Easy Electives?

Bubs101

Do we have to pick are subjects already?
Any chance of a link

dajaffa

Bubs101 wrote:

Do we have to pick are subjects already?
Any chance of a link

Ah it'll be at least a month til we get to do that... by we I mean you cause I don't have to pick electives this year!

Pride Fighter

First year English electives are handy. No exams:)

delta_bravo

Intro to Human geography 1 . Jesus it was so easy. Done on moodle. Little 100 word assignments every week worth 10 %. No exams. So easy

analyse this

What is the criteria to be allowed to do a level 2 elective as opposed to a level 1 elective and so on...? Can a first year be admitted to do a level 2 elective from the start?

dajaffa

analyse this wrote:

What is the criteria to be allowed to do a level 2 elective as opposed to a level 1 elective and so on...? Can a first year be admitted to do a level 2 elective from the start?

Yeah once there's no pre-resiquite modules, but bear in mind that they'll generally be a fair bit tougher than an equivalent level 1 module, + I think you can only take level 2 modules as your horizons electives in 1st year

analyse this

dajaffa wrote:

+ I think you can only take level 2 modules as your horizons electives in 1st year

Sorry, I dont understand what you are trying to say:o A first year student is only allowed to take level 2 electives?

dajaffa

analyse this wrote:

Sorry, I dont understand what you are trying to say:o A first year student is only allowed to take level 2 electives?

Depends on your course. Say if you're first science, you'll take 12 modules altogether. You have to take 10 of those from level 1 science modules, but you can take 2 electives in whatever subject you like. Only exception I know of is B+L where you don't takes any orizons electives.

Ernie Ball

WellCultured wrote:

Yeah......the think is i didn't come to university to study "art History" or "geography of cities" I came to study computer science and i take that seriously and i'm not too shabby at it. So excuse me if i want an easy/fun elective rather than having to bust my ass on something that has NOTHING to do with my degree.

Hilarious to read such drivel from someone who calls him/herself "WellCultured."

When you're 40, if you have half a brain, you'll regret not having given your all to learning about some of the vast breadth of human knowledge. It was all there on offer for you (paid for by the taxpayers), but you apparently couldn't bother your hole. Not for you! You'd rather spend 3 years learning about machines. My pity for you is boundless. You've chosen to be less human.

Is there any reason why you feel you deserve to be in a University (rather than a technical college or doing on-the-job training)? The idea that universities are for job training for mindless cogs is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the Irish (and global) public.

funky penguin

You have caused lol.

Joke post, right?

Pythia

If you're handy at computers and maths and in final year, Differential Equations is pretty easy. 80% done on continuous assessment, almost everyone this year got a first. (Of course I wasn't modularised, but I presume people can do it next year in the modular system)

WellCultured

Ernie Ball wrote:

Hilarious to read such drivel from someone who calls him/herself "WellCultured."

When you're 40, if you have half a brain, you'll regret not having given your all to learning about some of the vast breadth of human knowledge. It was all there on offer for you (paid for by the taxpayers), but you apparently couldn't bother your hole. Not for you! You'd rather spend 3 years learning about machines. My pity for you is boundless. You've chosen to be less human.

Is there any reason why you feel you deserve to be in a University (rather than a technical college or doing on-the-job training)? The idea that universities are for job training for mindless cogs is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the Irish (and global) public.

well I am a taxpayer and its cool with me.

And learning about 'machines' is a dream come true for me, so if you have no respect for my chosen course go and sod off, and its 4 years not 3.

Oh and 'Easy' (or at least "not harder than my actual course") doesn't mean i wouldn't like an interesting elective i actually enjoyed "geography of cities" and it was relatively easy, it got me quite interested in buildings etc, but again thats not why i came to college.

I deserve to be in a university because of my leaving cert results you dumbass and i chose UCD because i like all the culture and possibilities offered by a large city.

pretty*monster

WellCultured wrote:

Yeah......the think is i didn't come to university to study "art History" or "geography of cities" I came to study computer science and i take that seriously and i'm not too shabby at it. So excuse me if i want an easy/fun elective rather than having to bust my ass on something that has NOTHING to do with my degree.

I have to agree with you. I went to uni to study English and philosophy. Had I been forced to take an elective in an unrelated field I would have seen it as nothing but a waste of everybody's time.

This doesn't mean, as Ernie Ball has suggested that I am not interested in the vast breath of human knowledge. For it turns out that I A) have a vast library at my disposal, and have managed to learn something bout independent study during my time in ucd.

In any case, one only has to look at the title of this thread to see how the system of electives is used by many (dare I say most) students.

aequinoctium

touché

gerry87

Ernie Ball wrote:

Hilarious to read such drivel from someone who calls him/herself "WellCultured."

