Easy Elective Choices

Raphael

Apparently I need to remind people that personal abuse is against the charter. This saddens me. And pisses me off.

So next person to break the charter in this thread, will be taking a bit of a break.

33% God

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Ah, yes, the old "high horse": the eternal non-argument of those who are content to wallow in ****. Slave morality in action. Nobody should ever know more or learn more. If they do, trot out the high horse. That'll bring 'em down with the rest of you.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that education is supposed to be about making yourself something more than you already are, of raising not only your abilities but also your standards. Instead, you'd rather mock anyone who actually has been educated. You find it comforting.

Since you think in pictures and not in ideas, you'll be relieved to know that that's the way the university is heading. Soon a parchment will be available to anyone who can correctly identify the picture of the burger and distinguish it from the picture of the fries.

And the solution to that is to charge fees? Talk about throwing th baby out with the bathwater.

I fail to see how introducing fees would stop people from taking easy electives. To be honest I could only see it encouraging it. if I were here and paying fees I'd certainly be taking easier electives than I am now because I couldn't risk that amount of money. Of course if fees come in I won't be able to be here, and I will have to learn to distinguish the burgers from the fries.

Ernie Ball

33% God wrote: »

And the solution to that is to charge fees? Talk about throwing th baby out with the bathwater.

Fees are not a solution to this problem. Rather, their reintroduction will simply add an element of justice so that rather than cheating the taxpayers, students will only be cheating themselves.

But I think we should really take this "easy electives" stuff to its logical conclusion and just forget about electives altogether and spot everyone 5 credits and 4 grade points for nothing. It'll be a lot cheaper and every bit as educational (i.e., not at all).

But why stop there? Let's go the whole way and spot everyone 90 credits and 4.0 GPAs and not bother having any teaching. What's the point of teaching to students who couldn't give a **** about the subjects?

33% God

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Fees are not a solution to this problem. Rather, their reintroduction will simply add an element of justice so that rather than cheating the taxpayers, students will only be cheating themselves.

So your idea is that instead of the taxpayer having its future generation be those who were the best they will instead have those whose Daddies could afford it because a few people decided to take it easy for five credits? I don't agree with doing it, but I do see why people would. It can allow them to focus more time on another module that they find very difficult and that they may feel a thorough understanding of is essential to their future.

But I think we should really take this "easy electives" stuff to its logical conclusion and just forget about electives altogether and spot everyone 5 credits and 4 grade points for nothing. It'll be a lot cheaper and every bit as educational (i.e., not at all).

But why stop there? Let's go the whole way and spot everyone 90 credits and 4.0 GPAs and not bother having any teaching. What's the point of teaching to students who couldn't give a **** about the subjects?

Strawmen sure are fun :rolleyes:

Ernie Ball

33% God wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of the taxpayer having its future generation be those who were the best

Best at what? Best at choosing their courses solely on the basis of the minimal effort required?

The degree of self-flattery combined with abject laziness in the typical UCD student is not to be believed. The very same people who think it's perfectly acceptable to choose electives solely in virtue of their "easiness" will, in the next breath, be happy to proclaim to the world how they are "the best."

they will instead have those whose Daddies could afford it because a few people decided to take it easy for five credits?

Would that the problem were limited to that. Face it: dossing, cheating, and gaming the system are endemic at UCD.

I don't agree with doing it, but I do see why people would. It can allow them to focus more time on another module that they find very difficult and that they may feel a thorough understanding of is essential to their future.

That's an argument for doing away with electives.

Strawmen sure are fun :rolleyes:

You wouldn't know a straw man if he hit in you in face with his thatched paw. The term you were looking for was not a "straw man argument" but a "reductio ad absurdum." There is nothing wrong with such an argument, which merely teases out the logical implications of the eternal UCD student's quest for "easy electives."

Frisbee

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Best at what? Best at choosing their courses solely on the basis of the minimal effort required?

We're not talking about choosing courses here.
We're talking about choosing electives.

Why pick a hard elective that's going to take away from your study time for modules you actually care about and are part of your degree when you can pick two easy one's, save yourself some hassle and have more time to work on the modules that are part of your degree?!?

Ernie Ball

Frisbee wrote: »

We're not talking about choosing courses here.
We're talking about choosing electives.

Why pick a hard elective that's going to take away from your study time for modules you actually care about and are part of your degree when you can pick two easy one's, save yourself some hassle and have more time to work on the modules that are part of your degree?!?

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

Breezer

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

Ernie, for many people (and employers) academic education is not the be all and end all of life, or even of college. For you, it is. We get it.

Frisbee

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

So your saying you prefer to avoid the path of least resistance?

Ernie Ball

Breezer wrote: »

Ernie, for many people (and employers) academic education is not the be all and end all of life, or even of college. For you, it is. We get it.

No, you don't get it. What can you (or anyone else) know about the "ends" of life if you aren't sufficiently educated to have even the foggiest idea of the kinds of answers great minds throughout history have given to that very question?

So no, it is not that "academic education is the be all and end all of life." It is that, without academic education, it is virtually impossible to have any sense of what the possible candidates for "the be all and end all of life" might be.

As for what employers want:

1) it is a perversion of the idea of a university for it to be nothing more than vocational training;
2) you'll have to provide the argument to convince me that employers want a bunch of dossers who game every system and always take the easy way out.

Ernie Ball

Frisbee wrote: »

So your saying you prefer to avoid the path of least resistance?

Hey, you're no dummy.

Not only is that what I'm saying, but I'll go further and say this: the "path of least resistance" is inimical to the very idea of education.

Donald-Duck

Ernie since you seem to be a bit blind or living in a cave screaming your head off and not listening to anyone else, not everyone wants electives. I'd much prefer to have 12 modules from within my stream but thats not possible since all the electives are my cores. So I pick easy ones to fill in the space. I've no interest in learning about some topic that has no relevance to me. So I'm going to take all the maths modules that I covered in the leaving cert and just sit the exam without going to a lecture. I'm happy and it doesn't interfere with your life in any way so get over yourself.

And I know this is the case with a lot of other students.

Breezer

Ernie Ball wrote: »

No, you don't get it. What can you (or anyone else) know about the "ends" of life if you aren't sufficiently educated to have even the foggiest idea of the kinds of answers great minds throughout history have given to that very question?

So no, it is not that "academic education is the be all and end all of life." It is that, without academic education, it is virtually impossible to have any sense of what the possible candidates for "the be all and end all of life" might be.

Ernie I'm not talking about the meaning of life and you know it. I'm talking about what people want to do with their lives, what they want to do with their time in college, and what employers like to see potential employees doing with said time. Contrary to what you seem to believe, that isn't, in every single person's case, to ponder great issues and learn for the sake of academic learning. In some cases it is, and that's fine too.

As for what employers want:

1) it is a perversion of the idea of a university for it to be nothing more than vocational training;
2) you'll have to provide the argument to convince me that employers want a bunch of dossers who game every system and always take the easy way out.

A university, for you, is a place of learning purely for the sake of learning. For many others (I suspect the majority), it is a means to an end, and is indeed a place to pursue vocational training. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this.

You know fine well that I'm not referring to dossing when I say "this is what employers want." I am referring to employers looking for well-rounded individuals, who are capable of reason and analysis as you say, but who are also equipped with basic facts about everyday situations that they'll encounter in their working lives (yes, there is a place for learning things off), have good social skills (building relationships is quite important in the world of work you know), can take on responsibility (in university this could take the form of running clubs/societies/union involvement, for example), and yes, who can play a system in order to achieve the best results for a company. Life outside of academia is very different to the utopia you want to live in, and even academia requires the above-mentioned skills.

Finally, I'm going to ask you (I suspect in vain) to withdraw your remark about me not being "sufficiently educated," as it is groundless. I repeat: you do not know the slightest thing about me, and are in no position to judge me.

Raphael, apologies for feeding the troll, but I'm not taking that from him.

Ernie Ball

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Ernie since you seem to be a bit blind or living in a cave screaming your head off and not listening to anyone else, not everyone wants electives. I'd much prefer to have 12 modules from within my stream but thats not possible since all the electives are my cores. So I pick easy ones to fill in the space. I've no interest in learning about some topic that has no relevance to me.

What makes you think you're competent to decide what's "relevant" to you if you haven't been exposed to anything more than an extremely thin sliver of what has been thought and done?

