Push for Graduate School Universities (1 Viewer)

[Benny1103]

I am arguing that a wider education, where you have alot more choice in what general knowledge you would like to learn i.e. if someone wishes to take up science type units, they can take them.... All I am saying is that it would be good to allow people to get a more general background to their particular field (i.e. some science, some arts etc) I am not saying force people to take philosophy...

The key word there is choice. You should have made it clear that you were not advocating the same thing as Mr. I will impose my values upon everyone else as if they are God's own words.

I have nothing against allowing for more choice. What I am against is the notion that people should be forced to do even more subjects which they have no interest in.

How would making people take some sort of generalist degree lead to people taking subjects they have no interest in? Are people really automation machines who are only interested in their particular degree?

Firstly, let me get this straight. Are you supporting the idea that people should be forced to take a subject which is irrelevant (ie. currently not a compulsory part of their course) and which they have no interest in? The last two paragraphs I quoted present contradicting views.

Like I said before, there are things called extra curricular activities. I'm also not against a wider choice of subjects. However, I am completely against forcing people to do irrelevant (as in currently not a compulsory part of their course) subjects which they have no interest in.

Sure, if people wish to take a foreign language then they should be permitted to. On the other hand, if someone doesn't want to take a foreign language and that particular subject isn't a compulsory part of their course, then they shouldn't be forced to take it.

Well I wasn't exactly sure what sort of an example you were after... So I just attempted to show a connection between what you would consider an arts subject (philosophy) and the course you mentioned. The only reason it was invalid is because the question I thought I was answering has now been re-defined.

The question was not redefined. I asked gerhard how my engineering/science degree would gain value from a liberal arts 'education.' Clearly, I was referring to how I would be able to make use of in the work place. The context of my post made that obvious enough.

No. What I was talking about was how mathematics is used to represent philosophical ideas, logical arguments

I will make it even more clear to you this time. You do not use that kind of 'mathematics' in engineering. When was the last time you heard an engineer saying something like: Hmm...I have this differential equation which can only be solved using standard (ie. it's a mechanical plug and chug problem) methods. How should I go about 'applying' philosphical ideas to it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

irstly, let me get this straight. Are you supporting the idea that people should be forced to take a subject which is irrelevant (ie. currently not a compulsory part of their course) and which they have no interest in? The last two paragraphs I quoted present contradicting views.

No I am advocating undergraduate generalist degree's (idealy in something which you are interested in, but more broad) i.e. a Bachelor of Science.. followed by a more specific graduate program that is more research intensive and specific.

I will make it even more clear to you this time. You do not use that kind of 'mathematics' in engineering. When was the last time you heard an engineer saying something like: Hmm...I have this differential equation which can only be solved using standard (ie. it's a mechanical plug and chug problem) methods. How should I go about 'applying' philosphical ideas to it.

I didn't say you did, I made it clear before that I wasn't sure what sort of an example you were after... I was pointing out that your interpretation of what I was saying was wrong.

 

[Benny1103]

No I am advocating undergraduate generalist degree's (idealy in something which you are interested in, but more broad) i.e. a Bachelor of Science.. followed by a more specific graduate program that is more research intensive and specific.

Not sure about other unis but at mine, a Bachelor of Science (taken as a signle degree) already allows for elective subjects. So people can already choose to broaden the scope of their course of they wish to. So what else do you want to be changed?

 

[otay]

otay, the belief that our graduates are not good enough is pushing this idea.

obviously it is implied that in this liberal arts degree, you will do the current liberal arts subjects available at universities, not simply repeating year 12 courses, because this would not improve the quality of our graduates.

So what your saying is we actually don't employ the US system, because what I have described is the US system. Let me get something clear. I think that we should just give out bachelor of science and bachelor of arts degrees and then after that allow for further study. But I don't believe that if you intend to do the bachelor of science (whether your major be chemistry, biotechnology, civil engineering), you should be forced into doing psychology or something else. I feel like there should be a common first or two year for all bachelor of science (including majors in engineering, IT & CS, perhaps even some business streams) where you explore all different areas of science (including business as many US uni's hand out B of Science in international Business and what not). Then you proceed to study for say an additional 2 or 3 years in ur specific major. My dad works in the telecom industry and he employs alot of ppl and he has said there are too many specialists and not enough people with knowledge of the general. But he is not talking about people who know philosophy or shakespeare type general knowledge, he's referring to the "basics" of science and business. So i think a common year or 2 program for anyone in the new (i.e. US/UK style) Bachelor of Science would be helpful and then a further 2,3, 4 years focusing on your intended major (altho i dont think it has to be considered a graduate degree or as research intensive as NTB points out since there should be the option for thos who just want to do a bachelor's degree to have enough knowledge and make the graduate degrees for those who are really interested and willing to do research).The same would go for the Bachelor of Arts. However, you shouldn't be forced to take some subjects from Arts if you wish to do science and others from Science if you wish to do Arts. But of course the subjects must be of university level, so not really following the US system, where many subjects are of high school standard.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

ooooo on a side note i suspect I kno why the US thinks our education is inferior...

cos noone won Millionaire for ages?!
and we dun play jeopardy..
.... sorri its a sneaking suspicion...

 

[Demandred]

If you're going to have a two-tier system, many employers will increasingly opt for the top tier. That will make most of the degrees pretty much useless, only those who can fork out $100 thousand + are able to land a decent job.

It will slowly degrade the system of meritocracy and base one on money and wealth.

As for higher competitiveness... why the hell aren't the government using those giant surpluses to fund our universities? Oh wait... they're fucken Liberals.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Ack, this would suck.

A lot of US citizens that are interested in the same stuff as me (archaeology, history) end up moving to Euro unis because they can't handle the generalist bullshit like science, math, and english.

Why can't Nelson fuck around with the high-school system and make it more generalist? Going to uni is great because you can generally chose what you want to do and not do. Even really tight degrees like BComs have electives.