When you're 40, if you have half a brain, you'll regret not having given your all to learning about some of the vast breadth of human knowledge. It was all there on offer for you (paid for by the taxpayers), but you apparently couldn't bother your hole. Not for you! You'd rather spend 3 years learning about machines. My pity for you is boundless. You've chosen to be less human.

Is there any reason why you feel you deserve to be in a University (rather than a technical college or doing on-the-job training)? The idea that universities are for job training for mindless cogs is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the Irish (and global) public.

You're talking as if a hard elective is superior to an easy one. It's not. Whats wrong with looking for subjects that are better suited to what you like. A hard elective for one person is an easy one for someone else. I just made this thread to find out what other people thought of different electives.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

You're talking as if a hard elective is superior to an easy one. It's not. Whats wrong with looking for subjects that are better suited to what you like.

Nothing is wrong with that. But that's not what this thread is about. It's about using perceived ease as the sole criterion for choosing for those who see university as a matter of getting the maximum for the minimum. Which is why I say we'd be better off just building printing presses for the parchments and start handing them out on the street.

A hard elective for one person is an easy one for someone else. I just made this thread to find out what other people thought of different electives.

Right. Sure. The first statement makes the entire topic bogus. What you wanted were electives that were universally perceived to be easy.

Ernie Ball

WellCultured wrote:

And learning about 'machines' is a dream come true for me, so if you have no respect for my chosen course go and sod off, and its 4 years not 3.

I have no respect for your chosen course or any course that is simple job training. Sorry but that's not what a University is about. Read Cardinal Newman (who he?) and get back to me.

Oh and 'Easy' (or at least "not harder than my actual course") doesn't mean i wouldn't like an interesting elective i actually enjoyed "geography of cities" and it was relatively easy, it got me quite interested in buildings etc, but again thats not why i came to college.

No, you came to college to become a cog on the big wheel of industry. And a cog you shall be.

I deserve to be in a university because of my leaving cert results you dumbass

Sorry, but the fact that the entirely bogus and perverted system for university admissions in this country allows thousands of dolts and dullards to get through is not an argument in your favour.

and i chose UCD because i like all the culture and possibilities offered by a large city.

What do you mean by 'culture' and what do you know about it?

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

I have no respect for your chosen course or any course that is simple job training.

Just because there are courses which give you a qualification for a particular job?? Seriously if that's you criteria I'm at a loss... say any health science courses, yes we learn how to do a job, but the science bit is well learning the reasons behind why we do what we do because as time changes the way of doing jobs does and well with a degree you have the knowledge to adapt, apply the skills you learn to different things etc etc

Ernie Ball wrote:

Sorry, but the fact that the entirely bogus and perverted system for university admissions in this country allows thousands of dolts and dullards to get through is not an argument in your favour.

At the end of the day we have a transparent system which makes it a lot fairer than other systems, though it is not without its faults. The reason we haven't changed it is mostly because it's pretty much uncorruptable. And well if these "dolts and dullards" work harder in school than other people then they deserve the place in university that they have earnt.

Ernie Ball wrote:

Right. Sure. The first statement makes the entire topic bogus. What you wanted were electives that were universally perceived to be easy.

No, they said they wanted an easy "preferrably mathsy" elective. So what they were looking for was an elective that was easy for a mathsy person

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

Just because there are courses which give you a qualification for a particular job?? Seriously if that's you criteria I'm at a loss... say any health science courses, yes we learn how to do a job, but the science bit is well learning the reasons behind why we do what we do because as time changes the way of doing jobs does and well with a degree you have the knowledge to adapt, apply the skills you learn to different things etc etc

Sure, but if that's all you know then you don't know much. If you know 'the science bit' but nothing of philosophy or literature or art or history or even the history of science then you are, quite simply, not an educated person. And uneducated people is what UCD churns out in droves.

I can forgive them for being uneducated: it's what the system produces. I cannot forgive them for wanting to be uneducated, which is what this thread is about.

Let's suppose the following deal were on offer to all incoming students: you could not attend a single class or read a single book but could hang around UCD and have access to all the facilities and party your arse off and, at the end, we would give you a parchment and a transcript showing middling to high grades in the subject of your choice. How many would sign up? Judging from my experience of UCD students, I'd be willing to bet a majority would sign up. And not one of those who would has any business being in a university.

At the end of the day we have a transparent system which makes it a lot fairer than other systems, though it is not without its faults. The reason we haven't changed it is mostly because it's pretty much uncorruptable. And well if these "dolts and dullards" work harder in school than other people then they deserve the place in university that they have earnt.

