Lazy Ucd Students

Ernie Ball

Vainglory wrote: »

"This is the last time I'll have to lecture you..I'm glad of that..None of you have learnt anything in your two and a half years here..You haven't a clue what a university means..You have no right asking questions about the structure of the exam, that is my business and <someone else's> business and we are professionals, you are all lazy and are just trying to get out of doing work for this exam, you just want to do the minimum work possible..I don't give a rat's ass whether any of you pass or fail, I'm sick of this crap..You're lucky I'm not going to tell you what I really think of you..What do you expect when two thirds of the class don't even bother turning up for my lectures..."

I couldn't possibly pick a favourite part out of all that...

The only part of it that is likely to be wrong is his use of the word 'none' in the third sentence. Maybe one or two people learned something. But what he says here is almost universally the experience lecturers have of students at UCD.

Think he's wrong? Read this thread and get back to me.

This doesn't justify the rest of his reported behaviour. But he's dead right about UCD students in general.

Ernie Ball

Caryatnid wrote: »

Most definitely. You are paying for this service as a student/tax-payer.

No, you're not paying for it. Remember: you have free fees. Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for it with their taxes either: the portion of their taxes that go to universities is a fraction of what it costs to educate little Oisin. The people paying for students to skip classes, do nothing and sit around on their arses are working people whose sons and daughters have almost no chance of going there.

Again, this is not to say that the lecturer in question is good or behaving professionally.

Lucas10101

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The lectures are on at 9, which is disgustingly early.

What would you do if you had four 9'o clock starts and 1 10'o clock a week like me? Stop complaining and get on with the work. You should have investigated timetables before doing the course...If you have a problem, don't run to boards.ie, simply go to management over him as that's all anyone can do.

griffdaddy

Ernie Ball wrote: »

The people paying for students to skip classes, do nothing and sit around on their arses are working people whose sons and daughters have almost no chance of going there.

That's nonsense. First of all, in terms of accessibility to third level education, you can't say much fairer than the present system we have in Ireland. You don't see anywhere near the same type of college-class/non college-class related division of rich and poor here as you do in say America, you also never hear of anyone coming out if university here with unrealistically crippling student loans like in England. If anyone wants to go to college here, they can. I'm not saying it's easy or inexpensive, but it's certainly possible if they're willing to work hard. How is it the people who work hard who fund students? does the government have a special division of civil servants dedicated to making sure money received through taxes goes towards the most ironic form of expenditure or something?

breadmonkey

Ernie Ball wrote: »

But he's dead right about UCD students in general.

That's quite a broad statement and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have absolutely nothing to back this up with apart from your own limited experiences and anecdotal (read "worthless") evidence?

Ernie Ball

griffdaddy wrote: »

That's nonsense. First of all, in terms of accessibility to third level education, you can't say much fairer than the present system we have in Ireland. You don't see anywhere near the same type of college-class/non college-class related division of rich and poor here as you do in say America

Complete twaddle.

If anyone wants to go to college here, they can. I'm not saying it's easy or inexpensive, but it's certainly possible if they're willing to work hard.

First of all, 'working hard' has nothing to do with anything. UCD students, on average, are a bunch of lazy layabouts. If they were working hard, word would have got out. Second, the key concept you seem to be missing is: class. Particularly, class as it manifests itself in secondary school. If you go to secondary school in some inferior school in Darndale, your chances of getting into UCD are a fraction of what they are in Foxrock. See this week's Irish times for a rundown on the feeder schools for universities.

How is it the people who work hard who fund students? does the government have a special division of civil servants dedicated to making sure money received through taxes goes towards the most ironic form of expenditure or something?

No, smart guy. It's really very simple. When fees were abolished, that was effectively a giant siphon sending money from the average taxpayer household to the average household with university students in it. The latter group is much smaller and richer than the former. Yet the proportion of their taxes that goes to third level education doesn't come close to covering the true cost of educating their precious little layabouts. Therefore, that education must in fact be funded by members of average households who are subsidising the offspring of the wealthy. QED.

Ernie Ball

breadmonkey wrote: »

That's quite a broad statement and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have absolutely nothing to back this up with apart from your own limited experiences and anecdotal (read "worthless") evidence?

