, those who take the degree seriously and those who don't are by no means split between those who preformed well, and those who performed less well (but in fairness, still quite well, as someone else pointed out, 375 or whatever it is are by no means bad results).

Secondly, I don't think that getting into UCD Arts having put it low down on your CAO necessarily makes you take it any less seriously either. I say this as someone who put arts down at number six or something, only to miss out on Trinity by 5 scabby points. I'm sure there are lots of arts students like me who make the best of it and at this stage I consider missing out on those 5 points to be one of the luckiest near-misses of my life. Yes there are defiantly arts students who aren't happy about studying arts here, but again (and I can only go on experience here) I know far more people who ended up in low-points science courses that they weren't happy about and yet science does not suffer the same low reputation that arts seems to.

So, for these reasons, I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that by limiting places and thus driving up the points requirement will necessarily result in only the 'quality' students getting in.

anonymous_joe wrote:

I did a couple of art's subjects for electives (sociology :rolleyes: ), and I must say, a big giant room of a few hundred people is not great for learning. (Although I could say the same about Acc and Eco) .

I disagree

Can large classes create a poor learning environment? Yes, they defiantly can. But they don't have to.
My philosophy class has 90 students but the learning environment is generally great, mainly I think because the lecturer's encourage questions and generally attempt to get a bit of class participation going. I've never worried about throwing my hand up in a philosophy lecture.
I defiantly don't feel the same in my english lectures. And a friend of mine who sat in on one of my political philosophy lectures said he'd never really encountered that kind of 'asking questions, generating debate' sort of thing happening in other arts subjects.
Now, I don't know, but I hope that philosophy isn't the only class with this approachable style of lecturing, but even if it is it proves to me that with the right attitude a large lecture theatre can still be conductive to learning.


And finally on the question of whether such large numbers cause a cliquey atmosphere/make arts a soulless course...

I think our massive numbers can be a strength as well as a weakness.
With the amount of students in arts you are one hundred percent assured that there are like-minded people around you. The only question is of finding them, which you can readily do through societies, clubs etc.

So yeah, arts might mean that you're faced with 500 people in theatre L and you may never see the girl sitting next to you again but if you make a little more effort you can meet better people who you actually have some commonality with...

I mean, there were 30 people in my class in school and I got to know them all very well, but it didn't mean I particularly liked them, or had anything much in common with them. Whereas in arts, yeah, I don't know most of the people in my english class, but the volume of people means that I can find people who satisfy my particular niche desires to talk about the nature of reality over lunch or have a blazing row about socialism in the bar


So, to conclude, no. The solution to arts low rep is not limiting places.
There are defiantly problems to be addressed within the college... but my post is already really long and I should go back to the library so I'll leave that off for the moment...

firespinner wrote:

I can understand having 50 places for socially useless subjects like philosophy, but for subjects like economics much bigger numbers are needed.

I have zero interest in getting into a row with you over this but rest assured that A) you are very very wrong, and The implicit aim of your post (making me briefly very very angry) was achieved.

scop

In a relatively free society surely supply shoukd meet demand, Im sure the economisits might agree with that one Firespinner.

There are ways of seeing society in which hopefully we might all study useful subjects and become engineers, doctors and scientists, but there is also the that if lots of people do well and desire to study whatever they so wish then thats just dandy.

Anyway most Arts students go on to do jobs that arent niche, thats a valuable group of educated people entering all manner of fields, and not neccessarily stunted by the dogmas of an academic grounding in a paticular field.

anonymous_joe

In fairness 90 people's tolerable, two or three-hundred's too many. Even if they found a way to have two or three courses running simultaneously...

scop

anonymous_joe wrote:

In fairness 90 people's tolerable, two or three-hundred's too many. Even if they found a way to have two or three courses running simultaneously...

Why is it too many? What terribly negative effects on society is it having?

Th educational standards in Arts are fine as well.

anonymous_joe

People find it intimidating, there's no scope for effective discussion in lecture halls. That'd be too.

scop

anonymous_joe wrote:

People find it intimidating, there's no scope for effective discussion in lecture halls. That'd be too.

I'm sorry but thats not exactly a great reason if they lowered the numbers they might find they havent a course lecture to feel intimated about.

anonymous_joe

Different strokes for different folks.

snickerpuss

anonymous_joe wrote:

People find it intimidating, there's no scope for effective discussion in lecture halls. That'd be too.

Art History is pretty small, maybe 30/40? (and thats including loads of JYAs)
and we never talk, ever. I don't think anyone even knows each other.

Theres 80 odd in irish and theres far more talking (but then we did all have to go away together)

So in my experience, not very true.

hullaballoo

Would there be any objections to me adding another option to the poll? Something like "Re-organise it, but keep the numbers the same."

blondie83

I think that Humanities are very important, and that as such the Arts course itself is not a burden to UCD. There is the argument that the numbers need to be cut, but I don't see the need. (Unless there are labs or students require more individualised attention for specialist courses). I was just talking to my father about this, and he made the interesting point that when he was studying engineering in UCD about 30 years ago the Arts students viewed themselves as the most important element of the college and made a point of looking down on engineers! He said that the literary courses and humanities were considered to be the most important by the governing authority - and the more "useful" courses distrusted slightly and left to their own devices. This could be in keeping with society at the time (The Irish public has always had more time for its great writers than its great mathematicians/scientists/engineers:p ).

Amusing story now: One day, again while my father was in college, the Engineers decided they were fed up with the arts students attitude, and led by a student who is now a certain famous television personality launched an attack on the Arts students. They entered the arts canteen with flour and eggs ect and blitzed the place and everyone in it! Now the arts students sought revenge and decided to mount an attack on the engineering building (beside the Dáil at the time). They were seen coming however and met by engineering students who had pulled out all the fire hoses from the building and soaked them untill they all ran off! Today the engineering building in UCD has a number of firehoses on the 2nd and 3rd floor by the front windows, perfectly positioned to hit anyone coming up the path! Someone designing that building had a sense of humour anyway

Red Alert

Now I know what to do with those firehoses!

happydaz

where to start to reply to this poll....

i did arts and yes it was because i wasn't sure which direction i wanted to go in after i left school. however i loved the subjects that i took, i loved arts, i loved learning and the only downside was the underfunded library. i didn't think itwas an 'easy degree'-is there really such a thing??

secondly, unless i've missed it, an important issue hasnt been mentioned here. arts is a predominantly female degree, i don't think there' sa need to mention why right now. anyway it's a vastly popular degree, whether as course by itself or a course to lead people on to other courses. having said that it received only 0.5% of the overall funding for research budget of the government...if arts was better funded would it be better researched and would women be better paid? and, yes, women are paid less than men in ireland.

Chakar

We should definitely wage war on the engineers now.Revenge to be done...

Blush_01

UCD wasn't my first choice on my CAO form. However, by the time leaving cert results were rolling round, I would have died if I had got my first choice - I chose it for all the wrong reasons.

How you approach college will dictate how well you learn there. If you go in wanting to learn, then you'll do what you have to to achieve that aim. I missed about 15 hours of college all year, and most of that was because I was sick for an entire week. Why? I love my course. I couldn't see myself enjoying anything else as much.

I was in those huge 600+ classes at the beginning of college. I thought they were great. The buzz of voices in the air, the potential to talk to new people on a daily basis - it was fantastic. However, I had no idea who my class rep was. It wasn't that I wasn't in class - I always was. I was the liaison in first year between the department and the class, and everyone thought I was SU Class Rep because I was the only one who ever talked to them. I likewise had no idea last year who my rep was, and only know this year because I harrassed Dave Curran until he found out for me. Not once in English has the class rep (who, leading up to the elections, promised fantastic things like class parties galore and notes online etc.) surfaced, never mind come through with their promises. I'd have run myself if I hadn't so many other things on.

Also, although many valid points have been made, I'd like to add - the points for certain Arts courses have risen dramatically since their formulation as Mode 1 subjects through the CAO. I can't remember what my course was points-wise this year, but it was definitely in the 500s, as was Philosophy (afaik) and History (also afaik). With Horizons more and more subjects are becoming single majors, classes are becoming smaller etc. Give the new system a few years to work (especially when the college isn't trying to run two different systems simultaneously) and then come back with these suggestions, because at the moment they're a bit premature.

However - I am 100% in favour of Arts as it is/was. If you're in a class of 600, the potential is so immense. Stop caring so much and go mad by randomly nattering to people - then next time you see them, smile, wave, say hi, whatever. Just because big is intimidating doesn't mean that you can't cope, you just have to develop some survival skills. People can't snip the world down to size because you're uncomfortable living on a planet with in excess of 6 billion people on it. Get over it! (I know that sounds heartless, but I think people are honestly so scared of talking to just anybody, they wait to find someone who seems like them - you're not a sheep [no offence to any internet-using sheep out there!] so cultivate a diverse group of people around you. I has horrifically shy coming to UCD, I nearly fell off my seat in Th. P before I first talked to someone because I was so nervous. Push past it!) Acquaint yourself with a wealth of different people, and you'll always have someone to talk to about something.

happydaz

rock on-arts is an amazing experience-changes the way you see the world!:D

singingstranger

@OT: dunno which way to vote on this one because 500 would be far too small, but those who do get into the course are stigmatised by the lower points requirement which itself is a symptom of the course itself being too big. I'd prob be in favour of Hulla's hypothetical third option, and would back up dajaffa's idea of having stuff rearranged into far smaller groups, even if it did mean the necessary recruitment of a bucketload of new academics to teach them.

On the issue of rankings, and where UCD,D are in the rankings (and compared to other Universities), do remember that there are faculty (or equivalent) based rankings (i.e. Engineering & IT, Science etc.) I think it's in the Times Higher Education Supplement.

snickerpuss

singingstranger wrote:

@OT: dunno which way to vote on this one because 500 would be far too small, but those who do get into the course are stigmatised by the lower points requirement which itself is a symptom of the course itself being too big.

Eh i don't feel stigmatised by arts having low points, i don't need to do a course with 500 points just so i can have a big ego.
Am i missing why this is important?

Would you be embarrassed to be in arts just cos you need 375 or whatever? I'd just be happy to be there.

singingstranger

snickerpuss wrote:

Eh i don't feel stigmatised by arts having low points, i don't need to do a course with 500 points just so i can have a big ego.
Am i missing why this is important?

Would you be embarrassed to be in arts just cos you need 375 or whatever? I'd just be happy to be there.

My point is that people outside of Arts have the idea that the degree is toilet-paper (hence all the bathroom graffiti to that extent), and I think a lot of it boils down to Arts being so big, and therefore having a lower points value. Because a pretty big portion of the Arts populace only fell into the course by missing higher CAO choices people have this idea that it's a last resort, just for the sake of getting any degree at all. Personally I don't feel at all that way because my degree is semi-Arts and I can only imagine how geniunely hard it can be to juggle two or three subjects the same size as my German course.

snickerpuss

But who cares if people think my degree is useless?

I love my subjects, its what i wanted to do. I really couldn't care less if people thought it was my last resort cos i couldn't get onto a "real" course. I'm happy and thats all i'm worried about.

I wouldn't advocate reducing the points simply so some arts students could could feel better about their course.

singingstranger

snickerpuss wrote:

But who cares if people think my degree is useless?

I love my subjects, its what i wanted to do. I really couldn't care less if people thought it was my last resort cos i couldn't get onto a "real" course. I'm happy and thats all i'm worried about.

I wouldn't advocate reducing the points simply so some arts students could could feel better about their course.

Don't get me wrong - doing the bit of Arts that I do, I know that it's a damn tough and worthwhile degree! All I'm saying is that other people have the tendency to look down on it because of its lower points tally.

I think in another way the value of the Arts degree is preserved by the diverse subject range. If it was smaller and you had a larger quantity of people coming out with identical degrees, it would serve only the higher-pointed students better if it was a slightly more exclusive degree. Having a few hundred people coming out at a time with identical History/Politics or English/History degrees will in most people's eyes devalue it, because all of these people will inevitably compete with each other for jobs. But in another way this would be another reason why I'd oppose reducing it to 500 people a year, too - minority subjects might become extinct as their classes dwindle into single numbers. Multiple subjects is dependant on the high enrolment for the course, which in turn acts as a market de-valuer for the degree. Bit of a vicious circle really, but on balance I don't think it's one that merits changing.

(there's been a few edits to this, and it still looks really contradictory. Pfft. This is why I don't argue much.)

snickerpuss

I pretty much fully agree with you but i'm not sure if lots of arts graduates every year devalues it, cos most will go on and specialise in one of their subjects, or in business or teaching (of course some will get jobs) but when everyones done they'll probably have quite different degrees cos lots specialise.
Anyway i'm waffling...

hullaballoo

I took the liberty of adding an option to the poll. If anyone wants their vote changed, PM me.

beanyb

I dont understand why so many people think that Arts is a low points course. I know plenty of people that would've killed to get 375 when they were doing the LC, and the average is 300 or something.

I dont think that the points stigmatise it at all, since people doing Mode 1 subjects that have higher points still get the whole toilet paper degree thing said to them. And also since as others have argued the points for science are far lower.

There is no REAL stigma about arts, it's just an easy target IMHO. As far as my experience with people goes, most people that slag arts dont actually mean what they're saying. It's just a long running joke that people seem to think doesnt get old.

humbert

I'd say that's about right, I think the low hours and more relaxed nature of the average arts student adds to the impression. As I've said before, or at least thought about saying before, the points for undenominated science are at about 300!

pretty*monster

I forgot to mention, I really don't think that arts poor rep exists anywhere but in gossip and nasty bitching. Empoyment climate permiting a good arts dregee from ucd will get you a job, or a place in an MA, PhD whatever.

m1ke

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The quality of the degree itself is not in question. Only the most ignorant and uniformed question its relevance. It's not even worth responding to anyone who questions the relevance of the humanities and social sciences.

However, fewer, higher quality students would have a really positive effect for UCD and Ireland. It would mean less pass degrees and a better reputation in Ireland and abroad. More funding, time for research, less stress on teachers/lecturers, less time spent marking exams and essays etc... Less time having to teach remedials who shouldn't be there. The fewer, higher quality students will get more attention from lecturers and tutors and find it easier to socialise among themselves. This will drive up standards even further and increase excellence.

Universities are elitest places to be honest, they're not day care centres for rich children. Staff are just plain not interested in people without the brains and ability to achieve excellence their subject area. If you're not interested you should be somewhere else... it's a privilege not right etc...

By the way, I accept that it is completely unfair to suggest that people with high LC points will be more intelligent etc... I know many, many examples to suggest that the opposite is true. Especially considering how the LC is mostly a memory test. However, the law of averages applies

DJDC

I came across this thread and I think it has some relevance to this topic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-227350.html

Basically a UCD arts lecturer gives an insight in to what academics think of the current state of the arts program.

"Most of the time I am happy with it. However, even if the salary conditions are reasonable at UCD, the rest of the working conditions leave a lot to be desired compared to universities in some other countries. There is little in the way of a research infrastructure at UCD: the library is useless as a research tool, opportunities for research leave are few and far between and the teaching demands are somewhat heavier than at other places. Also, there is very little intellectual culture among the students, which gets wearying after a while: the courses all start to seem like remedial ones.""

Although it is wrong to project his opinions onto the entire arts teaching staff,he may have a point.What teacher/lecturer wouldnt want to deal with more interested students.