Bubs101

Don't feed the trolls

Ernie Ball

Breezer wrote: »

Ernie I'm not talking about the meaning of life and you know it. I'm talking about what people want to do with their lives

And you think that that question has nothing to do with the broader and deeper question of what life is for? Well, you're wrong. Rather, people think that they know the only possible answer to the question is: find a job, make money, have the crack, wonder what it was all about and then die. That is one answer among thousands, but it is the only one that occurs to the average UCD student. That is a failure of education that a properly functioning elective system (or, even better, a proper set of distribution requirements) would rectify.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, that isn't, in every single person's case, to ponder great issues and learn for the sake of academic learning.

A life led without having "pondered" the answers that humans have given to the question of life's meaning (or, if you prefer, its "ends": the "what should I/we do?" question) in an organized way is a life that is led blindly. University is the one place where that "pondering" can go on.

A university, for you, is a place of learning purely for the sake of learning. For many others (I suspect the majority), it is a means to an end, and is indeed a place to pursue vocational training.

Since when do individuals get to decide what institutions are? "Well, for me, the military is a giant jam doughnut with a marzipan filling; for you, it might be something else."

My view of what the University is is one that has come from knowing something about its history and its conception, from the medieval university to the modern Humboldtian research university. You, on the other hand, know nothing about what a university is. And we're supposed to put these two views--the knowledgeable and the ignorant--on an equal footing. That is your educational philosophy in a nutshell. Writ large it is the death of the university, which is why I say we might as well replace it with a printing press.

This perversion of the university that took place when room was made for vocational training as though that were an academic subject is nothing more than a big business takeover: getting the state to provide the training that the businesses should be providing themselves. It is exactly the sort of perversion that venality and greed bring to every other institution (music and the other arts, to take only one example). It is disheartening, however, to see students so enthusiastic about embracing their own mental slavery. For that is what it is.

There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this.

What fact is that? That your entirely ignorant (literally: you know nothing about the university as a historical institution) view and my informed one are on an equal footing? Well, sorry, that's not a fact and I therefore can't accept it as one.

You know fine well that I'm not referring to dossing when I say "this is what employers want." I am referring to employers looking for well-rounded individuals, who are capable of reason and analysis as you say, but who are also equipped with basic facts about everyday situations that they'll encounter in their working lives (yes, there is a place for learning things off), have good social skills (building relationships is quite important in the world of work you know), can take on responsibility (in university this could take the form of running clubs/societies/union involvement, for example), and yes, who can play a system in order to achieve the best results for a company.

Really now. They want employees who can get away with, for example, impressing the boss with results that they haven't really achieved (which is what this thread is about)? What kind of "playing of the system" do you have in mind? Because there's no reason for an employer to think that a student who "takes the path of least resistance" isn't going to do exactly the same in his job and not for the benefit of his employer.

As for the "well-rounded invidividuals": you'll have to explain to me how students who cheat the very system that is supposed to help make them "better rounded" end up, magically, becoming "well rounded." Try not to forget what we're talking about here.

Finally, I'm going to ask you (I suspect in vain) to withdraw your remark about me not being "sufficiently educated," as it is groundless. I repeat: you do not know the slightest thing about me, and are in no position to judge me.

I disagree. As you might put it: "For you, you're educated. For me, you're not. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this."

More seriously, I base my view that you are not sufficiently educated on the tenor and content of your responses here. You'll have to do better to convince me otherwise.

Raphael, apologies for feeding the troll, but I'm not taking that from him.

Interesting how someone who injects the tiniest scintilla of thought into a boards.ie thread is invariably called a "troll."

Shazbot

God, I swore O wouldn't get in on this arguement but here goes. Even though I agree with many points adress by both sides of the table I find Ernies are alot more condescending and insulting. You don't show an ounce of respect for anyone.

Ernie Ball wrote: »

It is disheartening, however, to see students so enthusiastic about embracing their own mental slavery. For that is what it is.

So you want to abolish this 'slavery'. Only let the pure hearted, hard working studious people into third level education?

What fact is that? That your entirely ignorant (literally: you know nothing about the university as a historical institution) view and my informed one are on an equal footing? Well, sorry, that's not a fact and I therefore can't accept it as one.

Breezers fact was that you each have a different viewpoint. Yet you don't want to leave it at that and throw in an insult. Can't you let it rest that you have different viewpoints?

I disagree. As you might put it: "For you, you're educated. For me, you're not. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this."

More seriously, I base my view that you are not sufficiently educated on the tenor and content of your responses here. You'll have to do better to convince me otherwise.

You insulted someone and made an unfair assumption of their character by a referencing a few posts. Is it fair to insult someone on a few posts? Is that your idea of a good mentality?
You don't have enough evidence (nor will you find it) that they are uneducated.

Why not assume that Breezer is well educated or are you always such a cynic?

Interesting how someone who injects the tiniest scintilla of thought into a boards.ie thread is invariably called a "troll."

While I agree with some of you're points I still feel you're a troll. Yes you brought some thought into the thread and got some people thinking but in order to do so you have insulted many people and dragged the thread way off topic. Therefore you are a troll.

If you want to dicuss the idea of the mentalities of students 'cheating the system and taxpayers' then bring it ofer to the humanities board where you will get a civil debate. You highjacked a thread about elective choices to express your opinion on lazy students. ie. Trolling!

To get back on topic.
It's a sad cliché but I always find the easiest electives are the ones I have an interest in. Find a topic that excites you and do a bit of reading about the module contents and see if you would like to study it.

wheatser

Thanks for those of you who actually answered the topic, it's been a great help to me.

Also, didnt mean to start a full blown argument just looking for some guidance.

With regard to ernie ball, he clearly didnt read the topic correctly. I asked people for advise on easy electives not advice on how to live my life. Surely there are rules in the forum about people who are not answering the topic at all!! Ernie Ball, if you really want to have an argument with people about how you feel about fees, electives, etc. then please just start your own thread.

Once again thanks for the help and hopefully i'll be able to enrol in some of those subjects.

Ernie Ball

wheatser wrote: »

Once again thanks for the help and hopefully i'll be able to enrol in some of those subjects.

Great. Just make sure that, whatever happens, you don't go and actually learn anything because that would require some effort.

Raphael

simonrooneyzaga banned for a week for personal abuse.

Ernie Ball banned indefinitely for consistent off-topic posting, insulting other posters and trolling

Ernie Ball

Where did I insult other posters that didn't insult me first?

Breezer

Ernie: I give up.

Shazbot: Thanks for the support but there's really no point in arguing with someone who clearly feels he's right 100% of the time.

wheatser: You're welcome. Sorry my answers got lost in the middle of attempting to reason with a brick wall.

Raphael

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Where did I insult other posters that didn't insult me first?

Note to self... ban people THEN say that I've banned them in thread

Fad

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Interesting how someone who injects the tiniest scintilla of thought into a boards.ie thread is invariably called a "troll."

If Boards is so beneath you, why post at all?

(Pity he cant reply :pac:)

griffdaddy

You could do one of the English electives, it's only an hour a week of contact time, one essay at the end of the semester for assessment and you'd probably really enjoy it. Plus, if Ernie Ball ever gets around to getting his trench-coat and pump-action shotgun out of storage you're sure to be lower down his list of targets.

emy-87

1st year information studies are really very easy. Its all about what information is, how Information affects our lives, the internet, yadda yadda. I read something in the Horizons stuff that Information Studies classes have the higest amount of students taking them as electives. And to think Im doing it as a major :rolleyes:

Breezer

griffdady wrote:

You could do one of the English electives, it's only an hour a week of contact time, one essay at the end of the semester for assessment and you'd probably really enjoy it. Plus, if Ernie Ball ever gets around to getting his trench-coat and pump-action shotgun out of storage you're sure to be lower down his list of targets.

emy-87 wrote: »

1st year information studies are really very easy. Its all about what information is, how Information affects our lives, the internet, yadda yadda. I read something in the Horizons stuff that Information Studies classes have the higest amount of students taking them as electives. And to think Im doing it as a major :rolleyes:

Yep, emy's definitely getting shot first. Not before me though, I suspect. Not only have I had the gall to pursue an intensely practical course that directly correlates to a particular career path, but should I be successful in my career I might end up saving the lives of those uneducated people who are ruining the world for everyone else Ernie Ball. Although I did pick electives from within my programme, attempting to learn a bit more than the bare minimum. But then again, since these were somewhat focused on practical issues, that probably cancels out any benefit they might have held. Anyone selling kevlar jackets? :pac: