Is it wrong? (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

Bloody hell, read what generator is saying. Stop being so disillusioned. That's not at all what the author said. The writer never called you a sheep. She never said that anyone who does law or accounting follows the flock.
What she is simply saying is: in younger years, a lot of people want to do arts-based subjects. Philosophy, psychology, theatre, english, sociology etc etc.
However, when it comes to the HSC all of a sudden a lot of people forget their aspirations; wanting to feel more comfortable in the fact that they have a career at the end of the rainbow.
Sure, there are people who enjoy accounting. There are many who enjoy maths. (Hell, i really enjoy marketing). However, there are a lot who only half-heartedly attempt the courses because they see themselves landing a job if they push on.

I was about to say the exact same thing- the writer is saying that there's a trend towards going to non-humanity subjects, which is true. Nothing about "people who do commerce, law, etc, don't like it." - because that would be false, I know heaps of peeps who like commerce, and I like law. I'm sure the writer knows this, ebcause it certainly isn't being argued.

 

[Frigid]

As for disparaging certain degree/career decisions, I thought that that was rather light and only used to illustrate a point, but that's just me.

hehe, as for your edit,

i think her lack of understanding of other professions shines through when she lightly takes the piss out of about marketing, accounting and law.

although i haven't completed a marketing course at university yet, and have only done accounting, i believe both majors require much more than 'number-crunching' (for that we have computer software). in the modern business environment, marketing, accounting and financial consulting require creativity, professional ethics and communication skills. i think that's kind of what she was getting at, although these sorts of skills are also taught within a commerce degree (because universities faculties tend teach the skills that are in demand).

as for law, well, IMO, law is as much a vocational degree as a humanities one. obviously there are practical aspects, legal reasoning, advocacy etc, but there are also discussion and analysis of social issues. therefore, law graduates are not rule-memorising machines that the author kindly inferred.

her ignorance is a shame, since supposedly arts graduates have "a deeper and broader knowledge of how the society works, and an ability to research, [and] analyse".

perhaps she was one of the ones who did "badly in an arts degree, especially at a lesser university" and now has moved onto "flower arranging"?

 

[stazi]

hehe, as for your edit,

i think her lack of understanding of other professions shines through when she lightly takes the piss out of about marketing, accounting and law.

although i haven't completed a marketing course at university yet, and have only done accounting, i believe both majors require much more than 'number-crunching' (for that we have computer software). in the modern business environment, marketing, accounting and financial consulting require creativity, professional ethics and communication skills. i think that's kind of what she was getting at, although these sorts of skills are also taught within a commerce degree (because universities faculties tend teach the skills that are in demand).

as for law, well, IMO, law is as much a vocational degree as a humanities one. obviously there are practical aspects, legal reasoning, advocacy etc, but there are also discussion and analysis of social issues. therefore, law graduates are not rule-memorising machines that the author kindly inferred.

her ignorance is a shame, since supposedly arts graduates have "a deeper and broader knowledge of how the society works, and an ability to research, [and] analyse".

perhaps she was one of the ones who did "badly in an arts degree, especially at a lesser university" and now has moved onto "flower arranging"?

I don't think the writer ever said marketing is number crunching. She said it's about selling stuff. Something that we try and avoid when we are younger.
I don't understand how you can so badly miss the point of the article.
Yes, Law can be interesting for a lot of people but don't you see: most of us in school whinged about 'lawyers being money-obsessed idiots'. Hell, a lot of the people I know only do law because their parents think there's money in it.
Finance and accounting: creative. .. ..... ..... can't really say anything there. Biggest overstatement of the year

 

[Frigid]

Finance and accounting: creative. .. ..... ..... can't really say anything there. Biggest overstatement of the year

sorry, should have said those skills were required respectively... ie marketing = creativity, accounting = ethics, financial consulting = communication skills

Bloody hell, read what generator is saying. Stop being so disillusioned. That's not at all what the author said. The writer never called you a sheep. She never said that anyone who does law or accounting follows the flock.

"In the intervening years I've been amazed at how many students seem to have a passion for accountancy. An extraordinary number also turned out to love the law.

On reflection, it is understandable so many have opted to learn how to crunch numbers and memorise rules. In every other week of the year, they are told by anxious parents and career advisers that vocational courses are the ticket to the good life. They are told to follow their Universities Admission Index score rather than their passion. If their passion takes them to liberal arts but their score allows entry to commerce, law or dentistry, that is the path they are pressured to take."

bloody hell - dude - if that's not an inference of 'sheeping' i don't what is

What she is simply saying is: in younger years, a lot of people want to do arts-based subjects. Philosophy, psychology, theatre, english, sociology etc etc.

errrrrrrrr.... i can't really find your synposis in the article?

anyway, this is a fruitless debate. i've already said i agree with her in purpose, but i disagree with the way she's arranged her argument.

