Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Anti-learning culture - does it exist and what do we do about it?

Scroll to see replies

username1921011

I liked the rest of your comment, but it never ceases to baffle me how people like you feel qualified to make such sweeping statements about people studying degrees completely different from their own.

I'm not making sweeping statements about degrees 'different from my own', I'm making a generally observable statement about academia and those within it. I'm no Einstein but many people on my course lack critical analysis yet get higher marks, ironically often because they understand Marx. Even in a supposedly prestigious degree this insidious demand for constant ideology pervading the discipline and being taught as incontrovertible fact - being taught to merely repeat what you are told without any significant analysis or awareness of the potential pitfalls, we are not encouraged to question nor given a representation of the alternative arguments. There isn't any independence, no 'question and research' being taught in regards to such assertions, sure enough we are told be critical of the law just because it exists doesn't mean its right or ideal, but when our sexual offences lecture contains misleading statistics or when the critical lecture contains unreserved congratulations of socialist principles without focus on the downfalls, I am going to question the efficacy of such practices. Particularly as the supposed 'individual critical analysis' is often no more than regurgitating points made in an academic reading we were made to read, or presented in the lecture or seminar - not much 'independence' to be found.

As for not being allowed to make general statements about other degrees, this implies a sort of intimate knowledge obtained by being on the course that cannot be gained as an outsider. If i know the content of the course, know the manner in which it is conveyed and the likelihood of employment post-degree then - provided i understand the relevant facts - i have every right to comment on another degree as much as i have the right to comment on my own. There is no inherent 'qualification' for recognition of a trend or analysis of a discipline - the general facts represent the argument unto themselves. If i claim a degree has little value and the subject matter does not produce good paid jobs, does not teach important skills and does not even seem to be particularly accurate then surely i need nothing more than prima facie evidence to validate my conclusion?

Reply 21

JuliusDS92

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

As for not being allowed to make general statements about other degrees, this implies a sort of intimate knowledge obtained by being on the course that cannot be gained as an outsider.

I'd say this is pretty accurate, if the course is in a completely different area and is studied using completely different methods. You can make valid statements as an outsider, but outsiders are often prone to making observations that are easily recognisable as BS by those who study these courses.

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

If i know the content of the course, know the manner in which it is conveyed and the likelihood of employment post-degree then - provided i understand the relevant facts - i have every right to comment on another degree as much as i have the right to comment on my own.

Okay then, what do you know about the content of a physics degree and the manner in which it is conveyed?

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

There is no inherent 'qualification' for recognition of a trend or analysis of a discipline - the general facts represent the argument unto themselves. If i claim a degree has little value and the subject matter does not produce good paid jobs, does not teach important skills and does not even seem to be particularly accurate then surely i need nothing more than prima facie evidence to validate my conclusion?

Okay, what's your prima facie evidence that

Original post by GonvilleBromhead

Even at uni level the way you are taught is to learn and regurgitate, to quote and to remember specific facts. When you train out the ability to think and act independently, you produce poorly adjusted adults who are by most counts relatively stupid in terms of actual understanding.

applies to a physics degree?

Reply 22

username1921011

Original post by JuliusDS92

Yes, but these statements exist outside of that singular context. You can account for them by taking on board the evidence of those from within. However this is not true of all arguments in this sphere, the gender studies 'science' and 'studies' are complete rubbish, their methodology is poor and their conclusions ill formed - i do not need a gender studies degree to assess thus. Doing the course doesnt validate their opinions if they are wrong by all other accounts, if they have misunderstood the lecture for example then they could be wrong despite being the 'in group'. This is very much wittgensteins language games however, the point of objectivity is not to be bound by arbitrary characteristics. As a law student for example i may correct people who misinterpret the course with evidence, however if they criticise the aforementioned sexual offences lecture - even with no inside knowledge - i cannot in good faith deny their point. The evidence of most factors in this insiders insight, thus the actual experience is irrelevant, to put it at base level who knows more about pregnancy, a woman or a doctor?

I know very little about a physics course. If i wished to comment i could easily look up the syllabus online, the general graduate success rate and the efficacy of jobs per degree at each level. I could ask people in the field (i have a close friend doing physics), there are many ways of finding out that information - i simply haven't been inclined to do so. What exactly is the thrust of this argument? It simply shows people are more educated on that which concerns their immediacy, nothing has refuted that i could obtain such facts.

Well the common saying 'a rocket scientist can send stuff into space but cant put up a shelf'. The point being that qualifications do not say anything more than you have an ability to perform to the required criterion of a single field - even IQ is a limited way to assess intelligence. Of course it applies to physics, if for no other reason than there is not a philosophical element to physics (and no quantum mechanics is not philosophy) - gravity is gravity, an atom behaves in x way. There is no variability, without these constants there would be no universe. These constants are learned and tested against each other to find new constants, that is the essence of physics. There cannot be ideology or philosophy due to its nature, a universal categorical cannot be philosophically inclined - reducto ad absurdum, an atom cannot be sexist. There is no critical faculty in the manner of understanding, they understand the course to a tee (as does everyone in this point) but that does not make them able to understand the world. A physics student can still believe incorrect facts, can still fail to understand the world as a culture of combined social interactions or as the product of human relationships and dispositions. Indeed physicists may be less aware due to there being no philosophical element to their study whatsoever.