This is a side issue, but the Leaving Cert rewards mindless rote learning of the sort that dolts and dullards have no trouble with. When they get to university, though, any course that requires them to do something other than mindless rote learning (which works in business and computer science and the like) is perceived as 'abstract' and therefore 'hard' and to be avoided.

No, they said they wanted an easy "preferrably mathsy" elective. So what they were looking for was an elective that was easy for a mathsy person

But the OP would accept some other sort of easy elective: the easiness would carry the day...

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

Sure, but if that's all you know then you don't know much. If you know 'the science bit' but nothing of philosophy or literature or art or history or even the history of science then you are, quite simply, not an educated person. And uneducated people is what UCD churns out in droves.

Well I cannot agree with you there. Frankly you have a very narrow view of what an educated person is. I do physiotherapy, I'm taught anatomy, physiology, exercise pescription and a range of treatment methods among other things. I'm involved in the Student's Union, and there's a big library full of books where if I so choose I can educate myself about anything.

No I could go on and on aout this, but suffice to say does it make me a less educated person if I learn about the History of science (ie facts that will contribute little to my understanding and/or creativity) rather than do a research project from which I develop a treatment which increases limb fubction of stroke patients which leads to thousands of people being more independent and living at home. It seems to me that that is what you believe in which case I will pay no more heed to any of your posts.

Ernie Ball wrote:

This is a side issue, but the Leaving Cert rewards mindless rote learning of the sort that dolts and dullards have no trouble with. When they get to university, though, any course that requires them to do something other than mindless rote learning (which works in business and computer science and the like) is perceived as 'abstract' and therefore 'hard' and to be avoided.

I can't speak for business as I've only ever done in in the LC for a year, but any science course is a hell of a lot more than rote learning. They require the ability to understand how things works, sometimes abstract processes, and use things they have learnt to come up with new methods of doing things. Put it this way, if you had a photographic memory, you may cruise through the first year or two of most college courses, but they would struggle to pass 3rd and fourth year exams when lecturers expect a hell of a lot more than repeating in exams what they've told you in class.

WellCultured

Ernie,

I see little point in continuing a discussion with an ignorant and narrow minded person such as yourself who i suspect is one one those people who looks down on anyone who hasn't read the collected works of William Shakespeare or acquired a taste for opera.

That said this point i cannot let slide.

"any course that requires them to do something other than mindless rote learning (which works in business and computer science and the like) is perceived as 'abstract' and therefore 'hard' and to be avoided"

I'll have you know that programming involves a considerable amount of reasoning, deduction, abstract thinking and problem solving.

Oh and in the real world you cannot just go to university to further your learning and breadth of knowledge you have to go so you can get a degree and then a job so that you can pay off your student loans and support yourself in life.

By culture i mean art, music, architecture, food, books etc.

gerry87

Ernie, you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about all this. I've talked this through with people before, you're talking about 'a jack of all trades, master of none' education system. The world wouldn't work if that was the case, if everyone just had a grounding in every subject. We need people to forgo studying in some areas to become specialists in their chosen area.

This thread served it's purpose for me, someone mentioned a subject they were looking at, Quantitative analysis for Business, and i looked at it and picked it. Even though some people advised against it. I could have picked a history course, but i know myself, i would have had to put so much extra work into it that over all i would be 'less educated' in all my other subjects.

Get off your high horse.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

Ernie, you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about all this. I've talked this through with people before, you're talking about 'a jack of all trades, master of none' education system.

Nonsense. I'm talking about the modular programme at UCD and the opportunities it provides, opportunities that many of you are happy to squander.

The world wouldn't work if that was the case, if everyone just had a grounding in every subject. We need people to forgo studying in some areas to become specialists in their chosen area.

At US universities--which are the finest in the world by most measures--undergraduates are required to take a wide variety of subjects in their first two years before specialising in their last two. But, of course, their real professional training takes place post-graduation. Which is how it should be: if you want professional training, get it yourself. The state's interest in undergraduate education ought to be in the production of rational and critical citizens rather than pliable cogs. Which is to say that no undergraduate subject that is mere training has any 'business' (pardon my pun) in a university.

Get off your high horse.

Which means what? God forbid anyone disturb the lazy consensus....

WellCultured wrote:

I see little point in continuing a discussion with an ignorant and narrow minded person such as yourself

dajaffa wrote:

Frankly you have a very narrow view of what an educated person is.

Ah, yes, my view that one shouldn't be wasting one's time looking for 'easy' courses, that one should broaden one's horizons with Literature and Philosophy while one can, is just so 'narrow.' I see. So the 'broad minded' view says: study physiotherapy or marketing or some other such drivel more appropriate to an RTC or night classes and fill your electives with dozy tripe like Underwater Basket Weaving.

I guess I stand corrected.

Ernie Ball

WellCultured wrote:

"any course that requires them to do something other than mindless rote learning (which works in business and computer science and the like) is perceived as 'abstract' and therefore 'hard' and to be avoided"

I'll have you know that programming involves a considerable amount of reasoning, deduction, abstract thinking and problem solving.

Does it include learning anything about what it means to be a human being?

Oh and in the real world you cannot just go to university to further your learning and breadth of knowledge you have to go so you can get a degree and then a job so that you can pay off your student loans and support yourself in life.

This thread is about people looking for 'easy' electives in the real world. The fact is that there are many substantive electives about important and worthwhile subjects that any of the people posting here could take if they weren't looking for the maximum grade for the minimum amount of work.

It's discouraging to see the mindset of a spiritually dead person in someone so young (I assume).

By culture i mean art, music, architecture, food, books etc.

Things about which you're unlikely to know very much if you haven't studied them and studied them hard.

gerry87

The modular program in ucd is intended to give students a choice. They can pick subjects to broaden their horizons, as the title suggests, or they can specialise in their chosen subjects. There's nothing wrong with either one. Personally i've decided to specialise in the subject i've picked.

And whats all this about squandering taxpayers money? The government isn't paying for it as a gift. It's an investment in human capital, the economy gains more from paying for it than it spends on it. In fact, if either way is squandering taxpayers money it's learning about things that you won't use in the workforce, thats wasting taxpayers money.

On a side note, that crack about 'learning about machines'. Thats out of line to belittle somebody's course, no amount of education gives you the right to be a jerk. Can I ask what you chose to study?

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

So the 'broad minded' view says: study physiotherapy or marketing or some other such drivel more appropriate to an RTC or night classes and fill your electives with dozy tripe like Underwater Basket Weaving.

Right so, if physio is drivel, then radiography, nursing, occupational therapy, speech + language therapy and medicine must be too. So basically lets get rid of most of the research that goes on in universities + hope everyone just stays healthy...

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

Right so, if physio is drivel, then radiography, nursing, occupational therapy, speech + language therapy and medicine must be too. So basically lets get rid of most of the research that goes on in universities + hope everyone just stays healthy...

All of those have a place: as professional postgraduate courses. Anyone who majors in them as an undergraduate is squandering their opportunity.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

And whats all this about squandering taxpayers money? The government isn't paying for it as a gift. It's an investment in human capital, the economy gains more from paying for it than it spends on it. In fact, if either way is squandering taxpayers money it's learning about things that you won't use in the workforce, thats wasting taxpayers money.

There's more to being a citizen than paying taxes. But I deplore your mercantile mindset. Not everything amounts to euro and cents. Any government that saw third-level education as simply another area of investment (with the necessity of return on investment) would be very short-sighted indeed. In fact, the Brady regime at UCD is based on a very similar idea: Schools are now meant to be run as little businesses and must turn a profit. Ask yourself what role the students have in all this... If UCD were a sausage factory, they'd be the sausages.

Taxpayers' money is indeed being squandered if students are taking courses based only on their perceived easiness. That is the only context in which I made the remark.

On a side note, that crack about 'learning about machines'. Thats out of line to belittle somebody's course, no amount of education gives you the right to be a jerk.

Sorry, but some university 'subjects' (the entirety of undergraduate commerce, every practical discipline) are worthy of being belittled. The people who take them are victims because they will never again (in all likelihood) have the opportunity to wrestle with the most profound questions and ideas that humans have come up with. None of those are to be found in the School of Physiotherapy or Marketing (or whatever).

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

All of those have a place: as professional postgraduate courses. Anyone who majors in them as an undergraduate is squandering their opportunity.

So you'd prefer either (a) the government to pay for 2 degrees or (b) only rich people to be able to go to college. All of this assuming that its better to keep ppl on college for 2/3/4 years longer so they actually earn less in their lifetime + we loose a fair percentage of tax revenue?

gerry87

Ernie Ball wrote:

There's more to being a citizen than paying taxes. But I deplore your mercantile mindset. Not everything amounts to euro and cents. Any government that saw third-level education as simply another area of investment (with the necessity of return on investment) would be very short-sighted indeed. In fact, the Brady regime at UCD is based on a very similar idea: Schools are now meant to be run as little businesses and must turn a profit. Ask yourself what role the students have in all this... If UCD were a sausage factory, they'd be the sausages.

Well I deplore your romantic view of the world. I'd love to have the luxury of not caring what job i can get in the future, most people don't. There's an area I would like to work in, there are factors that dictate whether or not I end up there; What i study and what grades I get. If I can get better grades in the subjects i need by taking a course i find 'easy/enjoyable', then I'll do it.

Now if somebody wants a broader education with plenty of 'culture'; art, literature, music, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, who are you to say either way is right or wrong?