Ive just realised

Ernie Ball

Blut wrote:

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.

This might be the most ridiculous post I've ever read. You do realise that the place you've taken up in college--at taxpayers' expense--could have gone to someone who might have gained something much more valuable than your precious credential? You had an opportunity to learn something about the world and you've squandered it. Well done, Mr. 2.2. What a bright future you've got ahead of you.

humbert

You talk about taxpayers' money but unfortunately all the government want from the money they put into colleges is degree students. Entry requirements are dropping. Exams are getting easier. Emphasis is being put on the application of the "qualification" to a career. How can this not breed apathy and disinterest. I accept that there is a responsibility incumbent on the student to make the most of the opportunity, but it is an unfortunate situation.

Ernie Ball

humbert wrote:

You talk about taxpayers' money but unfortunately all the government want from the money they put into colleges is degree students.

Is that what the taxpayer expects? Because if it is, we could save a lot of money by just replacing our universities with printing presses to churn out the parchments.

humbert

Ernie Ball wrote:

Is that what the taxpayer expects? Because if it is, we could save a lot of money by just replacing our universities with printing presses to churn out the parchments.

I think we're uncomfortably close to this already.

Spectator#1

Blowfish wrote:

"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.

Do me the favour of presuming that I did actually read the quote and that I simply just don't agree with you.

I'd want to know what FionnMatthew meant by saying he thinks the Arts are the only ones that are "intrinsically valuable" before I jumped the gun and decided he was denigrating the whole non-arts educated world. As it stands, I can't see how pointing out that one thing is "intrinsically valuable" over and against other things is an act of denigration - is there something inherently degrading about your course not being "intrinsically valuable"? He hasn't made any degrading remarks about other courses anyway, he just made a positive claim (in his opinion) for his one that implied a lack of that feature in other courses.

I'd suggest that your powers of perception are somewhat lacking if you would equate the mindless repetitions of an already bad joke (fatal) and the lucid, comprehensive posts that FionnMatthew has made in response as "as bad as each other".

Spectator#1

Blut wrote:

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.

I think this is a good example of what FionnMatthew was talking about when he said the arts are intrinsically valuable - this person has breezed by for their entire degree and as a result, gotten probably very little out of the brilliant opportunity that it presented.

Reading literature spanning the last two thousand years or so for study? Presenting a well laid out and concise argument for why you think one philosopher/author was mistaken and suprising yourself with your own abilities? The satisfaction to be gained from an Arts education isn't "straight 2.2's" or "respectable grades" - it's a matter of personal fulfullment, it sets you up to continue your education for the rest of your life.

The poster I've quoted above is blaming arts for not providing him/her with a proper workload. Was the last two thousand years not rich enough with material for them? The workload is as large or as small as you want it to be, I know this because I did very little in first year and some of second year. As a result of that, I got very little out of it.

Blut, this: "its very very easy to coast by in it and get a respectable grade" is not: "why it, justifiably, has the rep it has". You are.

Spectator#1

humbert wrote:

I think we're uncomfortably close to this already.

Agreed.

Hugh Brady, apparently, referred to "postgraduate training" in the arts at a recent conferral.

Villaricos

Blut wrote:

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.

This has got to be the saddest post Ive ever read and I dont mean sad in pathetic I mean genuinely sad. You have wasted three years of your life and have nothing to show for it. To be honest I think there has to be some stretching of truth in this or else you are doing a lot of study on your own time.
But Arts is an education for life as I think has been previously mentioned. Its not a preparation for a qualification or career but an opportunity to explore what we want to study. Arts graduates can end up in very far flung careers because the skills honed in Arts are not a direct qualification but the skills of logical and well thought out argument, presentation, as well as the ability to think outside the box and look beyond what is presented.
I have learnt so much in my nearly three years in Arts and Ive loved it, theres is definitly a lot to be gotten out of an Arts degree its just its up to each individual themselves what they do and how much they take from it and where they go from it and in that sense it is more of an education in the classical university sense then other courses available. Im not saying its better simply that its different and to understand it like so many things you have to experience it.
A friend of mine her father is a primary school prinicpal and he told me that he prefers hiring Arts graduates with a Hdip then graduates straight out of Pats becuase he says the Arts graduates have lived a little bit more and are more experienced, not in teaching but in life.