Tell you what: ask one of your lecturers to be completely candid about the qualities of UCD students and see what they say.

Moore McDowell in economics told the truth one day on the radio and said that UCD students were "semi-literate" and you should have heard the howling. What he forgot to mention was that they were, as a group, also unspeakably lazy, doing the absolute minimum--usually in the form of rote learning--to get by.

As for the claim that they have no idea what a university is, the sociology lecturer was dead right. The average UCD student thinks that grades are all that matters and that learning is a procedure roughly equivalent to digestion: you cram it all in and then **** it all out. If you could cut them a deal where they'd get a guaranteed 2.2 and never had to attend a single class or read a single book, 80% of them would take it. I was in a class where the lecturer asked precisely this question and that was about the percentage who weren't too embarrassed to raise their hands.

Raphael

Split off from the thread Lecturer Problem.

snickerpuss

Ernie Ball wrote: »

First of all, 'working hard' has nothing to do with anything. UCD students, on average, are a bunch of lazy layabouts. If they were working hard, word would have got out. Second, the key concept you seem to be missing is: class. Particularly, class as it manifests itself in secondary school. If you go to secondary school in some inferior school in Darndale, your chances of getting into UCD are a fraction of what they are in Foxrock. See this week's Irish times for a rundown on the feeder schools for universities.

To be honest if you want to go to college you can go to college. Working hard has everything to do with it. I'm from Coolock, I go to UCD, there was nothing stopping me. All I had to do was get the points by studying myself.

A lot of people from schools in Darndale (There are no secondary schools there, they're in Coolock, but anyway) have no desire to go to college. They and their families don't see education as important, a lot of people I know left after the junior cert and got a trade. That's what they want to do. And also nobody has to go to an inferior school in Darndale, this isn't England, you can go to school in different areas so if you want to go to a slightly more decent school to get better marks you're well able to, I did. Yes, if you go to schools where at most they expect you to do a Leaving Cert Applied you probably won't end up in college but you choose where you go. There are plenty of decent schools close by.

For those that do want go to college there are access schemes to DCU etc (which many of my friends did) and a few different grants. College is there for you in areas like this, maybe more so because colleges will let you in on access programmes for less points and provide grants and grinds. You just have to want to do it. And it's not UCD's fault if people value trades and jobs over going to college. That's just the mentality.

I hate that only .8% or whatever ridiculously small figure it was of people in Dublin 17 (Coolock/Darndale, where I live) go on to further education but it's simply not the norm and not wanted even though you have just have to work at the leaving cert to get in. It's not UCD's or any colleges fault.

Also good lord, I would never generalise 22,000 people as lazy. That in itself is seriously lazy stereotyping.

(This wasn't meant to be such a ramble, but being from Darndale doesn't mean you will never get to college since it's really up to you, coming from an area like that isn't an excuse. If I can be from Coolock and go to college anybody can.)

breadmonkey

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Tell you what: ask one of your lecturers to be completely candid about the qualities of UCD students and see what they say.

Moore McDowell in economics told the truth one day on the radio and said that UCD students were "semi-literate" and you should have heard the howling. What he forgot to mention was that they were, as a group, also unspeakably lazy, doing the absolute minimum--usually in the form of rote learning--to get by.

As for the claim that they have no idea what a university is, the sociology lecturer was dead right. The average UCD student thinks that grades are all that matters and that learning is a procedure roughly equivalent to digestion: you cram it all in and then **** it all out. If you could cut them a deal where they'd get a guaranteed 2.2 and never had to attend a single class or read a single book, 80% of them would take it. I was in a class where the lecturer asked precisely this question and that was about the percentage who weren't too embarrassed to raise their hands.

Do yo have anything even remotely solid or is the above the extent of your heavily biased rant?

Tell you what: ask one of your lecturers to be completely candid about the qualities of UCD students and see what they say.

And then what? What percentage of lecturers will have experience in such a diverse range of colleges that they will be able to compare UCD students with students from any other college?

Moore McDowell in economics told the truth one day on the radio and said that UCD students were "semi-literate" and you should have heard the howling. What he forgot to mention was that they were, as a group, also unspeakably lazy, doing the absolute minimum--usually in the form of rote learning--to get by.

Not UCD specific.

As for the claim that they have no idea what a university is, the sociology lecturer was dead right. The average UCD student thinks that grades are all that matters and that learning is a procedure roughly equivalent to digestion: you cram it all in and then **** it all out. If you could cut them a deal where they'd get a guaranteed 2.2 and never had to attend a single class or read a single book, 80% of them would take it.

1)Not UCD specific
2)The learning procedure you describe is engrained in students long before they get to college.
3)80% hahaha Where did you pull that number from? Oh wait.....

I was in a class where the lecturer asked precisely this question and that was about the percentage who weren't too embarrassed to raise their hands.

Refer to:

anecdotal (read "worthless") evidence

---

Where are you coming from with all of this? Do you work in UCD or what?

EDIT: Agree completely with pretty much everything snickerpuss wrote.

Ernie Ball

And then what? What percentage of lecturers will have experience in such a diverse range of colleges that they will be able to compare UCD students with students from any other college?

Uh, all of them? Almost all lecturers have advanced degrees from other institutions, generally better institutions with more capable and enthusiastic students than those at UCD. Most of them will have taught in other universities as well, visited other universities for conferences and lectures, spoken to colleagues at other universities, etc. etc.

Not UCD specific.

That rote learning and laziness are not specific to UCD does not mean that they are not endemic (epidemic, really) at UCD. But that kind of logic can't easily be learned by rote, so there's no reason to expect most UCD students to be able to reason in this way.

1)Not UCD specific
2)The learning procedure you describe is engrained in students long before they get to college.
3)80% hahaha Where did you pull that number from? Oh wait.....

Here's something to learn by rote: it's 'ingrained' not 'engrained'.

Do some research of your own. Ask your lecturers to be completely candid and to rate their students on a scale of 1 to 10 on the following qualities:

1) Lazy or Hardworking?
2) Apathetic or Enthusiastic?
3) Rote learners or thinkers?

Or you could ask them to estimate what percentage of their students are, in their eyes, doing more than the absolute minimum.

Or you could just ask your fellow students the following question (ask them to be completely candid): if you were promised in writing on entering UCD that you'd get the class of degree you can realistically aspire to (first, 2.1, 2.2) and you'd get to spend 3 or 4 years at UCD partying your arse off and you'd never have to attend a single class or read a single book, would you do it?

I put it to you that a majority would do it. And among the minority who wouldn't, the major reason would be the social stigma of not 'really' participating--not having classes to talk about with their mates or being 'out of it'--and not any concern with learning.

A university where only a tiny minority care about learning (not the rote kind, the kind that involves actual thinking) isn't much of a university. Which is why that sociology lecturer in the other thread was right.

Cannibal Ox

Ernie Ball wrote:

What he forgot to mention was that they were, as a group, also unspeakably lazy, doing the absolute minimum--usually in the form of rote learning--to get by.

Did you ask him this? Or are you just putting your words in his mouth and hoping that it will somehow legitimise an arguement that lacks any evidence?

Lucas10101 wrote:

What would you do if you had four 9'o clock starts and 1 10'o clock a week like me?

I'd do the same as if I had two lectures a week on at 9am, go to them

I get your point, and if I hadn't attended a single lecture I'd probably have no right to moan about having to get up at 6:30 to attend a core lecture, which I have to do, that the lecturer doesn't even make on time. But I have attended almost all of them, so....I think I can moan about having to go to them every now and again, even if it serves no particular point. I mean, one throw away line about getting up early, not really the end of the world tbh.

Ernie Ball

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

Did you ask him this? Or are you just putting your words in his mouth and hoping that it will somehow legitimise an arguement that lacks any evidence?

Typical UCD student thinks that if there are no concrete statistics (that can be learned off by rote) then it can't possibly be true.

dajaffa

Ah ffs among 22,000 students of course there's a fair few lazy ones. In my class there's about 3 people out of 60 who weren't really attending lectures, + 2 of those have dropped out. We've all just spent the last 4 months working in hospitals full-time with no expenses and no allowance for sick days because of horizons. Not what I'd call "lazy".

And you know I reckon if you asked students about getting a 2:2 with no work, well if they'd any sense they'd say no because degrees would be valueless. I know I wouldn't because (a)I'd be crap at my job, (b)I could never do a postgrad and (c)I prob wouldn't get the job I want with a 2:2.

As for access to UCD, I'd be a liar to call the system completely fair, but I can with confidence say bthe system isn't corrupt. If you get the poits in the Leaving you get into the course. Now this isn't the thread for a rant about the entry routes, but have you noticed that every year we have an access week where volunteer UCD students show people from disadvantaged areas around UCD, do some fun things in labs etc to encourage them to go to UCD. Wouldn't class them as lazy either.

Finally in the lecture based courses you probably can get away with non-attendance, in any health science, science, engineering, ag sci or architecture course you'd have failed long before the formal exams because you'd have failed the practical component which can account for far above 50% of the marks depending on the module.

Oh + Vainglory is a she!

the evil lime

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Typical UCD student thinks that if there are no concrete statistics (that can be learned off by rote) then it can't possibly be true.

I think they intended to point out that if there are no facts here, and there really aren't, we are reduced to attempting to place value on statements of opinion. That's an entirely subjective process, from which no definite resolution to the argument can be reached.

Ernie Ball

the evil lime wrote: »

I think they intended to point out that if there are no facts here, and there really aren't, we are reduced to attempting to place value on statements of opinion. That's an entirely subjective process, from which no definite resolution to the argument can be reached.

The entirety of philosophy from Socrates onward is, by this definition, 'an entirely subjective process from which no definite resolution to the argument can be reached.' That doesn't mean that there are no truths discussed or promoted in philosophy or that philosophy is a pointless endeavour.

But I wouldn't expect those who think learning is about assimilating a lot of factual content to be able to figure this out. The typical UCD rote-learner thinks that, on the one hand, there are facts (to which one must submit): immutable, unassailable, brute facts. They think their education consists in amassing as many of these as possible. On the other hand, everything that is not a fact, according to this mindset, is a mere opinion and therefore valueless. All opinions, in their view, are equally valid. I say the Nazis did a bad thing when they killed 6,000,000 Jews and somebody else says they did a good thing. Who's to say who is right?

What's missing, of course, is something that's almost entirely missing from the mindset of UCD students: reasoned argument (which is neither a set of facts nor a mere opinion).

Sangre

Ernie Ball wrote: »

But I wouldn't expect those who think learning is about assimilating a lot of factual content to be able to figure this out.

Call me crazy but I'd rather my doctor spent in his time in college assimilating a lot of factual content than debating the merits of subjective truths .

stereoroid

I've had one lecturer who has dropped hints that he thinks we're lazy, when commenting on the complaints some students have made about his course. However, it's not laziness if students can't get a handle on the problems he's setting, because he's made invalid assumptions about what the students came to UCD with. Another lecturer just threw hundreds of formulae on the OHP and blackboard, without explaining what they were for or where they were leading.

I expect lecturers to provide shape to a course, and direction to students. Work is only useful if it's pointing in the right direction: it's negligent to tell students to "work harder", as a substitute a for proper explanation of the topic that allows students to focus their efforts on what is important. Six courses, 12 weeks... you gotta prioritize. One lecturer doesn't have the right to leech my time away from the other five, just because his course is badly planned and full of holes. :rolleyes:

If all my courses looked like this, then I'd start wondering what was wrong with me, but most of my lecturers do seem to understand what's involved. That means that I know I can put the work in, and it will be worth it. In this semester, however, I have two courses that are irrelevant to my programme, and all I care about is passing them so I can move on to the real business.

Ernie Ball

Sangre wrote: »

Call me crazy but I'd rather my doctor spent in his time in college assimilating a lot of factual content than debating the merits of subjective truths .

Again, you seem unable to follow the point. A doctor who knew only factual content and was unable to exercise reason and judgement would be just about the worst doctor imaginable.

Are you getting it now? There's more to intellectual life than facts on the one hand and subjective opinion on the other.

