Easy Electives?

gerry87

Ernie Ball wrote:

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).

I still don't see which courses you are advocating, philosophy? Have you done any study in any of the courses you are ridiculing? I know people studying machines and you seem to have no idea what it actually entails. It teaches them how to approach problems, how to think outside the box, it's not just a class full of people repeatedly taking computers apart and putting them back together, as job training would be.

Ernie Ball

dajaffa wrote:

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.

Never said any such thing. Fact is: going to college (and a fortiori professional school) pays for itself in long term income. So, yes, you should have to pay for college, including professional degrees. I can see no compelling reason why taxpayers should pay for you. But this doesn't imply that only rich people be able to go to college: there are loan programmes and the like and should be more.

The best argument for reinstating fees, by the way, is this very thread.

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?

No undergraduate degree provides enough training to last a career. Better to spend the time developing students into well-rounded people. If one insists on being mercantile about it, there are financial payoffs to this as well. Today's economy requires flexibility of a kind that mere training cannot provide.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

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.

Great. Who are you cheating?

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?

This isn't about me. Argue against me if you like but it's not much of an argument to claim that I'm somehow in no position to hold the positions I in fact do hold. This is especially so given that you know nothing about me.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

I still don't see which courses you are advocating, philosophy? Have you done any study in any of the courses you are ridiculing?

Do I really have to endure studying physiotherapy or marketing to know that they are not wrestling with profound ideas elaborated by great minds?

I know people studying machines and you seem to have no idea what it actually entails. It teaches them how to approach problems, how to think outside the box,

How to think in clichés, more like...

it's not just a class full of people repeatedly taking computers apart and putting them back together, as job training would be.

I think I have a good idea: programming, data structures, some maths. Almost all of it is practically oriented: e.g., if you want x result, you'll have to do y. Sometimes: find your own way of achieving x result. It's not quite rote learning but it's no more than one step above.

Again: nothing too hard. Very little wrestling with the achievements of the greatest minds let alone questions that shed some light on what it means to be human...

analyse this

Ernie, to a certain extent I have to admit that I do agree with you. I find it quite discouraging to learn that people are ignoring a potentially great opportunity to broaden their 'horizons' by choosing modules that may have no benefit whatsoever to them as individuals and humans, and/or also towards their future career. And I'm sorry but I don't accept people's defense that by choosing an 'easy' and completely worthless elective they can concentrate more on the subject they have come to university to study. University/life is not meant to be easy. If you are not willing to work and expand your horizons then you should not be at college.

However (and this is a BIG however!!), I find it tremendously insulting for you to insinuate that the course that I have chosen to study (Commerce and Chinese Studies) is somehow of less importance and of less value in life because it is not YOUR course. Because I have chosen to study business I am somehow a spiritually and emotionally empty human being? I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense! In fact, I postulate whether it is you who are the emotionally empty individual with your need to belittle others and their completely acceptable choices and your constant need to glorify your own choices and way of life. You argue that these 'subjects' bear no relevance to human existence. Well I disagree. Your course may philosophise about the true meaning of life and the existence of a greater being, but, in the end, where does it get us? Will this philosophizing provide food for the millions of starving children in Africa? No. In fact, my studying of business is arguably more beneficial for human existence than yours ever will be.

Also, I find it quite amusing that you use the US as an example of a haven for well-rounded and spiritually and emotionally fulfilled individuals when, in fact, the States is arguably the most capitalist driven country on earth, who would sell its mother to make a buck.

Ernie Ball

analyse this wrote:

Ernie, to a certain extent I have to admit that I do agree with you. I find it quite discouraging to learn that people are ignoring a potentially great opportunity to broaden their 'horizons' by choosing modules that may have no benefit whatsoever to them as individuals and humans, and/or also towards their future career. And I'm sorry but I don't accept people's defense that by choosing an 'easy' and completely worthless elective they can concentrate more on the subject they have come to university to study. University/life is not meant to be easy. If you are not willing to work and expand your horizons then you should not be at college.

However (and this is a BIG however!!), I find it tremendously insulting for you to insinuate that the course that I have chosen to study (Commerce and Chinese Studies) is somehow of less importance and of less value in life because it is not YOUR course. Because I have chosen to study business I am somehow a spiritually and emotionally empty human being? I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense!

Yes, it is complete nonsense but only because you've put words in my mouth with which I do not agree. I never said or implied that, by choosing to study commerce you were 'a spiritually and emotionally empty human being'. What I said and implied was that you were wasting a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to become more than what you already know.

In fact, I postulate whether it is you who are the emotionally empty individual

You're overreaching.

with your need to belittle others and their completely acceptable choices and your constant need to glorify your own choices and way of life.

You know nothing about me, I'll remind you...

You argue that these 'subjects' bear no relevance to human existence. Well I disagree. Your course may philosophise about the true meaning of life and the existence of a greater being, but, in the end, where does it get us? Will this philosophizing provide food for the millions of starving children in Africa? No.

How can you be so sure?

In fact, my studying of business is arguably more beneficial for human existence than yours ever will be.

I was almost ready to go along with your view until you came out with this howler.

Also, I find it quite amusing that you use the US as an example of a haven for well-rounded and spiritually and emotionally fulfilled individuals when, in fact, the States is arguably the most capitalist driven country on earth, who would sell its mother to make a buck.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I spoke only one aspect of their universities, not about the nation as a whole. Only a fool would jump to simple conclusions about an entire nation...

WellCultured

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

art, music, culture, history don't need to be difficult things one shouldn't and doesn't need to "study them HARD" to appreciate them and one certainly doesn't need to go to university to learn about them, there are books, internet resources, documentaries for that. Like i said i don't mind a horizon broadening elective (i already mentioned that i enjoyed "geography of cities") but they shouldn't be as difficult and time consuming as my degree modules.

Programming may not teach me about "what it is to be a human" but by god the average arts student has so no more a clue about that than the average science student.

and just so you know philosophy is not going to stop world hunger. ever.

Hmmm.....i know i said i wasn't going to continue this but your ignorance infuriates me.

WellCultured

gerry87 wrote:

I still don't see which courses you are advocating, philosophy? Have you done any study in any of the courses you are ridiculing? I know people studying machines and you seem to have no idea what it actually entails. It teaches them how to approach problems, how to think outside the box, it's not just a class full of people repeatedly taking computers apart and putting them back together, as job training would be.

Thank you, you are absolutely right.

Ernie Ball

WellCultured wrote:

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

art, music, culture, history don't need to be difficult things one shouldn't and doesn't need to "study them HARD" to appreciate them and one certainly doesn't need to go to university to learn about them

Apparently, you have nothing to declare but your ignorance...

The tragedy of such ignorance is that you don't know you're ignorant...

there are books, internet resources, documentaries for that. Like i said i don't mind a horizon broadening elective (i already mentioned that i enjoyed "geography of cities") but they shouldn't be as difficult and time consuming as my degree modules.

...because your hell bent on knowing what you know and even the slightest bit extra is wasted energy...

Programming may not teach me about "what it is to be a human" but by god the average arts student has so no more a clue about that than the average science student.

The key is the word 'average', which I guess is what you're content to be...

and just so you know philosophy is not going to stop world hunger. ever.

Depends what you mean by 'philosophy'.

Hmmm.....i know i said i wasn't going to continue this but your ignorance infuriates me.

Are you sure it's mine?

gerry87

So we've all got different views of what university is for. If you want to believe people studying subjects that don't ponder human existence are wasting their time, nothing I say is going to change that.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

So we've all got different views of what university is for.

And, apparently, you're ready to declare that all of them are equal.

I find that one sure sign of someone undereducated is that they think that all opinions are equal and that nobody ever convinced anyone else through reason. Or, in your words:

If you want to believe people studying subjects that don't ponder human existence are wasting their time, nothing I say is going to change that.

gerry87

Ernie Ball wrote:

And, apparently, you're ready to declare that all of them are equal.

I find that one sure sign of someone undereducated is that they think that all opinions are equal and that nobody ever convinced anyone else through reason. Or, in your words:

I'm amazed by your snobbery.

analyse this

Ernie Ball wrote:

And, apparently, you're ready to declare that all of them are equal.

I find that one sure sign of someone undereducated is that they think that all opinions are equal and that nobody ever convinced anyone else through reason. Or, in your words:

I fail to see any reason in your argument. For a person who advocates philosophy I find it strange that you do not accept different views as equal, or at least acceptable.

Jonny Arson

damn those students choosing easy electives, which may i add is massive loophole all thanks to the UCD administration but of course it's all the students fault that they can do this innit

and i have a headache from reading this thread, wonder why that may be

Ernie Ball

analyse this wrote:

I fail to see any reason in your argument. For a person who advocates philosophy I find it strange that you do not accept different views as equal, or at least acceptable.

Because there's this thing called the law of the excluded middle.

Ernie Ball

gerry87 wrote:

I'm amazed by your snobbery.

