What are the pros and cons of doing Arts in UCD

gubbie

griffdaddy wrote: »

I've never understood where this arrogance comes from with regards to a lot of commerce students.

Many engineers hold commerce students in the same bracket, or often less, then Arts students. Maybe its because lecturers have told us that Commerce students will accept our ideas but get all the money for it, and that all their answers can be found in a book. Other lecturers have said that Arts students just learn a different set of skills to us. Gravity is gravity but for an arts students there are as many opinions as papers and they have to read them all and then get their own opinion of it all

One guy ran for class rep 2 years ago with the promise that if elected he'd put a fence around the Quinn school

Het-Field

gubbie wrote: »

Many engineers hold commerce students in the same bracket, or often less, then Arts students. Maybe its because lecturers have told us that Commerce students will accept our ideas but get all the money for it, and that all their answers can be found in a book. Other lecturers have said that Arts students just learn a different set of skills to us. Gravity is gravity but for an arts students there are as many opinions as papers and they have to read them all and then get their own opinion of it all

One guy ran for class rep 2 years ago with the promise that if elected he'd put a fence around the Quinn school

If thats what your lecturers are doing, then its an indictment of our entire 3rd level system.

I wouldnt expect somebody who has spent 30 years in engineering, and lecturing in the subjecty to understand discourse or two dimensional attitudes

gubbie

Het-Field wrote: »

If thats what your lecturers are doing, then its an indictment of our entire 3rd level system.

I wouldnt expect somebody who has spent 30 years in engineering, and lecturing in the subjecty to understand discourse or two dimensional attitudes

Maybe I should have expanded more. The lecturer who said it about the arts students was being pro arts student. The lecturer who said it about the commerce students was a business man, come in to teach us about finance. The lecturer who said it about the book was showing that most courses aren't just written in the book, learn off and spew down

comebackkid

Im the OP in case anyones forgotten:). thanks for all the replies. ive been sick so only getting to check this thread now. first of all, the arguing is making my head hurt so please stop it.

to BNT

bnt wrote: »

I hope my previous comments weren't construed as being "down on Arts" as such, and I know that Arts graduates can and do go on to greater things, but none of that answers my primary concern about Arts at UCD: the sheer numbers involved. Not just the numbers in lectures, but the numbers of graduates: so many that UCD has to stagger the graduation ceremonies over a couple of weeks.

If you work hard and come out of that with a First, that's really something. If you graduate with a Pass or low 2.2, well, I have to wonder whether those four years would have been better spent working and making money. How is an employer to choose between dozens or hundreds of applicants with Arts degrees, no "vertical" or specialist skills, and no experience? So, in my opinion, if you're going to do Arts, you need to be really good at it, because it's a lot of time and lost wages to be just another Arts graduate.

its one of the things im worried about, throwing 3yrs away on something that might be of little value jobs wise and finding myself in a much worse situation. i dont have a burning desire though to do one particular discipline but feel that improving my education is the best option. right now its like im looking up at a very big mountain

to 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."

I apologise if i offended you. Im getting more and more doubtful about Arts and UCD now, mainly cos of the job prospects and class size issue. if I do choose Arts it ill probably go with Matnooth or TCD but the clock is ticking

FionnMatthew

One more thing, cbk, which might influence your decision.

comebackkid wrote: »

first of all, the arguing is making my head hurt so please stop it.

Certain of the fields within Arts are predicated on healthy argumentation, and it is a boon within these fields to enjoy a good back and forth. If you tire easily of argument, perhaps you will dislike those fields.

comebackkid

i dont mind arguing when its to the point. reading through all those posts was not easy. they didnt have much relevance to my original question

lizzyvera

My brother did a humanities degree in St Pat's as a mature student and loved it. They have smaller class sizes if that's what you want. My mam also went there as a mature student a few years ago and preferred it to UCD. She studied Irish btw and my brother did Theology and English.