 

[stazi]

sorry, should have said those skills were required respectively... ie marketing = creativity, accounting = ethics, financial consulting = communication skills "In the intervening years I've been amazed at how many students seem to have a passion for accountancy. An extraordinary number also turned out to love the law.

On reflection, it is understandable so many have opted to learn how to crunch numbers and memorise rules. In every other week of the year, they are told by anxious parents and career advisers that vocational courses are the ticket to the good life. They are told to follow their Universities Admission Index score rather than their passion. If their passion takes them to liberal arts but their score allows entry to commerce, law or dentistry, that is the path they are pressured to take."

bloody hell - dude - if that's not an inference of 'sheeping' i don't what is errrrrrrrr.... i can't really find your synposis in the article?

anyway, this is a fruitless debate. i've already said i agree with her in purpose, but i disagree with the way she's arranged her argument.

It in no way shows that 'everyone' is sheeping. That's what I meant. Sure some people, as I have explained enjoy those subjects. They have a natural liking for them. but a lot of people simply follow the trends.

Yes, her argument could be arranged better.
It reminds me of an article (by Waring or Myrdle I think) about how the GDP incorrectly does not include women. She went on to show how sexist everyone is (a man firing a gun for the army is in the gdp but a woman caring for her child isn't.) She never went back and said that in todays society the exact opposite can also exist. It was a meaningless debate about how women should be respected beyond belief as they hold the economy together. It was so wrong and irrelevant it hurt: the analogies were actually funny. However, the principles were correct.
Ahhh just thinking about that article is painful

 

[AsyLum]

There is a difference between sheep and highly influenced and conditioned...

One follows aimlessly, the other is offered little choice (apparently)

 

[stazi]

I love how much "bloody hell" gets thrown around.

Besides, the article is for the most part right. You may love law, but most highschool students I know who want law or medicine tell me "it's logical to want it" since they are capable of getting the UAI needed to get it. My careers advisor consistently asks me why I'm not considering actuarial studies, law or medicine.

Nice arse back to you

 

[loquasagacious]

Has it occured that law is practically a humanity. Law students are asked to analyse laws in the broader context of society and history. Through study of law they gain a far greater understanding of how laws impact on society, they form opinions on what are 'good' and 'bad laws'. What about psych, that is highly vocational, however also like law it requires a broad understanding of society. ALL commerce degrees require at least one year of Micro+Macro and these subjects deal heavily with the impact of the economy on society. ALL economics degrees require it every year.

The author mentioned double-degrees but ignored the boom in double degrees/combined degrees where students undertake two seperate areas of study that complement each other in some way. Eg environmental science/law, economics/commerce, arts/everything, law/everything.

She fails to even mention the huge growth in specialised arts degrees, like BA (International Relations/Policy Studies/Contemporary Europe). What does she have to say about people who set out to become diplomats or policy writers? These are highly vocational degrees. Oh and also as far as becoming a diplomat a Arts graduate isn't going to, DFAT only accepts something like one person into their graduate program a year, and I assure you broadly educated arts students don't cut it. Afterall what use is an arts student with no understanding of the role of law, economics, business and the like in society?

The only 'arts' students who are instantly employable are those doing degrees like ANU's bachelor of philosophy which requires a 99 to get in and a HD average. These people are employable because they have demonstrated their phenonomal intelligence and ability to work. Two features they share with actuaries.

She does denigerate vocational courses and then she waxes lyrical about the need for people who design 'cool things', create new products and operate in an online environment etc etc. Is ANYTHING more vocational at uni than engineering and comp science. Yet this is where the 'cool things' come from. She goes on to marvel at the power of computers, yes they are faster and cheaper, but who programs them - useless asians? Who understands and repairs them? More outsourced asians. I must wonder what she will think when there are no more people to outsource to, or when AI has become such that computers CAN do ALL and more that a human can do.

Also she fails to acknowledge that part of the surge in accounting is from international students (on graduation they can claim permenant residency).

 

[stazi]

ALL commerce degrees require at least one year of Micro+Macro and these subjects deal heavily with the impact of the economy on society. ALL economics degrees require it every year.

What!?
Ok, firstly, micro+macro economics at each uni is criticised for not looking at the impact of the economy on the society. It is criticised for being unrealistic as the models it uses for assumption are not based on sociocultural differences.
Next, I'm doing an economics degree and i'm not studying macro+micro. I'm studying political economy instead which is a criticism of economic orthodoxy.
So not ALL economics degrees require economics.
Next year i will be doing Commerce (Liberal studies). That doesn't require any economics units either.
so not ALL commerce/econ degrees have macro/micro as a prereq

 

[Not-That-Bright]

we had a very inspirational speaker from UNE (I believe he was head of ancient history there) and he said much of that to us... Then I chose to do law tho, I'd always had a passion for doing computer graphics but at the same time I've always been interested in something much more intellectual that kinda made up the other side of me.

 

[loquasagacious]

micro+macro economics at each uni is criticised for not looking at the impact of the economy on the society. It is criticised for being unrealistic as the models it uses for assumption are not based on sociocultural differences.

That would depend entirely on the lecturer and the course convener and as such varies considerablly.

I'm doing an economics degree and i'm not studying macro+micro. I'm studying political economy instead which is a criticism of economic orthodoxy. So not ALL economics degrees require economics.

My mistake, as far as I knew all economics degrees required a major in economics (micro+macro) it kind of defeats the purpose not to. Though now I understand how Rick Kuhn leader of the socialist alternatives at the ANU was able to get a degree in economics from USYD.

Next year i will be doing Commerce (Liberal studies). That doesn't require any economics units either. so not ALL commerce/econ degrees have macro/micro as a prereq

Presumably however you have already done micro+macro (for at least one year), otherwise you were just talking out you arse in the first point. So perhaps you have already completed the MM requirements.

Being to lazy to delve into the intricacies of USYD Eco+Comm faculty I can only assume that the distinction of studying Economics/Commerce Social Sciences/Liberal studies constitutes a fundamental watering down of eco+comm.

Finally, way to go failing econometrics and running away. The only possible conclusion given that you tutor everything but it yet study it and are transferring. I dub thee a psuedo arts student without the commitment or drive to do something thats difficult. You are a shining example of everything wrong with what the journo seeks.

You lack the reasoning to accept that something you don't agree with is correct eg micro+macro. You lack the intelligence to understand the maths it is based on, preferring to let a computer do things that you don't understand. You avoid that which you do not understand or argree with by narrowing your field of study to marxist politics and transferring away.

 

[samuelblayden]

to much work

 

[stazi]

Presumably however you have already done micro+macro (for at least one year), otherwise you were just talking out you arse in the first point.
Being to lazy to delve into the intricacies of USYD Eco+Comm faculty I can only assume that the distinction of studying Economics/Commerce Social Sciences/Liberal studies constitutes a fundamental watering down of eco+comm.

Finally, way to go failing econometrics and running away. The only possible conclusion given that you tutor everything but it yet study it and are transferring. I dub thee a psuedo arts student without the commitment or drive to do something thats difficult. You are a shining example of everything wrong with what the journo seeks.

No. I have not done micro/macro. However, what I am saying isn't just an assumption. Every single person who does political economy and economics that I have spoken to agree with the points that I have made.
Commerce (liberal studies) requires you to take 2 majors in the commerce faculty. 24c.p. arts and 12 c.p. sciences. It is not a watering down of eco+commerce. In fact this degree produces higher levels of employment then commerce, economics, econ soc.sci., commerce/arts etc etc degrees.
Where are you taking this econometrics thing? I don't remember talking about it. I am studying econometrics. Yes, i found it unbelievably difficult as I did not take maths in year 11/12. I studied my arse off for this subject to achieve a pass. So I am not sure what your point is?

 

[loquasagacious]

Every single person who does political economy and economics that I have spoken to agree with the points that I have made.

Well initially for someone who prides themself on their broad liberal education you fail to acknowledge the absolute subjectivity of this statement. It is for instance a reasonable assumption that you socialise with others who think similarily to yourself hence this statement is not necaserily indicative of broader sentiment. Pursuant to this group polarisation actually causes the groups sentiments as a whole to become more extreme.

That aside every person who you have spoken studies marxist economics thinks that micro+macro is bs, so?

Commerce (liberal studies) requires you to take 2 majors in the commerce faculty. 24c.p. arts and 12 c.p. sciences. It is not a watering down of eco+commerce. In fact this degree produces higher levels of employment then commerce, economics, econ soc.sci., commerce/arts etc etc degrees.

Do you take 36cp more than you would in an eco/comm degree? If not then it is a watering down. Do you have good universities guide stats to back this claim? If not then stfu, if so I'll dig out mine to check and point out the obvious ommissions you will make. eg that combined economics commerce from the anu is highly saught after and pays quite well for graduates.

The econometrics thing is something I was able to fairly easily derive in that you study it yet don't tutor it, favour 'arts' over maths and are transferring. Where I'm taking it is to suggest that you can't hack it and so are transfering to an easier degree in which you don't have to do it.

 

[stazi]

That aside every person who you have spoken studies marxist economics thinks that micro+macro is bs, so?
Do you take 36cp more than you would in an eco/comm degree? If not then it is a watering down. Do you have good universities guide stats to back this claim? If not then stfu, if so I'll dig out mine to check and point out the obvious ommissions you will make. eg that combined economics commerce from the anu is highly saught after and pays quite well for graduates.

