What are the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD

comebackkid

I am a mature student and am trying to sort my preferences for the CAO application. I am interested in doing an Arts course so could current students please advise me on what the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD are.

Thank you

Het-Field

There are no cons to entering Arts. The only detraction you may hear, are the catcalls of students of "more practical degrees", who couldnt value the Arts degree.

The huge range of subjects, and the ability to choose several of those subjects is a clear advantage. You can engage with the humanities, languages, music and drama. These courses encompass tutorials which gives you the chance to discuss what you have learned with other students of the same discipline.

Some of the lecturers are top of their field. Tom Garvin (Politics) is the number one intellectual in the field of Nations and Nationalism, Richard Aldous (for better or for worse) is becoming one of the most notable historians of this decade, while Gerard Casey (Philosophy) was widely quoted, and is a media heavyweight in terms of moral philosophy.

The limited hours of the course gives you ample ability to read widely A poor arts degree can be gained by limited work, a great arts degree can be achieved by wide reading, and personal evaluation of the subjects at hand.

The people you meet. While in a literal sense, the Quinn School contains the most colourful people, the Arts block contains some of the most interesting, intellegent, and articulate people you are likely to meet. If you choose to interact with you class, societies, or your tutorial group, you are bound to make some good and colourful friends for life

I have never regretted doing a BA in UCD. You wont either !!!

Time Magazine

Het-Field wrote: »

There are no cons to entering Arts.

That's a dirty rotten, filthy lie! Three years of foregone earnings being the huge factor.

College graduates definitely earn more:



but with certain Arts subjects your life-time earnings may actually go down. That's to say on average people don't make up for those lost earnings ever. That's not to say university education will not be the best endeavour you may ever embark upon, but it is something people should know and bear in mind.

Also, Het-Field, you stated that some professors are at the top of their fields but failed to argue why this is necessarily a good thing for a student. Certainly in my experience and in the experience of some of my friends, the highest-regarded professors were often the least-friendly and/or worst teachers. There are advantages to having well-regarded professors around the place, but they're primarily restricted to if you want pursue a PhD abroad, etc.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

There are no cons to entering Arts.

What a terrible, terrible way to start a post. Ofcourse there are cons to choosing to study arts over other courses, or over other opportunities in life.

Het-field also wants to immediatly dismiss one of the major cons to doing arts, why I can only guess is part of some sort of inferiority complex.

OP, the pros and cons will depend on both what you want to get out of arts, and what you are willing to put into it.

Pros.
Arts offers a wide degree of choice and flexibility. For those who wish to learn for learnings sake it is a very good choice.

Arts has comparability, very few hours per week. Depending on your subject choices the work load can be very light. This is good because it allows you more time to socialise / work part-time.

And ofcourse at the end of the day you will have a BA, which depending on the careers you might wish to pursue in the future can be an asset.

Cons
Many careers you may wish to pursue will be closed to you unless you have studied certain subjects. This should be a particular concern of yours at your age and considering the current economic climate. Ofcourse the converse is also true, Id be hard pressed to get a job as an archaeologist I imagine with a commerce degree, but if you look at arts two most popular choices: English and History, how many of them do you think end up writing novels or history books?

Arts lectures will be in large theatres. There will be 100s of students per lecture. I can only compare this to Commerce, and my personal preferences; imo its easier to get to know people in small classes. Though arts will have the other avenues for meeting people that all courses do, tutorials and societies / clubs.

Whether or not the type of person studying arts is a pro or con depends entirely on what type of person you like / get along with; its hardly universal so I'd never be so foolish as to list it as a pro or con.

I wasnt sure mature applications were dealt with through the CAO, at any rate best of luck comebackkid and may you find success in whatever you do.

dyl10

Well being an Arts student, I find both of the above posts to pretty far off the mark.

The fact that there is so much choice is an obvious benefit, meaning that you are less likely to become completely disillusioned with what you choose(3 subject streams are more flexible than 1).
The common view that arts is a wasters subject is false, but it does have grounding. There are quite a few "artsy" subjects to choose from but the likes of Computer Science, Economics, Maths and Statistics are tough technical subjects that are valued in a professional sense upon graduating.
Arts also looks to be a natural choice for students who may be interested in becoming teachers.
In my opinion, forming opinions on people based on their course is a silly way to think about things. You'll meet good and bad in Arts.

I think the downsides of Arts is, in most cases, self imposed. Lecture attendances tend to be quite low in some subjects and as a result many people find themselves in over there head and having to repeat/drop out.
Like everywhere, you get out of your degree what you put into it. If you pick impractical subjects and get a bad grade in your degree, at the end of the day you won't be that appealing a candidate.
On the other hand, if you graduate with a 1st in maths and economics, then let the good times roll :cool:

My only reasonable complaint I've really had about Arts is in the fact that due to the size of the lectures I attend, it can be quite difficult to get talking to the same people week in week out, but once small tutorials came in, I got to grips with that.

Good luck in your choice mate!

Pride Fighter

comebackkid wrote: »

I am a mature student and am trying to sort my preferences for the CAO application. I am interested in doing an Arts course so could current students please advise me on what the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD are.

Thank you

Do what you are interested in, whether that is arts or science only you can tell. Earnings and attaining a professional degree is irrelevant to you if you dont want to study for that type of degree. Be selfish, do what you want and not what others think you should.

Time Magazine

dyl10 wrote: »

The fact that there is so much choice is an obvious benefit, meaning that you are less likely to become completely disillusioned with what you choose...

but

....many people find themselves in over there head and having to repeat/drop out.

dyl10 wrote:

The common view that arts is a wasters subject is false...

but

...I think the downsides of Arts is, in most cases, self imposed. Lecture attendances tend to be quite low

You've got a biased view, tbh. Many Arts students repeat and drop-out. Attendance is low. This is (at least partly) why employers see it as somewhat inferior to a science degree, etc. You may not think it fair to be tarnished by that brush, but that's reality and people should be aware of this when making their choice.

Like everywhere, you get out of your degree what you put into it. If you pick impractical subjects and get a bad grade in your degree, at the end of the day you won't be that appealing a candidate.
On the other hand, if you graduate with a 1st in maths and economics, then let the good times roll :cool:

This was my point. A first-class honours degree in economics gives you better options than a II.2 in Greek and Classical Civilisation.

hidden

Its hard going back as a mature student, so fair play to you and good luck.

Pride Fighter

The Economist wrote: »

This was my point. A first-class honours degree in economics gives you better options than a II.2 in Greek and Classical Civilisation.

What about the other way. Someone gets a 2.2 in economics and despises it, just does it to get a job. Or someone who gets a 1st in lets say English. It works both ways IMO.

me-skywalker

The Economist wrote: »

College graduates definitely earn more:

you do realise that the material your basing your post on is a US source piece and has no relevance to irish educational system or the irish wage system. I get what you are trying to say but in my opinion there's no cons to doing what you really want to do! and being happy. mind over matter :-)

melekalikimaka

Het-Field wrote: »

I have never regretted doing a BA in UCD.

...yet

33% God

Het-Field wrote: »

There are no cons to entering Arts. The only detraction you may hear, are the catcalls of students of "more practical degrees", who couldnt value the Arts degree.

The huge range of subjects, and the ability to choose several of those subjects is a clear advantage. You can engage with the humanities, languages, music and drama. These courses encompass tutorials which gives you the chance to discuss what you have learned with other students of the same discipline.

Some of the lecturers are top of their field. Tom Garvin (Politics) is the number one intellectual in the field of Nations and Nationalism, Richard Aldous (for better or for worse) is becoming one of the most notable historians of this decade, while Gerard Casey (Philosophy) was widely quoted, and is a media heavyweight in terms of moral philosophy.

The limited hours of the course gives you ample ability to read widely A poor arts degree can be gained by limited work, a great arts degree can be achieved by wide reading, and personal evaluation of the subjects at hand.

The people you meet. While in a literal sense, the Quinn School contains the most colourful people, the Arts block contains some of the most interesting, intellegent, and articulate people you are likely to meet. If you choose to interact with you class, societies, or your tutorial group, you are bound to make some good and colourful friends for life

I have never regretted doing a BA in UCD. You wont either !!!

You should write leaflets

Time Magazine

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What about the other way. Someone gets a 2.2 in economics and despises it, just does it to get a job. Or someone who gets a 1st in lets say English. It works both ways IMO.

Of course it works both ways, I never claimed any different. College is fantastic fun and can also be the greatest investment a person ever makes. However asserting that there are no draw-backs or not pointing out the fallacy of "oh Classics will get me a good job somewhere" is biased. Let the realities/risks be stated clearly to anyone thinking about getting a degree.

me-skywalker wrote: »

you do realise that the material your basing your post on is a US source piece and has no relevance to irish educational system or the irish wage system.

Harmon, Oosterbeek & Walker (2003) find an average return of about 10% to marginal years of education in Irish data. That is to say, roughly, that people with a degree will earn about 30% more than those without. Their graphs aren't as pretty as my namesake's though, and the point is exactly the same.

I get what you are trying to say but in my opinion there's no cons to doing what you really want to do! and being happy. mind over matter :-)

Money makes people happy too. I play guitar and I'm reasonably good at it. I reckon if I worked hard I could make a meagre living out of it and have a more fun job than being an economist. On the other hand, I enjoy economics and it pays very well. This allows me to go to Aston Villa matches and buy very nice guitars (droolage), which makes my mind happy.

Edit: and some more guitar porn here.

Pride Fighter

The Economist wrote: »

Of course it works both ways, I never claimed any different. College is fantastic fun and can also be the greatest investment a person ever makes. However asserting that there are no draw-backs or not pointing out the fallacy of "oh Classics will get me a good job somewhere" is biased. Let the realities/risks be stated clearly to anyone thinking about getting a degree.

I study classics and history:D:D:D

comebackkid

Thanks for all the replies, appreciate them. Could any of you help with these qs

I have read on other threads that class size can be a bit overwhelming and now on this one so am a bit concerned about that. Im wondering should I choose a college that would have smaller classes. Does anyone know if it is standard for Arts courses to be held in large lectures/classes in the other colleges as well?

Also are there particular Arts subjects regarded higher by employers than others?

As regards the college itself - how does the standard of teaching and quality of clubs and societies compare to the other colleges providing arts courses?

thanks again

bnt

I'm a mature student in the Engineering area, and there aren't many of us. I think there's 3 in my entire year, and we all know each other, since we're the ones in the front rows of the lecture theatres, paying attention. (I'm not exaggerating... much) So, in my view, your choice comes down to what you're looking to achieve from a degree. if you are looking for the social life, an education in culture and such, do Arts. If you're after technical skills that will make a difference to your future career, look to something technical, like Science or Engineering.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with Arts, but I'm concerned by the sheer numbers of people doing it, compared to other fields. Just how many Arts graduates does Ireland need, per year, and are there jobs for them all? It's fashionable to say "I'm not a geek, and I hated Maths in school, so I'll do Arts", but from talking to employers over the years, I get the impression that there's a chronic need in Ireland (& elsewhere) for people who can handle technical disciplines, numbers and all.

PS: mature student applications go through CAO too, but then the university makes the decision based on various factors, not just academic scores, and there could be an interview (there was in my case). One advantage of entering as a mature student is that you get evaluated earlier: I was accepted in mid-May, so I had plenty of time to organise my affairs before starting at UCD.

Unshelved

I did Arts as a mature student in UCD in the early 90's and while I enjoyed my degree and got a good job out of it, in retrospect I should have gone to a different university. My main gripe was just the sheer size of the classes. Okay so you get to know people in tutorials, but it just drove me insane that in a class of 300 or more it's just impossible for some lecturers to keep order and there was always a steady hum of chatter and people just messing about. In smaller lectures that just didn't happen.

I found UCD very cold and impersonal and have no attachment to the place at all. I had excellent lecturers and made some good friends, but I think that that was in spite of, and not because of the college.

My advice? Try Maynooth. A lot of mature students apply there and therefore you're not the only one in your situation (I think they may even have a mature students' centre). Plus classes are small and the college is less daunting.

These are only my personal opinions - feel free to disagree. But think carefully and talk to other mature students before applying to UCD.

Pride Fighter

comebackkid wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies, appreciate them. Could any of you help with these qs

I have read on other threads that class size can be a bit overwhelming and now on this one so am a bit concerned about that. Im wondering should I choose a college that would have smaller classes. Does anyone know if it is standard for Arts courses to be held in large lectures/classes in the other colleges as well?

Also are there particular Arts subjects regarded higher by employers than others?

As regards the college itself - how does the standard of teaching and quality of clubs and societies compare to the other colleges providing arts courses?

thanks again

Arts in the other NUI's have class sizes just as large. In Trinity they dont have arts, they have degrees in single subjects where the class sizes are much much smaller. As a result points are higher, but as a mature student points dont apply. So if you wanted to study history go to Trinity, about 100 per class, which is less than the 500+ in UCD. Similar ratios apply across the board.

All degrees are the same, it does not vary by University. But individual departments can be superior from University to University.

Smaller class sizes means more lecturer attention. All Uni's have active clubs and societies. UCD is very good for the choice of societies it has.

Whatever you want to study in arts my advice would be go for trinity if you can. The big advantage UCD has is the degree takes 3 years compared to 4 in trinity. So if you want the quick degree, go to UCD.

bnt

I should just add: after 3 semesters at UCD as a mature student, I've given up on trying to socialise there in general, except with my fellow mature students. The kids there place too much emphasis on things of no interest to us, such as regular binge drinking, and "social networking" (Bebo, Facebook, etc.) It's more like an office job to me - lectures are like meetings - but I don't mind that. The hours are better, but the salary is, well... poor. If you expect to somehow "connect" with kids half your age, who think anyone over 30 should be dead already, you can expect to be disappointed. :cool:

dyl10

The Economist wrote: »

You've got a biased view, tbh. Many Arts students repeat and drop-out. Attendance is low. This is (at least partly) why employers see it as somewhat inferior to a science degree, etc. You may not think it fair to be tarnished by that brush, but that's reality and people should be aware of this when making their choice.

Of course my view is biased, it couldn't be anything else but that also makes my view valid, as the OP was asking current students.

Students dropping out imo, is not the reason the degree is valued less.
It would be interesting to see the statistics for the employment of arts students who take the more desired/technical subjects versus those that take the more "artsy", less workplace-practical subjects.

comebackkid

thanks again.

To bnt, the problem i have is that while im good at maths im not that good at technical/practical skills so im leaning to arts. the atmosphere/size of the classes in the place is making me think again though.

unshelved, I have been thinking of Maynooth also as it got college of the year last year and also that it might have a more local and less overpowereng feel. i wasnt aware that it gets a lot of mature students so thats a plus. i dont know any mature students thought to ask unfortunately

pride fighter, Trinitys courses are very narrow though. Its a two subject moderatorship so im not sure if id put it as first choice. i thought trinity might have a very stuck up-high minded way about it also.

the more advice i get the more confused i get

Time Magazine

dyl10 wrote: »

Of course my view is biased, it couldn't be anything else but that also makes my view valid, as the OP was asking current students.

I did Arts, kinda, so my views are equally valid but having just graduated and observed my peers I think I appreciate the down-sides more than you.

Students dropping out imo, is not the reason the degree is valued less.

I agree. I brought up dropping out because you claimed it was easier to settle into three subjects than one. You might be right, but you have to consider why drop-out rates are higher in Arts than Engineering, though.

It would be interesting to see the statistics for the employment of arts students who take the more desired/technical subjects versus those that take the more "artsy", less workplace-practical subjects.

Just for example, TCD Economics grads in 2007 saw 36% having found employment with jobs in places like AIB, Citigroup, Goldmann Sachs, Google yadda yadda yadda. Only 14% of those who did Classics had gained employment, some working in Dunnes.

I re-iterate, this is not a reason to not do "Arty-farty subjects", but it would generally be considered a "con" and is something to consider.

Eoin Macollamh

The Economist wrote: »

Just for example, TCD Economics grads in 2007 saw 36% having found employment with jobs in places like AIB, Citigroup, Goldmann Sachs, Google yadda yadda yadda. Only 14% of those who did Classics had gained employment, some working in Dunnes.

Think those stats will hold up in 2009? How many of those who got jobs at AIB, Citigroup and Goldmann Sachs do you reckon have jobs today?

Time Magazine

Eoin Macollamh wrote: »

Think those stats will hold up in 2009?

Of course not, we're in a global recession. The labour market is in a complete state of incoherent mess. Do I think they'll hold up in 2012 when the OP is considering graduating? Yes.

How many of those who got jobs at AIB, Citigroup and Goldmann Sachs do you reckon have jobs today?

Your pointing at a time of incoherent mess is academically dishonest and misleading. Studies have been done looking at the lifetime earnings of graduates in different fields. There's simply no debate that Classics et al grads earn less than engineers or economists.

Unshelved

Just to get back to you, I'm currently working in Trinity and that "stuck up attitude" that you tar us with is is a bit unfair and maybe based on old prejudices. They have very good support for Mature Students - but a lot of people are put off by a four-year degree.

Part of my job is working with Access Programme Students - people who are returning to education, some of whom may not have completed their Leaving Cert for various reasons. They complete a Foundation Year and based on their results they can apply to various colleges for a degree course. The vast majority apply to Trinity or to Maynooth because of the more personal nature of the colleges, smaller classes and excellent support for mature students.

This may also be the same in UCD - depending on which option you take. I can only speak from my experience. Make contact with the Mature Students' Offices in all the Universities and see what they have to say. And remember - try to keep an open mind!

Eoin Macollamh

The Economist wrote: »

Of course not, we're in a global recession. The labour market is in a complete state of incoherent mess. Do I think they'll hold up in 2012 when the OP is considering graduating? Yes.

Great. Got any investment tips for me (since you obviously have great insight into what the future holds)?

Your pointing at a time of incoherent mess is academically dishonest and misleading.

Careful with charges of academic dishonesty, there, pardner. I could just as easily say that "your pointing at [sic] times of non-economic mess" is academically dishonest.

Studies have been done looking at the lifetime earnings of graduates in different fields. There's simply no debate that Classics et al grads earn less than engineers or economists.

And there is no debate that Engineers have less sense of the possibilities life has to offer than do Classics and other Arts grads. Money isn't the only measure of the quality of a life, as you seem to think. In fact, your view is a particular philosophy called "hedonism." Maybe a Classics grad can explain it to you.

Time Magazine

Eoin Macollamh wrote: »

Great. Got any investment tips for me (since you obviously have great insight into what the future holds)?

Sure. Get a professional qualification

Careful with charges of academic dishonesty, there, pardner. I could just as easily say that "your pointing at [sic] times of non-economic mess" is academically dishonest.

You could, but you'd have to argue against reams of empirical evidence.

And there is no debate that Engineers have less sense of the possibilities life has to offer than do Classics and other Arts grads. Money isn't the only measure of the quality of a life, as you seem to think

Is your head nice and warm up there? They're pathetically prejudicial statements to make. There is absolutely nothing stopping an engineer being successful while simultaneously being an entirely well-rounded individual. Before you make presumptions about my measures of the quality of life, I suggest you at least read my posts where I explicitly reference the importance of enjoying employment.

In fact, your view is a particular philosophy called "hedonism." Maybe a Classics grad can explain it to you.

Perhaps you should get a Classics grad to explain the potential differences between hedonism and not desiring a job which provides little satisfaction and pays poorly. Then, perhaps, you can start tweaking your wild, incorrect and offensive assumptions about my personal philosophy.

Eoin Macollamh

The Economist wrote: »

Sure. Get a professional qualification

Have several already, thanks.

You could, but you'd have to argue against reams of empirical evidence.

Which is only worth anything at all on the assumption that the future will resemble the past. I don't suppose it has occurred to you (as it has to many others) that there is some chance that the world that your "reams of empirical evidence" tells you is the only possible world just might be gone for good.

Is your head nice and warm up there? They're pathetically prejudicial statements to make. There is absolutely nothing stopping an engineer being successful while simultaneously being an entirely well-rounded individual.

This just shows how little you value education. You think it can commonly be found on street corners and pubs. It can but chances are it won't. You can learn to be an engineer or an economist or a doctor in your spare time, too, but chances are you won't. So only the false view that Classics or any discipline that wrestles with great thinkers is somehow less involving than engineering or economics can underwrite your assumption that what it teaches can be picked up in one's spare time.

I note the narrow vision of what constitutes being "well-rounded." Good to know that nobody with a narrow worldview ever volunteered for St Vincent de Paul.

Before you make presumptions about my measures of the quality of life, I suggest you at least read my posts where I explicitly reference the importance of enjoying employment.

This is an impoverished measure of what "quality of life" means. It's the measure that one would have if one had a very narrow philosophy that said work, career and money are all there is, except for a little bit of fun on the side. A hedonist, in other words. The fact that everyone you know thinks the same way is testament only to the failure of our educational system, which ought to teach people that that is but one, very narrow, philosophy of life in a world of other possibilities.

Perhaps you should get a Classics grad to explain the potential differences between hedonism and not desiring a job which provides little satisfaction and pays poorly.

Someone is leaping to conclusions: who says the classics grad has a job that provides little satisfaction and pays poorly? And, above all, what philosophy underwrites the view that the only satisfactions in life (except for a bit of fun on the side) are to be had from one's job and its remuneration?

Time Magazine

Dear oh dear. Here we go again on the presumptions.

Eoin Macollamh wrote: »

Have several already, thanks.

Good. People/society want certain things more than others. Steven Gerrard is paid £100k a week because the people of Liverpool are willing to pay £40 to watch him run around for ninety minutes. Engineers earn more than historians because people want roads more than they crave debates over the legacy of colonialism.

Typically the skills that they demand the most (relative to supply) are quantitative, professional skills. You should be well-placed to be compensated for providing society with what they want when we get ourselves out of this silly mess.

Which is only worth anything at all on the assumption that the future will resemble the past. I don't suppose it has occurred to you (as it has to many others) that there is some chance that the world that your "reams of empirical evidence" tells you is the only possible world just might be gone for good.

Of course it has occurred to me, a point eloquently espoused by Nassim Taleb.

We are currently in a recession that has been caused by turmoil in the financial markets. Unless you're going to propose reasons why people will stop attending Liverpool matches or desiring almighty motorways (that is, other than "your world may have just disappeared! haha!") I'll feel suitably comfortable, and so should anyone entering a degree programme.

This just shows how little you value education.

O RLY?

You think it can commonly be found on street corners and pubs.

Yes, I do believe education can be found on street corners.

It can but chances are it won't.

Oh so you do, too. Does this mean you value education lightly?

You can learn to be an engineer or an economist or a doctor in your spare time, too, but chances are you won't. So only the false view that Classics or any discipline that wrestles with great thinkers is somehow less involving than engineering or economics can underwrite your assumption that what it teaches can be picked up in one's spare time.

Your mis-use of the word "only" here is telling. It really is rather lackadaisical for someone who posts such obnoxious rubbish. I do not believe that "an education" requires a degree-standard knowledge of Classics. Note my use of the does not require clause there -- "only" if you believe those without rigourous training in Classics (or any similar discipline) are somehow lesser in an educational sense than those with, and that wrestling with such a subject can you claim that provides a greater "sense of the possibilities life has to offer", can you claim that Classics > Engineering. And this all presupposes that this inequality benefits people's happiness.

On the contrary I am merely adding to the advice offered to the OP my personal experiences: That people care about money and many wish they had chosen more employable subjects than Greek. Your references to a hedonistic lifestyle are presumptuous, naive, or, imho at worst, condescending and dictatorial. I suspect if one has reached a level of Buddhist serenity such that they are aware of their desires to live the lonesome and romantic life of a poet, then my advice will be acknowledge but dismissed. If, as is usually the case, the OP is one of these hedonists (or is that heathen?) wishing to change occupation and earn a bit more money, my advice will be useful.

I note the narrow vision of what constitutes being "well-rounded." Good to know that nobody with a narrow worldview ever volunteered for St Vincent de Paul.

I note the narrow vision of you assuming (i) that there is "no debate" about the sanctity of the souls of engineers, (ii) a quick example to rebut this is an all-encompassing argument about what I consider to be well-rounded, and (iii) you are so quick to make further presumptions about someone you do not know.

This is an impoverished measure of what "quality of life" means.

Again sir you ignore my "at least" clause. You first claim that I think money is the only measure of life, then I point you to a reference in this very thread which shows this is not the case - at the very least - and then you again assume that I know only have two criteria for judging quality of life. I have at least three.*

It's the measure that one would have if one had a very narrow philosophy that said work, career and money are all there is, except for a little bit of fun on the side. A hedonist, in other words.

Again you're working off the entirely false and unsubstantiated assumption of what might irritatingly be referred to as "my worldview". I can assure you in this regard, you haven't the slightest mo'fucking clue what you're talking about.

The fact that everyone you know thinks the same way is testament only to the failure of our educational system, which ought to teach people that that is but one, very narrow, philosophy of life in a world of other possibilities.

Now all my friends are hedonists, even she who studied Theology and Classical Civilisation. What use was that education to her?

Someone is leaping to conclusions: who says the classics grad has a job that provides little satisfaction and pays poorly?

Herself. I don't think that's leaping to a conclusion, do you?

And, above all, what philosophy underwrites the view that the only satisfactions in life (except for a bit of fun on the side) are to be had from one's job and its remuneration?

This is not so much a case of leaping to a conclusion but positively catapulting oneself to it. "Above all", your post is based on a faulty assumption that I only rate satisfactions in life as a function of occupation and pay?

Really now, I was going to let that slide as a faulty assumption but we really must call into question your powers of observation -- if only for academic honesty. You seem confident enough to claim that I feel people only draw satisfaction in life from job, pay, and "a bit of fun on the side" and that this has led me along this path. Now let's look at things that I have said on this thread:

The Economist wrote:

That's to say on average people don't make up for those lost earnings ever. That's not to say university education will not be the best endeavour you may ever embark upon, but it is something people should know and bear in mind.

The Economist wrote:

This is (at least partly) why employers see it as somewhat inferior to a science degree, etc. You may not think it fair to be tarnished by that brush, but that's reality and people should be aware of this when making their choice.

The Economist wrote:

Of course it works both ways, I never claimed any different. College is fantastic fun and can also be the greatest investment a person ever makes.

The Economist wrote:

I re-iterate, this is not a reason to not do "Arty-farty subjects", but it would generally be considered a "con" and is something to consider.

Will you stop now, please?

* Honestly, did you think to yourself "How can he judge life on but three bases?" I ask because you're very quick to do it with one and two.

Eoin Macollamh

Since I obviously can't respond in a tit-for-tat manner to all of that and since you're quite clearly used to having the last word, I'll let you have it. Been nice talking against you.

The_Minister

[Mod]
Everyone take a deep calming breath, and get back to discussing the topic at hand, particularly from a personal point of view.
[/mod]