I think if you're interested in the subject it doesn't matter what your class are like, especially in arts where you'll be doing most of your work alone.


I'm doing chemistry but I wouldn't want anyone to do it because it was "practical" or makes you employable (no graduates have good job prospects at the moments anyway), you should study it because you enjoy it. Actually, I don't think anyone who didn't enjoy it could get through the degree because the hours are tough, the material makes my head spin sometimes, and it is your entire life for 3rd and 4th year.


Don't worry about being in a worse situation! Mature students nearly always do really well because they take the work more seriously, and even if you don't get paid much more, you benefit as a person from a degree. I haven't learnt "stuff" so much as how to think. It's very fulfilling.

ferdi

well from my point of view....

Having a BA will not get you a job.

But there are no jobs anyway.

So you might as well do it and maybe in three years time the jobs market will look a little brighter.

comebackkid

thanks again for the replies. i have contacted st pats as i seen there humanities course in the cao handbook. there not accepting applications(direct to the college) until april i think so ill wait till then. its gives me another option if my cao preferences dont work out.

i still havent finalised my preferences and am caught betwen doing arts cos it might suit me better or doing something more practical like a business/commerce degree which might have more use.

has anyone any experience of business/commerce courses? i seen that their is a B.E.S.S in TCD that is similar in some ways to an arts course as its quite broad and includes 6 subjects in 1st year.

i dont have any business experience though. do you have to be business minded for these courses?

im sorry if im a pain in the arse with all the qs

theboat

comebackkid wrote: »

Im getting more and more doubtful about Arts and UCD now, mainly cos of the job prospects and class size issue.

This is my personal experience of UCD:
I'm in first year Arts, doing Archaeology (around 200 in a full lecture), French (400 or so (?)) and History (500 or so). The lectures can be a little overwhelming at first, but if you sit down towards the front, it's not difficult to concentrate. Generally people are quiet. The tutorials have around 15 to 20 people, sometimes much less, and it is easy to ask questions if you're unsure about anything. Every tutor and lecturer I have come across has been more than willing to help. If you make yourself known, there is no reason for UCD to be "cold" or impersonal.

As for job prospects: The most important thing is that you know what you want to get out of your degree. I'm not doing Arts purely to get a job. Employment is obviously a factor, but for me it is more important that I get and education in something I enjoy. This is, of course, not everyone's outlook. But I feel that if you really want a job, and Arts course (which teaches you analytical, reading and writing skills) is a desirable degree for employers in many fields. It is also, as has been pointed out several times, unlikely that most undergrad degrees will land anyone straight into employment.

The main reason I didn't pick Trinity is that I wanted to study practical Archaeology, and their course, "Ancient history and archaeology" was more the classical end of things. Fine, but not what I wanted to study. Just make sure the individual subject, be it in UCD, Maynooth, Trinity, or wherever, is what you're interested in.

Sorry for going on so long. Hope this was at least slightly helpful...

P.S. Given the current economic climate, I for one will be staying in college as long as possible, to tide it out. MA, here I come...:D

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote:

I would like yo to elabourate on your former statement. what do you mean by do better ??? Are you speaking about entry into such professions, or long term success.

"However, those from non-business backgrounds (the Chartered Accounting exams cover things like law and finance as well as accounting) were more likely to fail their [Accounting] exams, obviously enough".

Im not sure how clearer to make the point. Yes, Im talking about the enterance exams, which I think its a fair assumption would be the case for similar exams.

griffdaddy wrote: »

I think the whole point of In-House training is that you learn how to do your specific job Kaptain

Im not talking about in-house training, Im talking about professional exams such as the ICAI or Kings Inn's exams.

it doesn't really matter if you've spent 3 years in Commerce if you haven't covered what you're going to be doing.

Whats the relavence of that point?

Plus companies are under no illusion that a graduate is going to remember what he/she studied 2 or 3 years ago and be able to apply it instantly to his work.