To the typical UCD rote-learner, this very simple idea is almost incomprehensible. Witness these responses.

TheVan

I'm doing a masters in London at the moment and I completely back up what the OP said....kind of

I think there is a problem with the work ethic in UCD. I don't necessarily think its the students' fault though. I don't think students are pushed hard enough and I think lecturers who give "hints" for exams (which is a large number of them!) facilitate the short-cut attitude that students seem to have.

Similarly, I think there is a work ethic problem with lecturers in UCD. While I had some fantastic, hard-working lecturers, others just don't bother. Its an ethos that needs to change (although I think it is, slowly but surely!)

Sangre

TheVan wrote: »

I'm doing a masters in London at the moment and I completely back up what the OP said....kind of

I think there is a problem with the work ethic in UCD. I don't necessarily think its the students' fault though. I don't think students are pushed hard enough and I think lecturers who give "hints" for exams (which is a large number of them!) facilitate the short-cut attitude that students seem to have.

Similarly, I think there is a work ethic problem with lecturers in UCD. While I had some fantastic, hard-working lecturers, others just don't bother. Its an ethos that needs to change (although I think it is, slowly but surely!)

Ironically, all this generalising is an incrediblely lazy way of arguing.

Ernie Ball

Sangre wrote: »

Ironically, all this generalising is an incrediblely lazy way of arguing.

What would be a non-lazy way of arguing, Socrates?

TheVan

Sangre wrote: »

Ironically, all this generalising is an incrediblely lazy way of arguing.

True....but I have college work for tomorrow...

MuddyDog

he's dead right though....i mean we have blackboard. that's like lectures whenever we want to go. take away blackboard and see what happens

Sangre

Most people do the minimum required whatever the situation. Its hardly a trait exclusive to UCD students.

ernie ball wrote:

What would be a non-lazy way of arguing, Socrates?

Well, it might be just me but I try and avoid basing my whole argument on conjecture, hearsay and roundabout ad hominem attacks.

stolenwine

Most definitely a grosse généralisation from what i've experienced.

Your ravings are as crazed as the lecturer who you quote from. I hope he loses his job over that.

breadmonkey

Ernie it's quite obvious that the time has come for you to either provide some actual hard evidence or STFU. Your incessant repetition of the same nonsense is becoming tedious.

Also, I'll write out the word "ingrained" 10 times so I never get it wrong again. Actually, I think I'll just write it out once and then copy and paste it because that's the UCD way right?

ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained
ingrained

Hahaha, I look forward to more stories from your lectures.

fish-head

Who is this guy?

breadmonkey

Sangre wrote: »

Well, it might be just me but I try and avoid basing my whole argument on conjecture, hearsay and roundabout ad hominem attacks.

Ernie's counter to this is to simply keep the same line of illogical, fallacious argument until you become fed up and give up on the thread.

Stabshauptmann

How would one prove the point one way or the other?

I dont know how hard even my closest freinds work because Im not with them 24/7, but UCD definitly didnt meet my academic expectations.

Every european erasmus student I meet (from across all UCD's colleges) has told me they find the standards expected of students lower here than in their own universities.

A lot of academics in UCD and the VP in Trinity (though he has a fancy title I cant remember) have publicly said that the manner in which universities are funded is bad for education. In their opinion:
1)Free fees has generated very passive, indifferent students

2)Universities are fighting like never before to attract and retain students which means teaching courses to accomadate the slowest rather than challenge the brightest and a reluctance to fail anyone.

Im my own school the fail rate is practically non-existant. I know in other schools especially where there is a practical element this is not the case but according to the Observer there is a trend of grade inflation throughour all colleges.

I personally dont put any of this blame on the students. People generally will only do what is required of them and those who want to go above and beyond can (though I've not seen it rewarded).
The university's entire approach to teaching and research is askew.

But this is what Irish society wants. We want it to be possible for everyone to attain a degree. The problem is we'll very soon be in the situation where a degree is useless and you wont get a job without a masters.

Red Alert

To a certain extent that's evident in the drug company sector - they have people doing work who have PhD's who quite frankly just don't need them. Other sectors like the electronics multinationals appear to place little if any value on a PhD.