Right. I suspect that everyone that disagrees with you is either a snob or a moron. Those you don't understand are snobs. Those you do are morons.

gerry87

No, in fact i've never called anybody a snob before. The fact you've labeled an astonishing number of people as uneducated makes you a snob. I've already said there's nothing wrong with your view that people can take a sprectrum of subjects to broaden their education. What i object to is you insisting everyone accepts your opinion, and belittling people in the process.

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

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).

Cause thats what we need to sustain the economy yeah. There's plenty of opportunity to do that outside the realms of formal education. Wrestle with questions all you want, but let I can assure you that 5 minutes in a neurophysiology lecture would have you lost, and without the depth of knowledge us uneducated folk get in university the world would be a vastly different place.

Frankly Einstein could be on this thread and you'd call him uneducated...

WellCultured

Ernie Ball wrote:

Apparently, you have nothing to declare but your ignorance...

The tragedy of such ignorance is that you don't know you're ignorant...



...because your hell bent on knowing what you know and even the slightest bit extra is wasted energy...



The key is the word 'average', which I guess is what you're content to be...



Depends what you mean by 'philosophy'.



Are you sure it's mine?

Yes i'm sure its yours, as are a fair few other posters too, I notice you don't bother to counter the points i made about the other avenues of learning and cultural advancement (me being so ignorant and all). Your comment about me being content to know what i know is idiotic, mainly because as i continually said i enjoyed a horizon broadening elective and it did require some effort.

You are right though the tragedy of ignorance is that you don't know you are ignorant, That must make life so easy for you.

the evil lime

You know, every time this forum seems too quiet, someone brings this argument up, and I've got to admit, I love it. It's a great one, because I simultaneously agree with both sides.

I do think that a university education is a great opportunity to broaden one's knowledge and horizons, but I have to point out here that it's a rather narrow view to take to assume that in order to undergo this growth we have to take philosophy, history and the like. I could have taken these subjects. I very nearly did an Arts degree (philosophy, history or French, and English I think I was going for).

However, I changed my mind and went for Commerce. I like the course, it has a good bit of arts-basted material in there, as you'd know if you knew anything about it. I had to read sections of Plato's "The Republic" for one of my core commerce courses (I'd already read the whole thing, but that's not the point).

We have to deal with ethics in a lot of our classes too. We study economics, a social science, marketing (how to apply psychology to extracting cash from people), computer science and some admittedly purely practical subjects, such as accountancy and finance.

Which brings me to computer science. I'm specialising now in Management Information Systems, the computers branch of Commerce, and so am obviously biased; but then again, so too is everyone else towards their particular areas of study. Computer science incorporates a bit of Ernie's beloved philosophy in some areas, as well as linguistics, mathematics, and I'm sure other humanities (I know maths never quite fits anywhere, but I'm throwing it in there for now). I don't know quite enough about it to give it the defence it deserves here.

Now, as regards the claim that I have sold myself short by choosing to study Commerce. I disagree absolutely. The field I have chosen to study bares no reflection on my character, my intellectual capacity, or the breadth of my knowledge. I have chosen, despite my materialistic course of study, to read several books of and about philosophy, the works of a few poets, some acknowledged "great novels", and I'll admit, a whole hell of a lot of what is the literary equivalent of toilet roll, for relaxation purposes. Equally, a philosophy, history, sociology, or whatever other Arts student may, like several I have known, choose to pass their time in the bar, just scraping by in their classes, and learning nothing of value. Who is the more educated in that scenario? Me, the student who has apparently no place in this university, or one of the Arts students I refer to? The courses we have chosen to do are wholly irrelevant to this scenario. If the positions were reversed, and I had done an Arts degree, I'd be reading about economics and finance.

It's late and I apologise if the above makes no sense. I'm too tired to read it over. Ye gods it's long...

Ernie Ball

the evil lime wrote:

Now, as regards the claim that I have sold myself short by choosing to study Commerce. I disagree absolutely. The field I have chosen to study bares no reflection on my character, my intellectual capacity, or the breadth of my knowledge.

You've just made my argument for me. What you've just said is that what you study has nothing to do with your education.

I have chosen, despite my materialistic course of study, to read several books of and about philosophy, the works of a few poets, some acknowledged "great novels", and I'll admit, a whole hell of a lot of what is the literary equivalent of toilet roll, for relaxation purposes.

Like several others in this thread, you seem to think that education has no need for teachers and that the significance of, say, Aristotle or Joyce will be immediately obvious to anyone who just picks them up.

Equally, a philosophy, history, sociology, or whatever other Arts student may, like several I have known, choose to pass their time in the bar, just scraping by in their classes, and learning nothing of value.

That is true, but it has no bearing on the question of whether it is defensible to choose electives based solely on their perceived ease.

Who is the more educated in that scenario? Me, the student who has apparently no place in this university

I never said you had no place in this university. I said that certain subjects have no place in a university (others have no place in an undergraduate curriculum) and that some of these subjects appeal to 'dolts and dullards'. None of this implies that you are a dolt or a dullard.

pretty*monster

I think Mr. Ball is overstating the case.
There are some courses of study in ucd that resemble training more than education.
The trap that Mr. Ball has fallen into is to assume that training is inferior to education. I believe passionately that the world needs people who have studied the liberal arts in depth and that a liberal education is entirely different to other things often called eduction.

But to say that we don't need those who are trained in medicine, engineering, etc. is lunacy. And given that we do need such people, whether they also want to dip in and out of the ghettos of the liberal arts is more of a personal choice.

The view that Mr. Ball seems to be espousing is that everyone should have a liberal education. This is impossible on a practical level, and undesirable in theory. Liberal education, if it is to be of any use, needs to be elitist.

Ernie Ball

pretty*monster wrote:

I think Mr. Ball is overstating the case.
There are some courses of study in ucd that resemble training more than education.
The trap that Mr. Ball has fallen into is to assume that training is inferior to education.

In what way is that a trap?

But to say that we don't need those who are trained in medicine, engineering, etc. is lunacy.

Indeed it is. Fortunately, I never said or implied any such thing. What I did imply was that to major in such subjects as an undergraduate to the exclusion of all else is a waste and a missed opportunity.

dajaffa

Ernie Ball wrote:

What I did imply was that to major in such subjects as an undergraduate to the exclusion of all else is a waste and a missed opportunity.

And I believe you said they didn't belong in a university. Imo it's as much of a waste to not learn about how things work, or how to recussitate someone etc, but as a society we need a balance of people with specialties, and there's no reason why people can't take a part-time course, or do some reading as a hobby in whatever they like. If you don't want to be, say a lawyer, thats not to say you won't take an interest in law, but you'd prefer to spend your time in college learning more about what you want to do long-term and pursure such interests in a different manner.

Ok so you thinks it's a loss that I haven't thought about big philosophical questions with philosophy lecturers, but I'd be just as justified in thinking you missed out in college by not exploring how the nervous system works. And it's not a case of pure fact, there's things like phantom limb syndrome which people could spend years hypothesising about if they so choose.

pretty*monster

Ernie Ball wrote:

In what way is that a trap?



Indeed it is. Fortunately, I never said or implied any such thing. What I did imply was that to major in such subjects as an undergraduate to the exclusion of all else is a waste and a missed opportunity.

The trap is to think that just because a course of study is valuable it must therefore be pursued by everyone.

There are already too many Arts students who aren't really that interested in their subjects and are doing their degrees for the sake of it more than anything. The last thing we need is for more students to be encouraged to take up fromal study of the liberal arts for the sake of it rather than because they genuinly want to pursue it. Such students are a distraction.

lizzyvera

Ernie Ball wrote:

Right. I suspect that everyone that disagrees with you is either a snob or a moron. Those you don't understand are snobs. Those you do are morons.

Hahaha. You just proved him right. Snob. A very affected snob if I might add. One that makes me very glad I didn't do arts, even though I liked some of the subjects in school.
:rolleyes:

Ernie Ball

pretty*monster wrote:

The trap is to think that just because a course of study is valuable it must therefore be pursued by everyone.

That's no trap: it's simple logic. Add the word 'inherently' and maybe the picture becomes clearer.

There are already too many Arts students who aren't really that interested in their subjects and are doing their degrees for the sake of it more than anything.

True, but those people have no business (or, in many cases, reason for) being in a university.

The last thing we need is for more students to be encouraged to take up fromal study of the liberal arts for the sake of it rather than because they genuinly want to pursue it. Such students are a distraction.

Agreed. Which is why they should be sent to technical colleges.

Ernie Ball

lizzyvera wrote:

Hahaha. You just proved him right. Snob. A very affected snob if I might add.

Although I realise that it's fun to play 'gotcha', nothing in the passage you're responding to can be construed as itself a manifestation of snobbery.

Most people think anyone who can speak relatively articulately and string a few ideas together into an argument is a 'snob'. UCD students are no exception to this, as this thread has proven. But one has to wonder what such anti-intellectualism is doing in a university....

Blush_01

Why Mr. Ball, I do believe you spilled some Miracle-Gro on your arrogance. How silly of you!

Pretty*Monster has said almost everything I wanted to say about this matter, and possibly more eloquently than I could, but I would ask you this question. If you would be so kind, Mr. Ball, could you please explain to those of us in front of you, the dregs of educational and educated society if you will, who has given you the authority to judge us as such?

Education is far more than the course taken by a student in University, and whether you personally believe that said course has a place in a University setting is rather immaterial. Do those among us who are studying for their qualification as a Doctor of Philosophy in Business, Computing et al suddenly stop contributing to modern methods and genres of philosophy, or are we to conscribe to your narrow definitions of what is worth studying in a University setting? UCD is an institution of higher education, which is what people are supposed to receive when they study in UCD. How well they do is immaterial, as that is their own issue to deal with. I doubt there are many who would disagree. Many of the most successful and intelligent people have progressed through life and thought profound thoughts without the aid of a University degree. Do you believe that Universities have always existed and without them there would be no knowledge of high culture/art/literature/thought? I doubt that you do, you seem like a very intelligent man for the most part. But I would ask that you focus more on expressing your opinion as such, rather than displaying it as gospel for us to lap up. Many of us, through the years of work we have experienced within this University, have established a modicum of ability with regard to independent thought. Some credit for the same would be greatly appreciated.

To offer you a point - Medicine has always come under the banner of high education. [Greek ideals of medicine were transferred through the ages and modified with experience into the combination of theory and practice we experience today. Specialisations, including Radiography, Physiotherapy etc. have allowed for greater depth and advancement in what is offered to the general population in terms of health care. It is no longer simply a subject studied by the wealthiest in society for the benefit of the wealthiest of society (or is not necessarily so).] It joined philosophy, literature etc. as a prominent marker of great learning. The Greeks even attempted to diagnose those greatly stressed by the weight of high learning and achievement through use of medicine, the theories behind which passed through the Arabian medical developments of the middle ages and were brought to the British Isles, developing into the medical services we have today. Not everything you would box into the neat cubbyhole of practical (and therefore undeserving of a place within a University) will fit quite as neatly as you would desire it to.

Thought for thought's sake is perfectly admirable, but at what expense? In terms of generating a contribution to society at large, confining yourself solely to the liberal arts genre of contribution is small minded. Do you genuinely expect me to believe that there is no place for the theories behind technical achievements in institutions founded on knowledge? There are reasons why practical sections of courses are taught in practical settings outside of the university. Likewise, the theories taught, belonging potentially to social and intellectual advancement, are perfectly welcome in the Universities of the society I live in. That, I believe, might be the basis of the accusations of snobbery aimed in your direction.

gubbie

Ernie Ball wrote:

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.

lol! Ya we (engineering student here) are thought complex ideas that we have to manipulate ourselves and use in everyday life to run the country, where it seems like you're being thought to quote books at us. God help us if every engineering student had decided they wanted the "cultured" life, we'd probably not be able to make these books that you quote for lack of machines. Same applies to all the other courses. I don't think any old Tom Dick or Harry can go into medicine. You need to have a fine balance across the board.

And maybe you should check a Science course before you go shouting your mouth off about it. The first thing you learn in Science was who discovered what, who did it right, who did it wrong. And out courses are so long (I'm on a 4 year, 9-5 course) where do you think we should fit in something that we're uninterested in just so we know a bit more about something completely irrelivent to our course. I did Chinese last semester which extended my already long Wednesday from 9-8 with a total of 3 hours off in the whole day. For some people its not a choice, its what can we fit in to our timetable. US colleges can offer a lot more classes due to their huge finances but ours, well can't. Our college is too small.

Ernie Ball wrote:

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 don't see why we can't read a book instead of having to have professors tell us things about a book and digest it so much that it would bore us to death. Why should that make us more cultured? And I have to laugh-thinking you could study Physio or any other of our courses at night? I don't think there's enough nights to fit in my 26 hour a week course, where an arts student has on average 12 hours a week.

Can I call you uncultured because you're not studying cooking? Or Japanese? Or music? Just because you perceive yourself to be higher up the culture ladder doesn't mean you're anyway near the top. I think thats what they mean by get off your high horse.

dajaffa wrote:

Frankly Einstein could be on this thread and you'd call him uneducated...

Ya what has he ever done for the world :rolleyes: