Ive just realised

Spectator#1

Spectator#1 wrote:

I think there's been a clear victory in this short battle of wits...

...

natal wrote:

Seems like everyone from arts is still is the dark in the Newman building about their choice of "degree", whether its a REAL qualification(or not!)

I think there's been a clear victory in this short battle of wits.

beanyb

I take the slagging pretty well. Actually most people I know take the piss out of it themselves. But it does get a little bit tiring after a while. Like how many threads have there ever been about the value of an arts degree - countless!

The only people that bother me are the people that genuinely believe that they're better than me because I'm doing arts. I like my course, had it first on my CAO and had a lot more points than I needed to do it. Get over yourself.

fatal

Spectator#1 wrote:

...



I think there's been a clear victory in this short battle of wits.

just make sure that you give me that arts "degree" after your 3 years so that I can use it to wipe my ass

Spectator#1

fatal wrote:

just make sure that you give me that arts "degree" after your 3 years so that I can use it to wipe my ass

Hugh, we know it's you. It's time to go home, your family miss you.

arbeitsscheuer

Spectator#1 wrote:

Hugh, we know it's you. It's time to go home, your family miss you.

Don't lie to the kid, that's just mean.

FionnMatthew

fatal wrote:

just make sure that you give me that arts "degree" after your 3 years so that I can use it to wipe my ass

I think I've been accused of being touchy. To be frank, I am a little touchy.

I'm tired of the predominant culture in Ireland being pragmatic and money-grubbing. I'm tired of having to rub shoulders in university with small-minded, ignorant, arrogant fools. I'm tired of the slide into a climate in which the arts have to justify themselves as a means to an end.

The person who I have quoted above is, perhaps, not as much of a f**kwit as he/she is pretending to be, in order to get a rise out of arts students. I think one probably needs some level of appreciation of the arts in order to understand how to get under the skin of people who live for the arts.

But there are such people - people who generally cannot see the point. These people are, in my opinion, simply muck. I did a three year degree in DIT among these people. After three years reflection, I chose to commit to another undergraduate degree, in the arts. I did this as a matter of necessity.

The arts are the continued acheivement of the human race. Literature, language, music, art, philosophy: these things are of fundamental importance to our collective heritage. Life is to be lived towards these things. Without these things, life is just a mechanism.

You acknowledge this, time and time again, when you brush with the slightest measure of the arts: when you watch a film, or listen to the latest single. These things are industrialised and packaged, but there remains the slightest trace of what human endeavour represents. These are things you experience for their own sake, not as a path to other things.

Everyone must work. But for my part, I would rather I was working towards something, rather than simply continuing and accumulating. Had I not the arts, were there not some measure of confrontation with the things that give our lives meaning, I would rather kill myself. Life is not a simple cycle of work, rest, get drunk, f**k, eat, repeat, die. That is the life of an animal, which is no less than what the majority of people in Ireland aspire to be, and no less than what the majority of people allowed admittance to this university aspire to be too. It is a base life, and I would rather die than live it.

(Curiously, we in Ireland have a high suicide rate, and I would wonder whether there is some connection between the spiritual impoverishment of our culture, and the fact that some people don't find in it any reason to continue living.)

If all I had was a vacuous and isolated knowledge of how economies work, and had to subsume the rest of the world under that banner; or if all I had was a limited and territorial appreciation of agricultural practice, and could not see the world outside those terms, I would consider myself failing in my responsibility, as a human, to encounter those things about which we all are.

The arts are education for life. That's life as a human being. Not an automaton. Not an animal. I said I was angry, and I am. Your quips are perhaps designed simply to goad me, but in writing them you voice the words of people who enjoy a lower level of existence to that of anyone who appreciates the arts. You give a voice to mere animals, and firmly place the intellectual high-tide mark at its lowest ebb. Do the human race a favour and stop opening your mouth until there is some good, solid thought to which you might give voice.

You can take my degree, and use it to fulfill whatever excretion-related bodily function you want. It is, after all, just a piece of paper. Why don't you use your own degree while you're at it? Why don't you use your CV too. Come to think of it, why don't you write out how you project your life will progress with that attitude towards the arts, print it out on a piece of paper, and wipe the ruddy slime off your arse with that? That, to my mind, would be an appropriate choice of loo paper.