You might be surprised on that one. It would depend on the job, but higher paying / more intensive jobs expect a lot from you.

They're looking for intelligent people who have an aptitude for that specific job and have shown that they can successfully complete a degree with good results.

Thank you for repeating one of my points. Try reading a post before disagreeing with it and you wont come across as silly. ANyway, different jobs require different skill sets, believe it or not different employers look for different things in applicants. Some employers look for specific skills and knowledge. Shock horror. I hope this revalations wont cause your world to implode.

Lets not assume they're going to take some bimbo who scraped her way through commerce after getting the points by studying in the institute.

Thank you for the repitition of my point. It puts a smile on my face that you repeat my point, think you've thought of something for yourself, and then attack grind school kiddies. You're a credit to education.

I've never understood where this arrogance comes from with regards to a lot of commerce students.

To be fair, theres probably a lot you dont understand.

FionnMathew wrote:

This is true I think. The irony, and the reason for the disagreement on this thread, is, I suspect, that the people who ask for advice probably don't need to hear this, and the people who need it most won't even take heed of it if they hear it.

I think thats a bad assumption, and funny that you dont disagree with the point but are just getting annoyed because it was brought up.

We know very little about the OP. They want to know the pros and cons of studying arts, employment opportunities would be an important factor imo. I also dont think it really is as obvious as you think it is.

In fact the OP found the feedback very useful:

comebackkid wrote:

Im getting more and more doubtful about Arts and UCD now, mainly cos of the job prospects and class size issue.

gubbie wrote: »

Many engineers hold commerce students in the same bracket, or often less, then Arts students. Maybe its because lecturers have told us that Commerce students will accept our ideas but get all the money for it, and that all their answers can be found in a book. Other lecturers have said that Arts students just learn a different set of skills to us. Gravity is gravity but for an arts students there are as many opinions as papers and they have to read them all and then get their own opinion of it all

One guy ran for class rep 2 years ago with the promise that if elected he'd put a fence around the Quinn school

:rolleyes:

For the record, commerce involves applying knowledge as well as analysing information and forming ones own opinion. It is not a matter of route learning and regurgitation. And you talk about our arrogance...

Tells

To the OP, choose a course because you want to do it and not because you feel you have to!

Jammyc

I know a wide subject range can be good, but tbh would it not just be like being in secondary school again, having the subjects you dont like and the ones you like?

Also in the UCD prospectus it categorises the subjects into groups A-F,
Do you have to pick one group and stick with the subjects in that group or do you get to pick n choose between em?

bnt

Tells wrote: »

To the OP, choose a course because you want to do it and not because you feel you have to!

I don't think anyone's really saying it's that black-and-white. I know I wasn't. You can't be expected to know, years in advance, exactly what course offers the best career prospects or the most money. Even if you did, there's more to life than that, and you'd get bored.

However, if you're 17 or 18 years old, just out of school, I don't think that what you want is the same as what you need, is it? So, I'm not suggesting that you go totally mercenary, just that you give some thought to what happens later, after the degree is over and you need an income of some sort. :cool:

Royale with Cheese

bnt wrote: »

However, if you're 17 or 18 years old, just out of school, I don't think that what you want is the same as what you need, is it? So, I'm not suggesting that you go totally mercenary, just that you give some thought to what happens later, after the degree is over and you need an income of some sort. :cool:

I concur. You'll hear the study what you want/are interested in advice thrown around all too flippantly. I was told something similar and ended up doing Arts (wasn't my first choice however). I deeply regret doing it, 3 years of my life wasted, (actually took 4 years but I'd never consider the Erasmus year I did a waste).

Anybody who is 17/18 and thinks they have all the time in the world to get a career etc. should realise you'll think a lot differently when you're 21-23. Everyone around you who did good vocational degrees will start earning and you'll be left just slightly better off than you were when you finished your leaving cert.