Blut

Your argument that arts has all the depth you put into it is flawed, thats not what people have a problem with. A degree in hair management from Tallaght IT can have plenty of depth if youre willing to invest hundreds of hours of your time researching hair care by personal choice. I have friends in veterinary, medicine, B&L, science, engineering - in ANY of these courses if someone tried to get by on the amount of work most arts students do they would have failed horrifically in first year.

The fact that the minimum workload in arts is so amazingly low is why its regarded as an easy degree. If 80% of students get by on 15-20 hours work a week (and I'd say thats a pretty high average) then it doesnt really matter how much personal work the other 20% do, the perception of arts as "easy" will stand. If you, or anyone else, wanted to improve the perception of arts exams would need to be made harder and/or more frequent and there would need to be far more continous assessment.

And, fyi and all that, given I did almost half my final year exams at Christmas and got all 1.1s I'd imagine I'll get at least a 2.1 overall in my degree and be accepted into a masters program where I can coast by again. Then into academia where I'll be paid to coast - the ultimate goal of an arts student

Blowfish

Spectator#1 wrote:

I can't see how pointing out that one thing is "intrinsically valuable" over and against other things is an act of denigration - is there something inherently degrading about your course not being "intrinsically valuable"? He hasn't made any degrading remarks about other courses anyway, he just made a positive claim (in his opinion) for his one that implied a lack of that feature in other courses.

My point is that you cannot make a blanket claim such as that. There is intrinsic value of one form or another in most courses. I think we will all agree that different courses have different extrinsic value, however that does not mean that they are lacking in intrinsic value.

As you pointed out, it is up to the student to determine whether they get intrinsic or extrinsic value out of a course. Some will and some wont. Unfortunately I agree with Humbert however in that there are far too many of the latter.

Villaricos

Blut wrote:

Your argument that arts has all the depth you put into it is flawed, thats not what people have a problem with. A degree in hair management from Tallaght IT can have plenty of depth if youre willing to invest hundreds of hours of your time researching hair care by personal choice. I have friends in veterinary, medicine, B&L, science, engineering - in ANY of these courses if someone tried to get by on the amount of work most arts students do they would have failed horrifically in first year.

You miss my point, Arts is different to courses such as veterinary, medicine, science. There is no practical element to it so we dont have the hours they have in labs etc. But we are supposed to read. We're supposed to do the work ourselves as is the traditional manner for university education. We dont have as much class hours but then again when you go into postgraduate courses theres less class time again - why you ask? because you do all the background work yourself. You chose yourself how much you get out of the degree.
Law is pretty similar. Law students dont have huge hours, no one goes around saying Law is a waste of time, why? Because everyone knows Law is tough and theres a lot of work done on your own. People should realise Arts is the same.
You cant compare Arts to courses such as engineering becasue they are vastly different. Its apples and oranges.


[/QUOTE]
And, fyi and all that, given I did almost half my final year exams at Christmas and got all 1.1s I'd imagine I'll get at least a 2.1 overall in my degree and be accepted into a masters program where I can coast by again. Then into academia where I'll be paid to coast - the ultimate goal of an arts student [/QUOTE]

Now although you say you dont go to lectures dont tell me you got those Firsts without any work? Because I wont believe you, firsts arent just handed out. Certainly I find I can pick and chose the courses where lectures are non essential and Ive found that I benefit more from just going to the library but your giving off an impression of never doing any work?
You must have done some work which proves my point, the benefits of Arts isnt in the class hours per say but the individual work of the student

beanyb

I'm with Villaricos on this. If you got 1sts across the board without doing any work you must be some sort of crazy genius. I can buy getting 1sts without going to lectures, because really lectures only give the basic knowledge required to scrape a pass. Getting a 1st requires a hell of a lot of work yourself. For example, in 3rd year history at Christmas, out of what at least 300 people in mode 2 history, one person got a first. Arts may be easy to coast by in, which is why so many people come out with pass degrees or 3rds, but it is INCREDIBLY difficult to do well in.

Het-Field

Or he is just a lier. I had to work hard to get my 2.1 in politics, and Im not the only one who has to pu in an immense amount of work for that grade. One bloke I know got a double first last year and any time I was in the library he was there working his socks off, and he was there hours before me, and remained after Iwas gone. Nobody coasts to a first, or gets one because they start handing up a couple of essays. Individually, essays in Arts are worth pittiance, its collectively they become a useful elememnt of the course.

He is a genius or a lier. And given his attitude to Arts id say it is the latter. Unless he radically miscalculated his study time, and how much he puts in

Jonny Arson

Put the work into Arts and you'll do great (me 1st semester)

Put absolutely f-all into Arts and you'll do sh1t (maybe me this semester)

It's a very simple rule to comprehend, there will be the odd freak who will do nothing and get a 1.1 but at the end of the day you get what you put into Arts (and most other courses as a matter of fact) - It would be handy if I could teach this to myself on this 3 week break :rolleyes:

FionnMatthew

Blowfish wrote:

You say this yet all of the bolded text below can be done through the sciences.

To this, I refer you to Ernie Ball's post on page #5, wherein a good argument is made for the fact that the sciences, where they have as an objective the quest of knowledge, and not some extrinsic goal, are liberal arts, and hence, suitable for academic study. You'll also note that, earlier, in post 48 I specifically named the sciences as university-suitable subjects, and hence subjects with intrinsic value.

However, I wanted to look at the "bolded text below", to see if your claims are correct:

Me wrote:

You have no idea of what kind of a thing you are,

Indeed, the sciences can tell you a lot about what kind of thing you are, but you will only ever know part of your story if you ignore the other liberal arts.

And when the sciences are taught simply to ensure that the country has a reliable quotient of doctors and of pharmacologists, etc. it becomes less likely that scientific knowledge is being imparted as a good-in-itself, as something which tells you what kind of a thing you are for that knowledge in itself.

Me wrote:

of where your species as a cultural entity comes from

No. I'm sorry, but the natural sciences cannot tell you where your species as a cultural entity comes from. That is outside the domain of the natural sciences. And the human sciences will give you a very incomplete picture.

Me wrote:

of the breadth and scope of human possibility.

Indeed, science augments our physical possibilities to a manifold degree. And knowledge of this will impart what is referred to in the quote. But surely you can agree that this will not even approach the whole story - and that the rest of the liberal arts are needed to ensure a rounded picture.

Blowfish wrote:

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.

That's not history. That's theoretical prehistory. I'd like to see someone study the history of apartheid through the natural sciences.

Anyway, my point is that knowledge of this type is instrinsically valuable, and that the arts exist solely to impart this kind of knowledge. Subjects like the sciences are, of course, liberal arts, and can impart intrinsically valuable knowledge, which actualises us as cultural beings, but as sciences, they are subject to pragmatic goals too, and are all too often subsumed under that banner. All too often we get people (like fatal is pretending to be) in our universities, who aren't interested in science because they are interested in what it tells us, but are simply interested in a doctor's salary. This kind of person, I think, will not make a good doctor. I'd go so far as to say that this person will not be a full human being, with the fullest investment of what it means to be human.

Blowfish wrote:

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.

I think you're being conceited and unfair now. If you had read me in any way sympathetically you'd realise that my target here is university subjects taught and conceived of as only valuable insofar as they satisfy a pragmatic goal. My target is people who see higher education as only a means to an end, and not as personally enriching in itself. These people can be both college administrators and government officials, and can also be college students and parents. Of course every subject can be intrinsically valuable in itself, but I move that that component of that subject is the liberal-arts-component, and is the only academic part - the only part that is suitable for study in a university.

Blowfish wrote:

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.

It would be quite a significant problem for anyone to accuse me of that. In line with my thoughts on the arts, I have made it my personal duty to discover what the sciences tell us about our origins, and of how the world around us works. My interest in this regard is motivated purely intrinsically - ie. I have no exterior motive or further goal towards which this knowledge enables me - whether employment-related or otherwise. It is simply something I wish to know, and something I am willing to spend time discovering.

I think that this attitude enriches me as a person. fatal believes that this attitude is worth no more than loo paper. We are not the same.

FionnMatthew

Blut wrote:

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.

That is completely missing the point. The argument is that neither the actual degree, the physical bit of paper, nor the number of lectures you attend is representative of the value of the arts. If you start evaluating it in terms of what it leads to, or what you have to show for it, then you're on the wrong track. Instead, the arts are only valuable insofar as you find them valuable.

Your argument that arts has all the depth you put into it is flawed, thats not what people have a problem with. A degree in hair management from Tallaght IT can have plenty of depth if youre willing to invest hundreds of hours of your time researching hair care by personal choice. I have friends in veterinary, medicine, B&L, science, engineering - in ANY of these courses if someone tried to get by on the amount of work most arts students do they would have failed horrifically in first year.

Oh, ffs. It doesn't matter a curse HOW MUCH work you put into an arts degree. It doesn't matter a curse whether or not your lecturers mark you a 2.2 or a 1.1. That's simply an extrinsic, and ultimately fallible survey of your ability - a responsibility that was not originally expected of universities - rigorous assessment is something quite recent in some subjects, like philosophy.

The point is, if you don't have some appreciation for the arts, you're a churl. Hair management?? Hair management?? What kind of a life is a life where the sum total of all your accumulated knowledge applies to the management of human hair so as to present an appearance in accordance with whimsy and fashion?? Where are you with that? Nowhere. You're a one-dimensional person, with a flattened awareness. You're utterly boring in the general scheme of things, nothing about you amounts to anything other than your occasionally replenished wallet, and your death is a shame only insofar as some people who were used to you being around will feel an absence for as long as they can remember you, which won't be too long at all.

The fact that the minimum workload in arts is so amazingly low is why its regarded as an easy degree. If 80% of students get by on 15-20 hours work a week (and I'd say thats a pretty high average) then it doesnt really matter how much personal work the other 20% do, the perception of arts as "easy" will stand. If you, or anyone else, wanted to improve the perception of arts exams would need to be made harder and/or more frequent and there would need to be far more continous assessment.

Easy? It is a matter of infinitesimal significance how "easy" your exams are in the arts. The problem is that people want to base an assessment of the arts on how "easy" it is. Who cares? The arts are positively enriching to people who are interested in them. These people don't care about the piece of paper at the end of it. What they care about is the sense of wonder they encounter when they learn the really important things. Much is made of secret wisdom - but here it is; not secret, but available to all, the key to understanding our world in its fullest sense. Beside this, your talk of examinations, marking, evaluation, etc., is very trivial, and indicative of a vacuous intellectual awareness, regardless of the veracity of your claims to having a good academic record.

And, fyi and all that, given I did almost half my final year exams at Christmas and got all 1.1s I'd imagine I'll get at least a 2.1 overall in my degree and be accepted into a masters program where I can coast by again. Then into academia where I'll be paid to coast - the ultimate goal of an arts student

I find it very hard to believe that you've been getting firsts with any degree of credibility, if your understanding of the merits of academic study leaves so much to be desired.

Also, because these questions are important, and have a bearing on how your claims are interpreted:
1. What subjects do you take?
2. Who are you?

FYI: I have a long standing record of academic excellence in the academy, and my antagonism here with regard to your achievment is not based on any measure of jealousy. Believe me, I've no reason to be jealous of you.

With regard to the last few posts:
I think it's possible to do only a small amount of work and still get a first in arts. I didn't do a HUGE amount of work in the last two years, and yet I've gotten more firsts than I have any other grade.

But this evidence on its own isn't enough. None of the above achievment would have been possible without my long standing interest in the arts, without my blossoming awareness during my three previous years that it was in fact the liberal arts that I wanted to study, that I wanted to spend time just learning. I did a lot of reading then, and developed my sensibility for the arts, developed a sensitivity for what is required.

I don't believe it is possible to do well in the arts without this sensitivity, without this appreciation for the arts. You don't have to be a genius, and neither do you have to do a lot of externally verifiable work, but you do need to appreciate the arts.

I needn't mention that my achievments in this degree are already equal to getting me a much-sought place at a very good university. But these accolades are nothing really. For me, the real benefit is that I had time to study these things - and that I did study them, and drew from them what I needed to justify my own existence.

If you didn't get that out of your arts degree, your firsts stand for nothing of very much importance. All you hold is a credit note.

Then into academia where I'll be paid to coast - the ultimate goal of an arts student

Coast as an academic, and you'll be a bad academic. That simple. Your students will hate you, your peers will not notice you. Nothing you write will be of any note. You'll live, get paid and die, and your name will be buried under the deluge of names of academics who were more noteworthy, who weren't content to coast, but to do something with their lives, and to endeavour to contribute to the academic project, which is bigger than themselves and no more than an emblem for our species.

Coast along, and you'll be an impostor. A nothing. Just filler. That's neither admirable nor worthwhile. That's the very epitome of a waste of time.

It won't be your arts degree that'll be worthless. It'll be you.

You.

humbert

I don't think there would be much derision shown toward arts if the majority of arts students shared your view and not that of Blut. Though for people to study anything purely for it's academic merit, or even genuine personal interest - which I would respect, is becoming more and more uncommon. Exactly what is to blame for this is hard(for me) to pinpoint.

Actually, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say greed.

Blut

My work load last term for the people asking:
About 2 hours of tutorials a week
Roughly 6 hours every second or third week spent doing an essay
Cramming every day for two weeks before the exams for about 5 hours a day

Not a huge amount of work by any stretch of the imagination. I tend to do well at exams naturally but I have friends who got grades almost as high with a similar amount of work.

(Ive completely skipped that huge essay reply there, in a bit of a rush will reply to it at a later stage!)

foxybrowne

I'd just like to back up that point. Its a disgrace, you couldn't make it up!

mloc

I would put the figure of those who take an arts degree for "life development" and "true appreciation of the arts" somewhere around 5%. The rest, of course, is made up of those who either enter arts for its supposed ease of passing and those who look at it as a relatively stress-free stepping stone to a fourth level qualification.

Noteworthy exceptions are the languages, where people may have some sort of interest in taking them up.

That 5% who look past the marking and simply wish to expand their mind through academic study are a dying breed. I personally having nothing against enjoying the arts, but in my opinion, and it is of course just that, an opinion, one must move with the times. If you deem grades to have no real siginificance anyway, why not study the arts outside college and in your own time? If you see the arts degree as nothing but a "credit note", then why stay in college to learn and expand your mind... certainly, whilst lectures might be interesting, at higher levels they are simply a guideline to further reading and thus largely unneccesary.

In any case, I see no problem with those who coast through college, once their knowledge is satisfactory to pass an exam at the end. The world is simply a collection of systems and mechanisms, and I applaud those who take advantage of these systems to make maximum gains with minimum effort.

humbert

mloc wrote:

I applaud those who take advantage of these systems to make maximum gains with minimum effort.

You're gonna feel a bit silly if you get robbed on the way home.

Blush_01

panda100 wrote:

Every course gets slagging believe me,but art students in general do get a bit more touchy about it . The ags and vets have to endure constant bogger,sheep sh*agging insults;b+l have to endure d4,tanorexic,ross O carroll kelly type slagging. Personally Im sick of people saying 'oooh how many points did u get'. We all get judged on what course we do but you have to learn to just roll with the punches and not get upset by the slagging. Such is lfe.

Firstly, I never said every course doesn't get some slagging (and it's artS students, although I'm sure art students get a bit annoyed about the slagging too). I have never heard people slag any other faculty in the same way as they slag Arts though - and usually with reddened faces once they find out what I study. Likewise, I don't think that any certificate, diploma or degree course is beyond merit, so excuse me if I don't join in. Slagging of

d4,tanorexic,ross O carroll kelly type

falls under the Arts umbrella too, don't forget. Secondly, boo-hoo for you, you get slagged about being smart? That's an insult to your intelligence how exactly? The next time I see a toilet-roll holder with "Medical Degree, please take one", I'll send you a PM. If you'd like to hold your breath while you wait, you might be doing us all a favour. I'm sure you'd expire before I got in touch - proof of my point.

Personally, I'd rather people sneered at me about how hugely well I did in my leaving, rather than imagining I only did Arts because I didn't know what I wanted to do (which I did, and still do) and imagine I got less than 400 points and wanted an "easy" degree. I may not put in many hours in the library (because I find it a terrible place to study and prefer my own desk where I won't be asked to leave at x time) but I study best at night, and make no apology for it. I can spend as many hours during the day arsing around as I like, as long as I get my work done. I don't ask anyone else to justify their timetable to me.

Students in other faculties battle on about how arduous their courses are and how much they hate x, y and z. Yet I'm supposed to apologise for not studying something I hate, simply because it doesn't require the same number of classroom hours? Simple answer to that - if you hate it, do something you love instead. I'll never rely on YOUR tax euros to support me - I'll always find work somewhere, regardless of what I'm doing. So stop worrying that because I chose love over obligation I'll become a social financial burden once I graduate.

Once again, people's reaction to the slagging is generally indicative of the kind of Arts student they are. Example: FionnMatthew takes his degree seriously, as is patently obvious in his responses. Blut, on the other hand, couldn't really give a toss and is happy enough to be that way. Can you not differentiate between the two?

mloc

humbert wrote:

You're gonna feel a bit silly if you get robbed on the way home.

touche. perhaps i should have mentioned something about morality.

Spectator#1

mloc wrote:

I would put the figure of those who take an arts degree for "life development" and "true appreciation of the arts" somewhere around 5%. The rest, of course, is made up of those who either enter arts for its supposed ease of passing and those who look at it as a relatively stress-free stepping stone to a fourth level qualification.

Noteworthy exceptions are the languages, where people may have some sort of interest in taking them up.

Perhaps in first year, your percentages might be somewhere near correct. However I think that's a serious underestimation of the intelligence, ability and dedication of second, third (and fourth year) arts students.

And why could someone not have 'some sort of interest' in just studying Philosophy, or Art-History, or English?

That 5% who look past the marking and simply wish to expand their mind through academic study are a dying breed. I personally having nothing against enjoying the arts, but in my opinion, and it is of course just that, an opinion, one must move with the times. If you deem grades to have no real siginificance anyway, why not study the arts outside college and in your own time? If you see the arts degree as nothing but a "credit note", then why stay in college to learn and expand your mind... certainly, whilst lectures might be interesting, at higher levels they are simply a guideline to further reading and thus largely unneccesary.

One must move with the times? And what is that supposed to signify? It's not the 'done thing' anymore to study out of interest so nobody should do it? I reckon you should start thinking for yourself before you burn your finger in the fire.

Your 'estimates' signify nothing, even if they were correct. I'm in college out of interest, I don't give a **** about the tourists.

And the reasons people might want to study it in college as opposed to at home are myriad, if you can't comprehend that somebody might want to

- study with and under like-minded, intelligent, learned people or
- devote a large proportion of their time to studying, (as opposed to working during the day and studying as a hobby)

then I'm afraid that's just your problem. Lectures are not only interesting, they are provided by some fine academics who might be able to impart a particularly interesting perspective from which to approach the subject. I, for one, benefited especially from the tuition provided by several of my lecturers - academically and personally.

In any case, I see no problem with those who coast through college, once their knowledge is satisfactory to pass an exam at the end. The world is simply a collection of systems and mechanisms, and I applaud those who take advantage of these systems to make maximum gains with minimum effort.

Well then I pity you. You may not want my pity; but that's only because your limited world-view doesn't allow you to understand why you deserve it. Systems and mechanisms? Good luck with life.

Spectator#1

mloc wrote:

perhaps i should have mentioned something about morality.

And good luck fitting morality into a world of systems and mechanisms.

DJDC

Blut is correct; UCD Arts is a joke degree. This is widely known by both employers and other 3rd level institutions nationally and internationally.

Notice I am not saying an arts degree itself is a joke just that the UCD arts degree is. How come Trinity or UCC Arts doesn’t have the same stigma attached to them as UCD Arts? Maybe due to the fact, that each year 1000 students enter UCD arts, 90% of whom didn’t even want to do it, on mediocre LC points and doss their way through 3 years of college.

The end result is disorganized syllabuses, disinterested students, and pathetic academic standards. UCD needs to cut down on the number of wasters who get into arts each year but never will, because too much of their funding is government based.

MrSteve

Yeah i can't believe people are defending UCD arts. I just finished last yr with 2.1 in psychology & employers see ucd arts on my cv & immediately think joker! waste of time if you're lookin to go staight into an in any way decent career after & not all of us have daddy there to throw money at us for further studies

Dave!

Maybe you could do some work to get money, then?

Blowfish

MrSteve wrote:

Yeah i can't believe people are defending UCD arts. I just finished last yr with 2.1 in psychology & employers see ucd arts on my cv & immediately think joker! waste of time if you're lookin to go staight into an in any way decent career after & not all of us have daddy there to throw money at us for further studies

If you'd actually read what they said, you would see that they were defending it on the basis of its intrinsic value only.

Sangre

Spectator#1 wrote:

One must move with the times? And what is that supposed to signify? It's not the 'done thing' anymore to study out of interest so nobody should do it? I reckon you should start thinking for yourself before you burn your finger in the fire.

It's the 'done thing' to be able to educate yourself in a way so as to make yourself more employable, something which UCD Arts isn't the best at providing. Similarly not everybody has the means to spend 3/4 years in college 'to broaden their horizons'.

Your 'estimates' signify nothing, even if they were correct. I'm in college out of interest, I don't give a **** about the tourists.

The 'estimates' signify something when we're talking about the external value of the degree, namely its value to an employer.