Which of these subjects belong in a trade school?

Eoin Macollamh

Red Alert wrote:

I don't harbour any serious resentment for any of my lecturers, I wish more of them would come on here from time to time. If you don't break any rules of the forum Eoin nobody can ban or censor you.

I haven't broken any of the rules of the forum. Unless, of course, the rules are whatever a mod says they are and therefore can't be known in advance. But if that's the case, then it doesn't matter what I say: they can ban or censor me whenever they like. Sorry, but no lecturer is going to put up with that.

I really must be going...

panda100

humbert wrote:

I think the question is should colleges be there to educate people primarily for a career or for purely academic reasons and do some of the courses mentioned indicate that things are moving toward the former and away form the latter. Is this a good thing?

Yeah I think this is true. I think it would be really sad (wipes tear away) if college was just about courses with set job for life at the end of them. I think its unhealthy if all courses would have a set career path at the end of it. Lots of people dont know what they want to do when there 17/18 and so having open-ended courses such as arts have lots of carrer options at the end. That is why I did medicine because I knew I wanted to do something sort of medically related and medicne gave me a good grounding so I can go into medica jornalism,medical law or anything I want pretty easily when I qualify.
During the exams I studied out in Smurfit quite a lot and it has a really career focused,not nice vibe out there.Thats how I imagine UCD to be if some of the non career courses were to be dropped.....horrible environment!

the evil lime wrote:

I must also admit to attending a few History lectures

This I also ADMIT.I went into a greek (geek!) and roman lecture with one of my friendS once and it was really intresting and a few psychologys ones too.

singingstranger

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

2) "Prejudices": my views are not "prejudices" (anymore than are the views of the poster who wants to discuss where Arts should be cut back). They are considered judgements cultivated over the course of half a lifetime in academia. I can point you to any number of very deep thinkers of the sort one never encounters in Business School who share my views, starting with Cardinal Newman himself (oh, the irony). And I'm prepared to defend them with evidence and argument if need be. An Arts degree (or three) prepares you for such things...

Oh, of course. You're not at all prejudiced. You just think that you can prove that every single one of the 200+ staff whose names appear on the wall in the Quinn School are more shallow thinkers than you. Of course.

You, Sir (or Madam), are emblematic of the self-perpetuating elitism that hinders any chances of development or evolution that Brady's reforms might allow, regardless of the added bureaucracy that comes alongside.

Surely someone with three varying Arts degrees would consider themselves bigger than mirroring insults back, but all you're prepared to do is flame the entire School of Business just because somebody else decided that the various courses in Arts weren't their particular cup of tea. I'm appalled that my University contains such academics as those who, despite triplicate qualification, still revert to petty eye-for-an-eye arguments. Do you honestly think you're better than Firespinner by doing that? Because all you're doing is spitting on the notion that knowledge is its own reward by showing that you're on the same intellectual plane as Firespinner, an undergrad, is. In fact, even lesser, because you didn't attempt to justify why the subjects you chose have a lesser contribution to the world.

Whatever about recruiting student support for resistance against the clearly unpopular reforms - which is of course acceptable, I for one will not be sorry to see the back of you.

The_Minister

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

4) "Inflammatory": I started this thread precisely because I was "inflamed" (relatively) by the arrogance and stupidity of the thread about cutting back on arts. I note the double standard: that thread passed with nary a whimper from you and continues to exist today. But a thread questioning the appropriateness of practical disciplines where thinking is, uh, an afterthought (rather than essential) is somehow beyond the pale. That's a double-standard I'm afraid. Note: I'm not for one minute saying the other thread should be censored.

As I pointed out above, you provided no arguement as regards each subject, you merely stuck them up and left. I at least was trying for serious discussion, but this thread is nothing but a petty attempt at a comeback. My thread was long and showed some sign of thought, yours showed none. It is not the fact that your thought was beyond the pale but that you made no arguement to back it up. It is not a double-standard, your post was just exceptionally sub-par.



Also while Hullabaloo has only modded us a while, he has been a fair mod throughout. He never posts against lecturers and it is small-minded to try and put his modding down to merely resentment.


EDIT: SS Please don't drag me down to his intellectual plane. He feels so impotent that he had to compare Hugh Brady to George Bush.

Eoin Macollamh

singingstranger wrote:

Oh, of course. You're not at all prejudiced. You just think that you can prove that every single one of the 200+ staff whose names appear on the wall in the Quinn School are more shallow thinkers than you. Of course.

That's not what I would call a charitable description of my view. Is it perhaps just possible that I was making a claim about the disciplines in the Quinn School and not the individuals in it?

You, Sir (or Madam), are emblematic of the self-perpetuating elitism that hinders any chances of development or evolution that Brady's reforms might allow, regardless of the added bureaucracy that comes alongside.

Regression is not evolution. So, yes, I will attempt to hinder evolution if it involves turning the university into something other than a place where students can broaden their minds and shed their provincial mindsets (I mean this in the sense that all of us start out with provincial mindsets) and habits of thought through encounters with the great minds of the past. That experience--rubbing up against great thinkers--is the opposite of elitist: it is humbling and broadening. And I think everyone should have that experience. To fail to make it a primary part of education at UCD is to fail to educate. By and large it does not happen in the Business School. If it does, it's by accident.

Surely someone with three varying Arts degrees would consider themselves bigger than mirroring insults back, but all you're prepared to do is flame the entire School of Business just because somebody else decided that the various courses in Arts weren't their particular cup of tea.

OK, so I'm flaming but they are "deciding that [those courses] weren't their cup of tea." Why is it not the other way around? Why am I not simply "deciding that Business courses aren't my cup of tea"?

I'm appalled that my University contains such academics as those who, despite triplicate qualification, still revert to petty eye-for-an-eye arguments.

I'm not sure why you think I'm the petty one rather than the overzealous mod.

Do you honestly think you're better than Firespinner by doing that?

I never said any such thing.

Because all you're doing is spitting on the notion that knowledge is its own reward by showing that you're on the same intellectual plane as Firespinner, an undergrad, is. In fact, even lesser, because you didn't attempt to justify why the subjects you chose have a lesser contribution to the world.

I was ready to offer such a justification (and you will find one post on the first page where I made a start), when I found that my views had already been ruled beyond the pale. How was I to continue then? The original poll subjects had been erased yet I'm expected to justify their inclusion? The only reason I didn't was because discussion had been shut down.

singingstranger

Frankly I haven't the time to go through the rest, but I can't go back to study without taking you up on this one.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Is it perhaps just possible that I was making a claim about the disciplines in the Quinn School and not the individuals in it?

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

very deep thinkers of the sort one never encounters in Business School

Don't let the virtual Boards door hit you on the way out.

Eoin Macollamh

singingstranger wrote:

Frankly I haven't the time to go through the rest, but I can't go back to study without taking you up on this one.

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

very deep thinkers of the sort one never encounters in Business School

Uh, that was a reference to the curriculum, not the lecturers. Very few of the lecturers (certainly not me) count as very deep thinkers of the sort I had in mind.

the evil lime

And I think everyone should have that experience... By and large it does not happen in the Business School. If it does, it's by accident.

Have you possibly considered that while we may be studying a slightly more career oriented curriculum, some of us may wish to avail of the University to learn more than just the assigned materials?

I've used the library to study history, English, French and computers. This was entirely voluntary (my French course did not revolve around grammar on the level I was reading it). Were I in a trade school or some other third level institution, I would not have been able to access such materials.

I've attended Arts & Law lectures I didn't have to, also simply to pick up some extra knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Consider for a moment that the student is not defined by the subject, and that perhaps the benefit of inter-mingling the faculties rather than splitting them into different institutions - we can each gain from the other.

TheVan

Added to that, such a comment about the business school shows ignorance.

At the moment I am studying for an exam in Globalisation, Post-Fordism and employee relations in general. Accounting increases your awareness of your own personal finances, skills everyone should have. I could go on...

blondie83

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

5) It's pretty clear to me what I'm dealing with here: resentment. You resent your lecturers ("who are they to grade me?") and so here you are in a position of a little power over one (finally!) and you intend to get payback. It wouldn't have mattered what I said or posted, you would've found some pretext to censor me. Sorry, I'm not into the working out of your master-slave games and that's why I'm not interested in continuing the discussion (beyond this post, obviously).

This may be the case in Arts (although I doubt it) but it certainly not the case in Engineering. As Red Alert pointed out we would have a certain level of respect for our lecturers and welcome the chance to engage them in discussion on fora such as these. I see no reason that Arts should be any different, or indeed B&L as in the case of Hullaballo. The "who are they to grade me" comment is silly - of course your lecturer in a subject is going to grade you, who elese would! (I'd imagine everyone posting here is able to accept this as well) Eoin I think you need to understand that we're not in primary or even secondary school any more where that may perhaps have been the attitude of certain individuals. Also everyone gets censored at some stage or other on boards, its necessary for a rake of different reasons and isn't something you should take so personally :cool:

Red Alert

It could be the smaller classes too and the projects - you do really get to know at least two or three lecturers quite well by final year in Elec. I know a couple well enough that they'd stop for a chat in the corridor etc.

Blush_01

Eoin, I can see that you might feel upset, but be realistic - nobody was setting out to attack you personally, but you seem to be so much on the defensive that you can't see that. Some of the remarks you have made were rather silly, really. Especially regarding the paranoia with relation to lecturers. We're not silly little children when it comes to that kind of thing -for the most part anyway.

I have to agree with Hulla. The opportunity for turning this into one big messy fight full of accusations and aggro would have been picked up by someone. Also, there's no need to "retaliate" to Firespinner's thread. He's sometimes a bit misguided, but never intended to offend, I'm sure.

This is ridiculous (especially coming from me!) but jeez, could everyone just relax?

The_Minister

Blush_01 wrote:

He's sometimes a bit misguided, but never intended to offend, I'm sure.

Would you please stop ruffling my hair, and give me my lollipop?

hullaballoo

Hmmm, this thread isn't really getting anywhere is it? I think it might be better to just be shot of it unless it gets back on topic fairly soon.

Eoin Macollamh

That's rich. Not unlike the parricide who asks for clemency on the grounds that he's an orphan.

Or maybe a better analogy is Joe Pesci and Robert DeNiro in Goodfellas putting the poor guy in the boot of their car "out of his misery." On humanitarian grounds, of course.

ozt9vdujny3srf

Eoin Macollamh, it has already been pointed out to you that this thread is not the place to complain about the moderation on this board, you have also been directed to where you can complain about it.

Yet, you continue comment on it despite the fact that the thread has in fact been left open and you have been left free to make your point.

If you want to have a discussion about what the true aims of a university should be, then start a new thread about it. I realise you had a point here, but you need to realise that this was the wrong way to make it.

Locked.