I'd love to go back and do a computer science degree but I couldn't stand another 4 years of being a full time student, plus I don't have the money having used up my free degree already. I'm doing a 1 year Grad Dip in IT currently but in today's climate getting a job with this is going to be extremely tough.

Basically do Arts if you want to teach, if not then seriously consider what you would like to do as a career and don't just end up doing Arts because you can't decide. It's what I did, and I'd say the majority of people in there.

Eoin Macollamh

This will give you some idea of where the new-fangled, practically-oriented university comes from, who is pushing it and where it's going.

And here's a nice quote from J.M. Coetzee's recent novel Diary of a Bad Year:

It was a bit of a lie that universities were self-governing institutions. Nevertheless, what universities, suffered during the 1980s and 1990s was pretty shameful, as under threat of having their funding cut they allowed themselves to be turned into business enterprises, in which professors who had previously carried on their enquiries in sovereign freedom were transformed into harried employees required to fulfil quotas under the scrutiny of professional managers. Whether the old powers of the professoriat will ever be restored is much to be doubted.

griffdaddy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

rant

I think it's you who missed my point mate. There's a difference between aptitude and specific skills sets. For instance, if someone has a first in Philosophy, Engineering, Science etc. I know their aptitude for interpretation and ability to analyse is going to be second to none, and i also know that they'll have little trouble diversifying and applying that aptitude to something else I.e. what is necessary for a specific job, given the right training, perhaps of the in-house variety.
Yes, you're also dead right that how little i understand is symbolised and encapsulated in the synthesis of 2 throw-away comments I made on an internet forum regarding grind-school girls and the perceived arrogance of Commerce students. If those are the kind of wild punts they teach commerce students to make in the Quinn School, I'm not surprised this country's finances are down the toilet :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

griffdaddy wrote: »

I think it's you who missed my point mate. There's a difference between aptitude and specific skills sets.

I didnt miss it, I pointed out that it was a repetition of my own point. I said that people might mistake your laziness (not reading my post fully) for stupidity (repeating part of someone's point thinking its a sound rebuttal). One might infer that you inability to respond to my latest post is also mere laziness, though Id go for the more obvious interpretation.

For instance, if someone has a first in Philosophy, Engineering, Science etc. I know their aptitude for interpretation and ability to analyse is going to be second to none, and i also know that they'll have little trouble diversifying and applying that aptitude to something else I.e. what is necessary for a specific job, given the right training, perhaps of the in-house variety.

I never disagreed with that. But why spend resources on in-house training and write off 1 or 2 years for that person to get up to speed, when there is another graduate who also has these skills, and in addition has the required technical knowledge?
As I said before, but for one reason or another you couldnt grasp it (either because of laziness, stupidity or an unwillingness to accept that there might be a disadvantage to your chosen field of study) in the past certain businesses (like accounting firms for example) were willing to hire graduates with the right personality and tacit skills to meet HR needs when there were no graduates available who also had the technical knowledge they required. They were also willing to hire graduates with poor results if they needed the man power.

In a shrinking job market, jobs are being filled first by those who meet all the employers needs (as before), there are fewer positions to fill and so there is less of a "surplus" to fill with "other" graduates.

It was a case of hire the best* first, and stay hiring until all positions were filled. Now there are less positions available, so they only hire the best.

*Best as defined by the employers needs.

Its just like the CAO. Say there is a course at the moment that you need 500points to get into. 80 people in that course might have 520 points, and 20 might have 500. If there were only 80 places available next year and everything else remained the same then the points for that course would be 520.

Yes, you're also dead right that how little i understand is symbolised and encapsulated in the synthesis of 2 throw-away comments I made on an internet forum regarding grind-school girls and the perceived arrogance of Commerce students.

How did you come to the conclusion that my opinion of your intelligence is based solely on those two points, considering I've found fault with most of your post?

You perceive as arrogance advice that you disagree with and make sweeping generalisations and straw-man arguments. The hypocrisy is astounding.