The econometrics thing is something I was able to fairly easily derive in that you study it yet don't tutor it, favour 'arts' over maths and are transferring. Where I'm taking it is to suggest that you can't hack it and so are transfering to an easier degree in which you don't have to do it.

I agree with some of your points made. Then you come out and say 'anyone who studies marxist economics'. Now that just made me lose all respect for you. Why is political economics marxist? Is it because it primarily focusses on institutional and keynesian economics? Is it because it identifies flaws in each theory including marxism? Is it because it uses marxism, not as an economic system, but as a critique? Nice work with the generalisations there.
I don't need the good universities guide. I used the statistics published by the (was it employment? or enrollment) office at usyd. They accounted for most of the graduates. The latest report is from 2003 and compares starting incomes, levels of employment etc. I can dig that up if you want.
It's a watered down degree because you need to take an extra commerce major, an extra 48 cp and extra units from arts/science? Interesting thought.
I have to do econometrics for marketing. Nice assumption as well thinking I can't hack econometrics: my arts-saturated mind is too feeble oh no!. It backs up what we have learnt, in that most economics is simply made by assumptions. I found the subject difficult, yet I persisted. It has paid off whereby I am more confident in the subject then some people who took 3/4 units of maths in comparisson to my none. What do you mean by 'don't tutor it'?
Also, who said that I favour arts over maths? Another assumption. I love it: you are the perfect economist. I can see good things in both. I can see the need for both in order for the world to function.
Also, the reason, as mentioned, that I wish to do Commerce Liberal Studies is to major in psychology as well as Marketing and either International Business/Political Economy/Industrial Relations & Human resource management.
Psychology as a major is very maths-based - and arguably more a science than art. In fact I believe I have to take 1-2 stats courses. Am i simply running from the mathematical challenge?
Now, back to me not seeing value in maths. Or Economics. Or accounting. If you have a passion for it, I think it is important to do it. (although for a great education experience in usyd it can pay off to do economics and pol.econ).
Furthermore, I am surprised no one has mentioned sciences. They are very crucial and many people do have a strong interest for them. Likewise with engineering. with education. etc. etc.

 

[Sarah]

What!?
Ok, firstly, micro+macro economics at each uni is criticised for not looking at the impact of the economy on the society. It is criticised for being unrealistic as the models it uses for assumption are not based on sociocultural differences.
Next, I'm doing an economics degree and i'm not studying macro+micro. I'm studying political economy instead which is a criticism of economic orthodoxy.
So not ALL economics degrees require economics.
Next year i will be doing Commerce (Liberal studies). That doesn't require any economics units either.
so not ALL commerce/econ degrees have macro/micro as a prereq

1 time for the ppl here's what i know

Ok this is diverging from the original topic of the conversation but anyway, but from what i know, what makes USyd distinct from other unis is it's teaching of economics- that it offers Political Economy.

There was a division in USyds economics faculty years ago between neo-classical economists and political economist. Political economist arguing the need to take into account the social, political and cultural context of studying economics hence the need for political eco. (you could probably ask frank stilwell about the division that occured)

Anyway, most uni's these days teach micro + macro econ in first yr B Comm, B Ec or B Bus degrees. Most unis, but not all e.g UsyD'S Comm Lib and Eco Soc Sci degree.

When i finished yr 12 and was checking out unis to go to, USyd seemed to emphasis that their Business and Econ faculty has subjects which take into account the social and political environment in which business operates

Your point is valid however u it's good to know 1st yr macro and micro (highly neo classical although there are some aspects of Keynsian economics in it). In fact, the more knowledge you have of it allows the Political Economy approach to point out its flaws. Plus i would say it is relevant as most decisions are based on neo classical line of thought.

And supposedly businesses want graduates with an understanding of basic economics.

 

[stazi]

it's good to know 1st yr macro and micro

Couldn't agree more i just can't fit econ into my schedule.

 

[loquasagacious]

And so you disparage it?

Also you may have noticed that I do combined economics with arts. I major in economics, international relations/politics and contempory europe with another econ major still to choose.

More full reply coming when I have more time.

 

[stazi]

And so you disparage it?

Also you may have noticed that I do combined economics with arts. I major in economics, international relations/politics and contempory europe with another econ major still to choose.

More full reply coming when I have more time.

i simply said that it does not take a holistic approach as someone else suggested

 

[Shuter]

I think 1time4thppl highlights the 'creativity' required to do arts degrees. i.e. Make up what he wants the article to say to suit his own purpose, not what it actually factually implied.

I love how the job oppurtunities sighted are "journalist" and "diplomat". Hell, why don't I just site the job oppurtunities for my degree as "richest man in the world" or "rock star"... sure, some people may acheive it, but the bulk of people who do the degree will NOT achieve it, and will end up pumping gas.

P.S. Psychology is slightly different/better than arts