Yes. That'll be the transaction. You wipe your ass with my (paper) degree, and I'll clean my nether-regions with the (paltry) collective intellectual acheivement of your entire span on this planet.

It'll be very neat really. I can be a real person with a toilet-paper degree, and you can be a toilet-paper person, with a 'real' degree. An exchange in my favour, in my opinion.

Without the arts, you're just the chaff.

humbert

This is just an off the cuff reply. I've the greatest respect for someone who "studies the arts", but the attitude toward arts in UCD has much to do with the UCD arts stereotype(It would be ridiculous to apply this to all arts students but these people do exist) who took the course without having any particular interest in it.

I don't think there are many people that would suggest studying the arts is worthless, and those that do aren't worth getting annoyed about.

By getting annoyed you're opening yourself up to more mockery

Oh and I fully agree that universities are getting way too career orientated!

Blowfish

humbert wrote:

This is just an off the cuff reply. I've the greatest respect for someone who "studies the arts", but the attitude toward arts in UCD has much to do with the UCD arts stereotype(It would be ridiculous to apply this to all arts students but these people do exist) who took the course without having any particular interest in it.

tis true, the OP being a perfect example. Arts is seen sometimes as the course you do if your not quite sure what you want to do.

I'm guessing most of the people with that attitude drop out in the end anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Oh and fatal, if you are going to slag the arts degree, at least put some effort into it and come up with something that isn't a tired cliche which had already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

Het-Field

FionnMatthew wrote:

I think I've been accused of being touchy. To be frank, I am a little touchy.

I'm tired of the predominant culture in Ireland being pragmatic and money-grubbing. I'm tired of having to rub shoulders in university with small-minded, ignorant, arrogant fools. I'm tired of the slide into a climate in which the arts have to justify themselves as a means to an end.

The person who I have quoted above is, perhaps, not as much of a f**kwit as he/she is pretending to be, in order to get a rise out of arts students. I think one probably needs some level of appreciation of the arts in order to understand how to get under the skin of people who live for the arts.

But there are such people - people who generally cannot see the point. These people are, in my opinion, simply muck. I did a three year degree in DIT among these people. After three years reflection, I chose to commit to another undergraduate degree, in the arts. I did this as a matter of necessity.

The arts are the continued acheivement of the human race. Literature, language, music, art, philosophy: these things are of fundamental importance to our collective heritage. Life is to be lived towards these things. Without these things, life is just a mechanism.

You acknowledge this, time and time again, when you brush with the slightest measure of the arts: when you watch a film, or listen to the latest single. These things are industrialised and packaged, but there remains the slightest trace of what human endeavour represents. These are things you experience for their own sake, not as a path to other things.

Everyone must work. But for my part, I would rather I was working towards something, rather than simply continuing and accumulating. Had I not the arts, were there not some measure of confrontation with the things that give our lives meaning, I would rather kill myself. Life is not a simple cycle of work, rest, get drunk, f**k, eat, repeat, die. That is the life of an animal, which is no less than what the majority of people in Ireland aspire to be, and no less than what the majority of people allowed admittance to this university aspire to be too. It is a base life, and I would rather die than live it.

(Curiously, we in Ireland have a high suicide rate, and I would wonder whether there is some connection between the spiritual impoverishment of our culture, and the fact that some people don't find in it any reason to continue living.)

If all I had was a vacuous and isolated knowledge of how economies work, and had to subsume the rest of the world under that banner; or if all I had was a limited and territorial appreciation of agricultural practice, and could not see the world outside those terms, I would consider myself failing in my responsibility, as a human, to encounter those things about which we all are.

The arts are education for life. That's life as a human being. Not an automaton. Not an animal. I said I was angry, and I am. Your quips are perhaps designed simply to goad me, but in writing them you voice the words of people who enjoy a lower level of existence to that of anyone who appreciates the arts. You give a voice to mere animals, and firmly place the intellectual high-tide mark at its lowest ebb. Do the human race a favour and stop opening your mouth until there is some good, solid thought to which you might give voice.

You can take my degree, and use it to fulfill whatever excretion-related bodily function you want. It is, after all, just a piece of paper. Why don't you use your own degree while you're at it? Why don't you use your CV too. Come to think of it, why don't you write out how you project your life will progress with that attitude towards the arts, print it out on a piece of paper, and wipe the ruddy slime off your arse with that. That, to my mind, would be an appropriate choice of loo paper.

Yes. That'll be the transaction. You wipe your ass with my (paper) degree, and I'll clean my hole with the (paltry) collective intellectual acheivement of your entire span on this planet.

An exchange in my favour, in my opinion.

Very Well Said. Without a shadow of a doubt Arts is a life education. Above all it leaves people with a far broader education than those who focus on a more constrictive discipline. It is a ridiculous attitude that Arts students spend most of their lives bumming around and drinking coffee. If you want a good arts degree you must contribute a huge amount of personal time (i.e. not lectures/labs/practicals). Essay in Arts are not only an examination of you argumentative skills, they are also an examination in analytics, writing style, english and construction. As a result one must put in several hours I have seen a lab reports from a good friend of mine who does a degree in food science. It was the most atrociously composed piece of work I have ever seen, from a constructive point of view. In terms of the English, it was probably the most limited thing I have ever seen. However, she recieved a very high grade for the report. It became clear to me that Science, and I sure the same applies for Engineering, Medicine, that drafting skills will remain uncultivated, and to succeed in the discipline, a mastery of the english language is not required.

Furthermore, Im delighted that I have a degree in history and politics. It has given me a true perspective on political culture, historical context, philosophical thought and who are the real champions in public life. My studies led me to defect from Fianna Fail, and move to the Progressive Democrats. Im glad that I made an educated decision to jointhe PDs. I joined on the basis of common sense and experience as opposed to my parents decision to vote for Fianna Fail in the past. Other disciplines would not have given me that perspective to such an extent. Studying other degrees may have given me a blind view of politics, such as that the SP/SWP or Labour Youth are the only ones out for our welfare because they set up the Student Co-Op or the visability of their banners or litrature, or the prominance of their members around campus is more than other movements

Law and teaching are two avenues open to students of the arts. Those who study pure law are no more qualified to begin practice as barristers than those who study arts. Students from both disciplines will be required to sit the FE 1 Examinations or the entrance examinations in Kings Inns. Once you have an degree in the Humanities you can take your higher diploma and begin teaching. What you have read as an undergraduate can be very beneficial when it comes to deciding what you would like to teach at second level.

Students of the liberal arts prove to be very attractive to various companies who specialise in things like finance, stockbrokering ,actuary, law etc. Companies like Deloitte, Arthur Cox, O Donnell Sweeney, and KPMG, are packed with graduates of the Arts. Why is this, if the degree is worthless, and is only good enough to be used as toilet paper.

Graduates of UCD'S School of Arts and Humanities include Politicians Such as An Tanaiste, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, and Leader of the PDs Michael McDowell, Alan Dukes, and Garrett Fitzgerald, Judicial Hard HittersJustice Adrian Hardiman of the Irish Supreme Court, Actors Dermot Morgan and Brendan Gleeson, journalists Kevin Myers and Vincent Browne, and sports stars Derval O Rourke, and Denis Hickie.

Today the main societies of UCD have a significant influence from the hallowed halls of the John Henry Newman Building. the L&H and Lawsoc were run by those who were studying the Liberal Arts. Furthermore of the last four Student Union Presidents, three have been students of the arts, while James Carroll was a student of the Law, which technically is a form of liberal arts Weather people like it or not the Law is part of the Arts, as has been indicitive of the colleges ofference of Law Modules to Arts students.

Most people who are not students of the Liberal Arts cannot comprehend the education one gets. As I have indicated I can make my political decions based on experience. I have strong opinions on things like nationalism, Northern Ireland, and globalisation based on my education, not on heresay or what I want to believe. I am virtually an expert of Australian History, having read it for three years straight, and I have recieved good knowledge regarding France, Germany, Britain, and the USA. I also feel I have the ability to make inferences, and read between the lines when cynical journalists like Fintan O Toole or Vincent Browne have a pop at the current establishment

I can guarantee you that my experience is not that of others. Others will not leave politcally savey, but fluent at a wealth of languages, or an archeologist who will be a useful it discovering the past, or will be sufficiently interested in their degree that they will carry on into doctoral studies, and become a new generation of lecturers and the commontariat. Without a shadow of a doubt the Arts Block is the most colourful and vibrant block in UCD, and that is a result of the people who frequent it. Its a ragbag of all sorts, and long may this continue

The John Henry Newman Building is the Finest Educational Establishment in UCD, and long may it continue

fatal

FionnMatthew wrote:

The arts are education for life.

Yes,as opposed to all other degree's which don't give an education for life :rolleyes:

humbert

Het-Field wrote:

I have seen a lab reports from a good friend of mine who does a degree in food science. It was the most atrociously composed piece of work I have ever seen, from a constructive point of view. In terms of the English, it was probably the most limited thing I have ever seen. However, she received a very high grade for the report. It became clear to me that Science, and I sure the same applies for Engineering, Medicine, that drafting skills will remain uncultivated, and to succeed in the discipline, a mastery of the english language is not required.

I lived with an arts student and saw her put together essays that were nothing more than plagiarised extracts from other other documents on the topic merged together in a manner that would have made your eyes water to read it. She amazingly got a reasonable grade for it and other such essays. However I have more sense than to derive from that, that all arts students compose appalling plagiarised essays. If the quality of English in my lab reports was poor I would lose a lot of marks for it as clarity and lucidity are of paramount importance.

Spectator#1

fatal wrote:

Yes,as opposed to all other degree's which don't give an education for life :rolleyes:

Are you seriously going to pick on one single sentence out of that post to roll your eyes at?

You're being a prat. Cop on.

Mods, is this:

"just make sure that you give me that arts "degree" after your 3 years so that I can use it to wipe my ass"

not trolling?

EDIT: I changed this post a bit to clarify sense because Humbert deleted a post I entered after that voided my repy.

humbert

would you prefer mods censor the attitude people can take if it may offend or rely on people's maturity to ignore remarks they suspect are made to provoke?

FionnMatthew

humbert wrote:

would you prefer mods censor the attitude people can take if it may offend or rely on people's maturity to ignore remarks they suspect are made to provoke?

It would be a mistake, friend, to assume that in replying to fatal I am guilty of impropriety. You might as easily assume that a trivial article like fatal is simply an opportunity to play to the gallery; a self-appointed straw-man, so to speak. I wanted to say what I've said. fatal is just a diverting excuse to say it.

humbert

That I get . I was responding to the request to call in the mods.

FionnMatthew

fatal wrote:

Yes,as opposed to all other degree's which don't give an education for life :rolleyes:

fatal actually edited this post from his/her original post here. The original post read:

as opposed to other degrees yea an arts 'degree' certainly is an education for life.

Which, I'm sure everyone will agree, has quite a distinct meaning.

Stirling

This "Is Arts" Worthwhile" debate nearly predates Human Existence if you ask me!

I have just a few comments I would like to make chiefly in response to some comments made by Fionn Matthew and other proponents of the value of Arts.

I would be the last person to denigrate Arts and I completely appreciate the value and need of the ability to appreciate Culture in order for humans to elevate themselves above being mere animals.

Where I have a difficulty is where people perceive the Arts to be intrinsically more valuable than any other qualification and I note that Business, and to a lesser extent Law, are often singled out for criticism in this regard, the former as it is seen as an obsession with gain to the exclusion of Cultural awareness and appreciaton and the latter because Arts graduates can be just as competent as lawyers, if not more so, than Law graduates.

Might I go so far as to remind people that these three disciplines are in fact so intrinsically linked that none of them can be claimed to be in any way superior. Some of the finest works of Art have been the result of Commissions and Patronage such as the de Medicis in Florence and the integrity of works of Art has been protectecd for centuries through the intervention and efforts of Law and Lawyers.

In order for any of this to happen required Trade and Law to support the Arts and is an example of the extent to which academic disciplines and real life activities are interdependent.

Therefore please enough with this argument that the Arts are intrinsically more valuable than any other field of academic endeavour because to argue this is to fail to take the global view which you claim is the mark of an Arts graduate.

FionnMatthew

Stirling wrote:

Where I have a difficulty is where people perceive the Arts to be intrinsically more valuable than any other qualification

I don't think you should have a difficulty there. It is a sad fact that schooling in our country is so devoid of a grounding in the arts that it becomes necessary to take an undergraduate degree just to achieve a basic level of acquaintance with, say, the broad sweep of history, the development of western literature, the arc of art-history, an intuition for criticism, etc...

Without these things, anyone with just a practical education is functioning in a void. You don't have real autonomy. You have no idea of what kind of a thing you are, of where your species as a cultural entity comes from, of the breadth and scope of human possibility. You don't know where your profession fits in. Your aesthetic sensibilities remain undeveloped - you can't even say why it is you like what you like.

It'd be stupid to say that everyone who doesn't study arts at 3rd level is like this, but a great many people are like this. You can see them anywhere - get a bus and listen to the conversations of your peers. These people are everywhere. It's a condition that would be sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that intellectual illiteracy begets intellectual illiteracy, perpetuating itself.

I think an arts education is more valuable than a practical one. Everyone should have a good grounding in the arts, should have an opportunity for such. Schools just don't offer that, not to a proper extent. Along with a good developed awareness of the humanities, a person should be equipped with the means to live in the world they confront. But I'd prefer to be poor than ignorant.

Some of the finest works of Art have been the result of Commissions and Patronage such as the de Medicis in Florence

Hmm. "the result of"?? Was not patronage an enabling factor in the art, creating the art a contingent effect, rather than a necessary one? There remain mediocre works of art that had adequate patronage, after all.

and the integrity of works of Art has been protectecd for centuries through the intervention and efforts of Law and Lawyers.

Ah, yes. Legal "protection" of art, which, in its most virulent strain is Intellectual Property law, something that has been killing genuine artistic endeavour in the recent past. I'm not naive enough to blame this on law-practitioners. This is the work of businesses. But I don't think artworks need to be "protected". I think this is the height of charlatanry and opportunism. And I don't think it would happen if the idiots who are doing it had any proper appreciation of the things they are dealing with.

Therefore please enough with this argument that the Arts are intrinsically more valuable than any other field of academic endeavour

They are more intrinsically valuable than any other field of academic endeavour. In fact, the other fields aren't intrinsically valuable at all; since they are practical, and since according to fatal degrees are only valuable in what they lead to, they are extrinsically valuable. The arts are the only fields that are intrinsically valuable.

fatal won't acknowledge the value of an arts degree, because he/she can't see that study can have intrinsic value; that it can be valuable in itself. For fatal, a degree is only valuable by what it qualifies you to do. It is only valuable as a means to something else.

Hence, for fatal, 'real' degrees are extrinsically valuable, and, for fatal, that is the only way a degree can be valuable.

I think taking the global view reveals a convincing case for the fact that the arts are a fundamental, foundational field of study. If you want to be properly human, you have to live among the humanities.

But besides all of this, I have no incentive to 'take a global view'. ('Global' for me has far too many commercial connotations anyway.) My argument is local ie. specific to university. Academic study is the domain of the arts. There is no place for a philistine in the academy. By all means, study commerce - but maintain a working knowledge of, and healthy respect for, the arts. That someone in a university could spurn the arts is indicative of the descent of that university from academy to pseudo-academy. Those people are, by definition, not academics.

Blowfish

FionnMatthew wrote:

The arts are the only fields that are intrinsically valuable.

You say this yet all of the bolded text below can be done through the sciences. In fact, history also can be done through the sciences, in some ways better than the arts as the sciences tell of what came before humanities.

Claiming the arts are the only intrinsically valuable subjects, and that academic study is the domain of the arts is plainly ridiculous. In saying that, you are every bit as bad as fatal.

[edit] In fact, using your own logic, it is absolutely no problem for someone in the sciences to say that you have no idea where we came from, that you have no idea of our history, and even that you haven't got the faintest idea of how the world around us works.

FionnMatthew wrote:

You have no idea of what kind of a thing you are, of where your species as a cultural entity comes from, of the breadth and scope of human possibility. You don't know where your profession fits in. Your aesthetic sensibilities remain undeveloped - you can't even say why it is you like what you like.

Spectator#1

Blowfish wrote:

You say this yet all of the bolded text below can be done through the sciences. In fact, history also can be done through the sciences, in some ways better than the arts as the sciences tell of what came before humanities.

Claiming the arts are the only intrinsically valuable subjects, and that academic study is the domain of the arts is plainly ridiculous. In saying that, you are every bit as bad as fatal.

[edit] In fact, using your own logic, it is absolutely no problem for someone in the sciences to say that you have no idea where we came from, that you have no idea of our history, and even that you haven't got the faintest idea of how the world around us works.

No he's not. The arts does not preclude the sciences. FionnMatthew is making the point that the Arts AND the Sciences are worthwhile ventures in themselves.

The arts (such as history, literature, philosophy etc...) are completely different things to the sciences; I'm sure you'd agree. He isn't promoting one at the expense of the other, he's merely arguing the benefits of an Arts education in its own rights.

Blowfish

Spectator#1 wrote:

No he's not. The arts does not preclude the sciences. FionnMatthew is making the point that the Arts AND the Sciences are worthwhile ventures in themselves.

The arts (such as history, literature, philosophy etc...) are completely .different things to the sciences; I'm sure you'd agree. He isn't promoting one at the expense of the other, he's merely arguing the benefits of an Arts education in its own rights.

Quotes such as

"The arts are the only field which are intrinsically valuable"

and

"Academic study is the domain of the arts."

Would beg to undermine your point.

[edit] Obviously, I do agree that the arts are valuable in their own right, but they aren't the only valuable ones as he seems to imply.

Naikon

Blowfish wrote:

As long as you have a reasonable grasp at maths.

How reasonable:D
Seriously though, Am I kidding myself with ordinary maths?

Blowfish

Naikon wrote:

How reasonable:D
Seriously though, Am I kidding myself with ordinary maths?

Actually I'm not quite sure. The BA in Comp. Sci. contains less maths than the BSc. I just don't know how much less.

It is possible to do either with ordinary level maths, but you definitely have to be comfortable with maths, and not one of these people that shys away from it.

Come to think of it, i'd say we've used at least 80% of the higher level maths, and expanded on some of it. Most of it will be taught to you as you go along however.

Naikon

Oh, Ok.
I am not "maths shy" but I am not sure if a B1/B2 would be sufficient for pure Computer science?

I know a bit of C programming, and basic X86 assembly but nothing major as of yet.
I presume there is alot of Calculus on the course?

Blowfish

Naikon wrote:

Oh, Ok.
I am not "maths shy" but I am not sure if a B1/B2 would be sufficient for pure Computer science?

I know a bit of C programming, and basic assembler but nothing major as of yet.
I presume there is alot of Calculus on the course?

If you are definitely willing to put the work in, a B1/B2 is ok for pure Computer Science. In first and second year you will be taking maths modules, which lead on from the ordinary leaving cert level.

The actual Computer Science maths part of it is in a different field that isn't really covered in the leaving at all, so its that aspect that you have to watch. Saying that however, it (obviously) is very closely related to programming, so if you keep learning c and assembler and get a hold of how they work, you should be fine.

In third and fourth year you'll be choosing more of your subjects, so the maths content is entirely up to you, although some of the cool ones involve lots of maths (e.g. Graphics).

Naikon

Thanks, Believe me I am willing to put in a Decent amount of effort as I have no misconceptions of Computer Science as being "easy" just challenging.
I am doing Higher Physics aswell just to add.
Besides I would rather pick something challenging than something I would find really boring...Arts:p

Spectator#1

Blowfish wrote:

Quotes such as

"The arts are the only field which are intrinsically valuable"

and

"Academic study is the domain of the arts."

Science and the arts both come from the same inquisitive facet of human nature. I wouldn't differentiate the two. They deal with two different, and important aspects of human existence. I'm sure FionnMatthew isn't denigrating the sciences in his posts.

Blowfish

"The arts are the only field which are intrinsically valuable"

Ok, seriously spectator read the quote, how can you not see that it is denigrating everyone except arts?

Obviously I can see how they are related, I pointed it out, remember?

IMO FionnMatthew and Fatal are both just as bad as eachother.

Ernie Ball

Traditionally, the 'liberal arts' include all 'pure' (as opposed to 'applied' or 'vocational') disciplines. Even at UCD, the Arts Faculty used to have all of what is now in the Colleges of Arts and Human Sciences, as well as Mathematics and Maths-Physics.

If you were studying arts, you might have known this. Then again, you might not have. But there is always Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

Blut

I do arts and so do most of my friends and I completely agree with it not being a real degree at all. For the first two years of college I didnt write a single essay or do a tap of coursework, went to about 3 lectures a week and just crammed for a few days before the exams. Result? Straight 2.2s.

I'm in 3rd year now and I've started doing my essays, I now go to less lectures a week though (2 total this semester so far) and got all 1sts at Christmas. My friends all have roughly the same work done/grades balance.

Compared to nearly any 'proper' degree there is no real workload in arts at all, its very very easy to coast by in it and get a respectable grade. Thats why it, justifiably, has the rep it has.