You're points regarding communication and analytical skills being common to all university students was undermined by the first line of your own post.

Though I suppose you don't need to be that articulate to ask "do you want fries with that".

griffdaddy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I didnt miss it, I pointed out that it was a repetition of my own point. I said that people might mistake your laziness (not reading my post fully) for stupidity (repeating part of someone's point thinking its a sound rebuttal). One might infer that you inability to respond to my latest post is also mere laziness, though Id go for the more obvious interpretation.
I never disagreed with that. But why spend resources on in-house training and write off 1 or 2 years for that person to get up to speed, when there is another graduate who also has these skills, and in addition has the required technical knowledge?
As I said before, but for one reason or another you couldnt grasp it (either because of laziness, stupidity or an unwillingness to accept that there might be a disadvantage to your chosen field of study) in the past certain businesses (like accounting firms for example) were willing to hire graduates with the right personality and tacit skills to meet HR needs when there were no graduates available who also had the technical knowledge they required. They were also willing to hire graduates with poor results if they needed the man power.

In a shrinking job market, jobs are being filled first by those who meet all the employers needs (as before), there are fewer positions to fill and so there is less of a "surplus" to fill with "other" graduates.

It was a case of hire the best* first, and stay hiring until all positions were filled. Now there are less positions available, so they only hire the best.

*Best as defined by the employers needs.

Yes, but my point is that even graduates of the more business or finance related degrees go through more or less, and in many places identical in-house training as those who come from a non-financial background. So what I'm missing in your argument is, if the employers don't recognise any great superiority with commerce degrees when considered in relation to in-house training, why do you? yes, the job market is shrinking, but (anecdotelly granted) there is still a large number of high achieving graduates from outside the realms of commerce degrees being hired in business enviroments. Most of my friends were offered jobs with the big 3 recently, the majority of them coming from engineering and arts. I don't really understand where you're getting these ideas that commerce students are somehow geared up for a far superior undertaking of Joe Blogg Retailers accounts because they studied Maslow's Mass Ejaculation theory in first year. The nature of these jobs is that they are repetitive and the variety of tasks to be completed is very limited. I don't know if you work yet, but if you do, I'd love to know where and how you apply what you've learned in Quinn to your everyday tasks.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

How did you come to the conclusion that my opinion of your intelligence is based solely on those two points, considering I've found fault with most of your post?

Because you quoted those sections of my post before alluding to firstly my education and secondly my intelligence.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You perceive as arrogance advice that you disagree with and make sweeping generalisations and straw-man arguments. The hypocrisy is astounding.

No, i don't think that at all, i just think there is a confusing mutual exclusivity between what you concede about university students in general, and what you insist is true exclusively of commerce students. There is also an ambiguity in teh fact that you say i'm echoing your points but then go on to call them 'straw-man arguments.' I don't really understand your hostility either. [/QUOTE]

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You're points regarding communication and analytical skills being common to all university students was undermined by the first line of your own post.

Though I suppose you don't need to be that articulate to ask "do you want fries with that".

Listen mate, I know you like to think that all that arts student do is sit around smoking rollies and discuss whether it's Yeats or Kant that gives them the biggest morning glory, but that's simply not true. Only the most naive of arts students doesn't consider and concede the difficulties they may potentially encounter with regards employment, but every other third level student should be feeling pretty much the same now anyway. Without turning this into a pissing competition, I could've done commerce or bess with my cao points. In fact i was about 2 days away from leaving commerce as my first choice, but I'm glad i didn't cause i love what i study, and i work hard at it and get very good results and am very confident of finding enjoyable, financially (and otherwise) rewarding work. The fact thats it's not commerce doesn't really bother me, although I'm sure I'd enjoy that a lot as well. I don't really care if you think i'm going to work in Mc Donalds, and I don't know where you get this great cliched insight from, but it's a pretty nasty streak that doesn't make you look like the most worldy person.

Stabshauptmann

griffdaddy wrote: »

Yes, but my point is that even graduates of the more business or finance related degrees go through more or less, and in many places identical in-house training as those who come from a non-financial background. So what I'm missing in your argument is, if the employers don't recognise any great superiority with commerce degrees when considered in relation to in-house training, why do you?

Employers do recognise degree choices in in-house training. Those without certain knowledge receive more training. This is a cost for employers.

yes, the job market is shrinking, but (anecdotelly granted) there is still a large number of high achieving graduates from outside the realms of commerce degrees being hired in business enviroments. Most of my friends were offered jobs with the big 3 recently, the majority of them coming from engineering and arts. I don't really understand where you're getting these ideas that commerce students are somehow geared up for a far superior undertaking of Joe Blogg Retailers accounts because they studied Maslow's Mass Ejaculation theory in first year. The nature of these jobs is that they are repetitive and the variety of tasks to be completed is very limited.

Because some big 4 firms do a kind of magazine of the years intake, with a synopsis of each new employee, which Ive read, and they are 90% those with business degrees or masters. The statistics on how many graduates from the different schools find employment in there first year are available. I remember in my final year it was something like 97% of commerce students found employment or were in further study.

I don't know if you work yet, but if you do, I'd love to know where and how you apply what you've learned in Quinn to your everyday tasks.

Yes I work, and I study.

I work full time in consultancy in the financial services sector.
To get the job I had a practical assessment and 2 interviews.
The assessment tested my skills (communication, analysis and time management), the first interview centred on my technical knowledge (what I studied relevant to the position) and the second interview on my personality (interests, hobbies, was I right for the team / firm).

There is little to no formal in-house training. My development is through the two professional qualifications I am studying towards. I receive a number of exemptions in these exams by virtue of my degree.

I use things from every subject I studied in UCD every day, I use some first year subjects quite a lot tbh. But mostly I use my 3rd your subjects (the advantage of specialisation in commerce vs BBLS in my case)

There is also an ambiguity in teh fact that you say i'm echoing your points but then go on to call them 'straw-man arguments.' I don't really understand your hostility either.

Thats not what I said. The points you repeated were:
That a 1.1. Sci graduate would be more likely to find employment than a 2.2 Bcomm
That employeers place a lot of emphasis on tacit skills and personality (though I went on to say they also value technical knowledge).

A staw man is putting words in my mouth, for example: "Listen mate, I know you like to think that all that arts student do is sit around smoking rollies and discuss whether it's Yeats or Kant that gives them the biggest morning glory, but that's simply not true."

When you things like that I think I shouldnt get banned for stating the obvious.

Only the most naive of arts students doesn't consider and concede the difficulties they may potentially encounter with regards employment

Thanks, took you long enough. Why all the posts then that it makes no difference what you study?

but every other third level student should be feeling pretty much the same now anyway.

See here it is again. I disagree,yes everyone's prospects has diminished, but not in the same proportions - some peoples prospects are better than others.

griffdaddy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Employers do recognise degree choices in in-house training. Those without certain knowledge receive more training. This is a cost for employers.


Because some big 4 firms do a kind of magazine of the years intake, with a synopsis of each new employee, which Ive read, and they are 90% those with business degrees or masters. The statistics on how many graduates from the different schools find employment in there first year are available. I remember in my final year it was something like 97% of commerce students found employment or were in further study.

Yes, but then again we're playing very much on your terms, we've only been discussing jobs in the financial services sector, any intake of non-commerce students is indicative of how, at least to some extent, commerce-related vocational education is not entirely necessary. How many commerce students go on to work for engineering firms or companies involved in scientific development?

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Thats not what I said. The points you repeated were:
That a 1.1. Sci graduate would be more likely to find employment than a 2.2 Bcomm
That employeers place a lot of emphasis on tacit skills and personality (though I went on to say they also value technical knowledge).

Yes, and i still think they probably would be, and yes, i think they do.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

A staw man is putting words in my mouth, for example: "Listen mate, I know you like to think that all that arts student do is sit around smoking rollies and discuss whether it's Yeats or Kant that gives them the biggest morning glory, but that's simply not true."

Well when you come out with classic one line stereotypes such as the 'would you like fries with that?' i think it's fair of me to assume that you have similar stereotypes of arts students. Let me guess, next up your slieve is the 'arts degrees, please take one' toilet paper dispenser joke?

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Thanks, took you long enough. Why all the posts then that it makes no difference what you study?

Because your average arts student isn't going to get a first, but if they do, i reckon they're in as good a position as anyone else. My whole argument actually stems from the fact that i believe a top degree in arts or anything else is better than an average to poor degree in something else, and thus if you're willing to work, there's no need to be so pessimistic about employment.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

See here it is again. I disagree,yes everyone's prospects has diminished, but not in the same proportions - some peoples prospects are better than others.

So you think people's employment prospects in the financial services sector haven't diminished proportionately far, far more than in other sectors? (That's not a straw man argument before you get your bean-counter in a twist, I just want to clarify that that's what your saying)

Stabshauptmann

griffdaddy wrote: »

Yes, but then again we're playing very much on your terms, we've only been discussing jobs in the financial services sector, any intake of non-commerce students is indicative of how, at least to some extent, commerce-related vocational education is not entirely necessary. How many commerce students go on to work for engineering firms or companies involved in scientific development?

The point isnt how great commerce students are. The point is commerce vs arts students in "business". Id imagine its much the same, if not worse in engineering students vs arts students in engineering careers etc. The point was that many courses have a abundant career opportunities related to those students studies

Yes, and i still think they probably would be, and yes, i think they do.

Thanks for agreeing with my points (again, and again). Have you any cogent points of your own to make?

Just so you can clearly see how poor your arguement is I'll break it down for you.
I said A is true, nevertheless so is B. And A+B> A.
To which you keep replying "A. A. A. You're forgetting about A."

I've tried explaining this a number of different ways, if you cant grasp it perhaps I could commission Barney to write a song about it for you.

Well when you come out with classic one line stereotypes such as the 'would you like fries with that?' i think it's fair of me to assume that you have similar stereotypes of arts students. Let me guess, next up your slieve is the 'arts degrees, please take one' toilet paper dispenser joke?

The remark wasnt just thrown out there because you study arts, a person more perceptive than you might realise where it came from.

Because your average arts student isn't going to get a first, but if they do, i reckon they're in as good a position as anyone else.

I'm surprised to hear you admit that. "The exceptional arts students, who get firsts, are in as good a position as the average students from other courses". Well, it contradicts your earlier posts, but hey, if thats what you believe.

My whole argument actually stems from the fact that i believe a top degree in arts or anything else is better than an average to poor degree in something else

But you need to compare like with like, because degrees are awarded on a curve, not everyone can get a 1st. Assuming the proportions are the same across the university what does that leave you with?

You had two points. That an arts degree was just as likely to find you employment as anything else, so long as you were flexible in what careers you were willing to accept.
And that looking at CEOs, it seems arts degrees are preferable to business degrees.

Thats what you said, heres your post.

The second point was completely illogical, and you shut up about it fairly quickly once put down. Your first point Im saying was only true because of the prevailing market conditions in the past where there were HR shortages in many industries which employers filled with arts graduates when no one better was available. This is no longer the case.

and thus if you're willing to work, there's no need to be so pessimistic about employment.

Correction, if you are willing to work harder than everyone else. You're saying to compete with an average degree in another faculty you need to be top of the class in arts.

So you think people's employment prospects in the financial services sector haven't diminished proportionately far, far more than in other sectors? (That's not a straw man argument before you get your bean-counter in a twist, I just want to clarify that that's what your saying)

It is a straw man, because I was talking about graduates, not economic sectors. Not all commerce students end up in FS. Its only one of the 7 specialisations offered in Quinn. No, I dont think that commerce students employment prospects have diminished as much as arts students.

griffdaddy

so what exactly are you frustrated about? that i'm not entirely agreeing with you? of course you have to work harder in arts, there's a far higher number of arts graduates than there are any other, but those who work hard distinguish themselves from the rest of their course and are employable and study something they find for the most part incredibly enjoyable and rewarding. What's the problem with that?

Stabshauptmann

If I was frustrated I'd have stopped replying long ago. And what a pity that would have been, because over the past two pages you've backtracked from Arts having the best career prospects, to in arts one needs to work much harder to distinguish themselves in order to have good career prospects.

Even at that though, even at the top of the class they may not be employeed in the field they studied. And you're making the bazaar assumption that people who study commerce dont find in interesting!

Far from being frustrating, this is quite satisfying

So now that we've established that there is nothing arrogant* in thinking commerce provides better career opportunities than arts for the average student, does that mean that the last couple of pages was you desperatly trying to overcome an inferiority complex?


*So in response to your second post, Im not arrogant, just really smug.

griffdaddy

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

If I was frustrated I'd have stopped replying long ago. And what a pity that would have been, because over the past two pages you've backtracked from Arts having the best career prospects, to in arts one needs to work much harder to distinguish themselves in order to have good career prospects.

Even at that though, even at the top of the class they may not be employeed in the field they studied. And you're making the bazaar assumption that people who study commerce dont find in interesting!

Far from being frustrating, this is quite satisfying

So now that we've established that there is nothing arrogant* in thinking commerce provides better career opportunities than arts for the average student, does that mean that the last couple of pages was you desperatly trying to overcome an inferiority complex?


*So in response to your second post, Im not arrogant, just really smug.

I never said arts provided the best career opportunities. I doubt commerce does either. I think actuarial studies (statistically) does. To be honest I'm a little bit disappointed that at the end of all your venom and spite i just find the same old argument that's usually trotted out by the anti-arts brigade. I don't have an inferiority complex in the slightest, I enjoy what i do thoroughly and I'm confident that I'll find steady employment from it. I've also experienced things by doing my course that i'd never have been able to experience had i chosen another, it's shaped who i am now. I'm still not really sure what your vested interest is in trying to denigrate arts, you'd probably be better off finding a Stage X Sociology hanger-onner and pleading your case to them, they might crack under your insults. I'm happy with what i do, i find it easy for that reason and i'll probably get a first. As my parting note, the arts have been studied academically for a lot longer in the past than business or commerce or whatever you want to call it, and they'll certainly be studied for a lot longer to come.

bnt

I've been watching The Godfather trilogy in the last week, and am now checking out the deleted scenes. Here's a scene that would have been near the start of The Godfather Part II: Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is seeing visitors during the party at Lake Tahoe, and his niece Francesca (Sonny's daughter) comes in to ask for his blessing, so she can marry a guy named Gardner:

Michael: Do you go to college?
Gardner: Yes, sir, I do.
Michael: What do you study there?
Gardner: Fine Arts.
Michael: And how do you plan to support your new wife on Fine Arts?
Gardner: (giggles nervously) It's a good question. Ah, well, I just get embarrassed to say it, sir, but I am a major stockholder in the family corporation.
Michael: Oh, you shouldn't be embarrassed by your wealth. This contempt for money is just another trick of the rich, to keep the poor without it. (pause) Well, what can I say after that? Of course you have my blessing.
Gardner: (relieved) Thank you. (everyone hugs & congratulates each other)
Michael: You know, you might consider taking a course in business administration. Just to be on the safe side.
Gardner: (laughs, and everyone leaves)
Michael: (to Tom Hagen). Make sure her dowry is big. He comes from a family who think Italian brides go barefoot.

:pac: