Your undergraduate degree is nothing more than a piece of paper
Scroll to see replies
Original post by fortransexual
If you took a course from a polytechnic in one of these subjects that is virtually training you for a job you would understand what I was saying.
I would agree with this given that many of the people I've worked with went to polytechnics (actually, their Scottish equivalent) and had more relevant training than me, but I'm not old enough to have went to a polytechnic given that they haven't existed in over 20 years.
To me it just seems like you're deliberately trying not to understand what I was getting across and are trying to win something over by nit picking.
You said engineering was an academic degree ("I'd count computer science as academic, as like with engineering...") and I corrected you.
You'll start off doing practical work and gaining relevant qualifications but to end up as an actual engineer, by the proper definition of the word,
Original post by Smack
You said engineering was an academic degree ("I'd count computer science as academic, as like with engineering...") and I corrected you.
You said engineering was an academic degree ("I'd count computer science as academic, as like with engineering...") and I corrected you.
a reason why you cut it off at that point? to take it even further out of context per chance?
I had already said that not every degree at a university would be totally academic but that there would a range.
Also my sentence doesn't actually logically mean that engineering is not vocational - it implies it it has an academic element (simply the academic nature of computer science could be compared to the academic element in engineering) - which I still support for the numerous reasons I have already given.
I don't see why you care so much about refusing engineering an academic element - people think they are dumb enough as it is, why do you want to damage their rep further?
Amused at the people arguing over the worth of degrees, especially as considering how most HAVE NOT EVEN COMPLETED ONE.
A degree is not a "magic pill" that will guarantee you a job. However, it does help to GIVE YOU AN ADVANTAGE from those who do not have a degree. Likewise, someone who has a first would have AN ADVANTAGE over someone with a 2.1 or 2.2
There is no such thing as a "worthless degree" The fact that you have completed a degree means that you have a certain amount of knowledge and ability, which "can sometimes" (not always) be translated into better job performance.
The thought that more people accessing higher education is "watering down" the standard of education is nothing less than downright ridiculous. Governments encourage higher education because it ensures a better educated, more productive, efficient workforce. A country has far more to gain by a large amount of it's population being taught and trained beyond what they would have normally learned without going to university, than instead allowing only a small proportion of the elite to have a monopoly over higher education
A degree is not a "magic pill" that will guarantee you a job. However, it does help to GIVE YOU AN ADVANTAGE from those who do not have a degree. Likewise, someone who has a first would have AN ADVANTAGE over someone with a 2.1 or 2.2
There is no such thing as a "worthless degree" The fact that you have completed a degree means that you have a certain amount of knowledge and ability, which "can sometimes" (not always) be translated into better job performance.
The thought that more people accessing higher education is "watering down" the standard of education is nothing less than downright ridiculous. Governments encourage higher education because it ensures a better educated, more productive, efficient workforce. A country has far more to gain by a large amount of it's population being taught and trained beyond what they would have normally learned without going to university, than instead allowing only a small proportion of the elite to have a monopoly over higher education
Original post by fortransexual
a reason why you cut it off at that point? to take it even further out of context per chance?
I had already said that not every degree at a university would be totally academic but that there would a range.
Also my sentence doesn't actually logically mean that engineering is not vocational - it implies it it has an academic element (simply the academic nature of computer science could be compared to the academic element in engineering) - which I still support for the numerous reasons I have already given.
I don't see why you care so much about refusing engineering an academic element - people think they are dumb enough as it is, why do you want to damage their rep further?
I had already said that not every degree at a university would be totally academic but that there would a range.
Also my sentence doesn't actually logically mean that engineering is not vocational - it implies it it has an academic element (simply the academic nature of computer science could be compared to the academic element in engineering) - which I still support for the numerous reasons I have already given.
I don't see why you care so much about refusing engineering an academic element - people think they are dumb enough as it is, why do you want to damage their rep further?
There is no "spectrum" so to speak - a degree is either vocational in that it trains you for a profession or it isn't and is thus academic. So if you're going to be an engineer that performs all the advanced analysis in the world then all of those PDEs and calculus you learn is vocational.
Overall I'm not too fussed about what people think of engineers. Engineers probably get paid a lot more than them and have more interesting jobs. Plus it's one of the easiest degrees to get a job in a related field, too.
Original post by Smack
There is no "spectrum" so to speak - a degree is either vocational in that it trains you for a profession or it isn't and is thus academic. So if you're going to be an engineer that performs all the advanced analysis in the world then all of those PDEs and calculus you learn is vocational.
Overall I'm not too fussed about what people think of engineers. Engineers probably get paid a lot more than them and have more interesting jobs. Plus it's one of the easiest degrees to get a job in a related field, too.
Overall I'm not too fussed about what people think of engineers. Engineers probably get paid a lot more than them and have more interesting jobs. Plus it's one of the easiest degrees to get a job in a related field, too.
and if it trains you for a profession and has an academic element?
law degree (academic + what is required) vs GDL (what is required + 0)
The GDL equips you with what you need to to become a lawyer, but the law degree contains an extra years worth of content (providing more detail in areas but also some philosophical ideas, the origin and wider context) in addition to what is covered in the GDL
why are you having such a hard time getting this? I'd like to see you tackle quantum mechanics with your rigid belief system
and money? it's not about what degree you do it's about what job you do. Engineers think they get one over on physicists because being an engineer pays more than being a physicist - however physics grads that want to make a lot of money go into finance - not academia.
Original post by fortransexual
If it trains you for a profession it is a vocational degree. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Original post by Smack
If it trains you for a profession it is a vocational degree. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
never said it wasn't - you're just being childish now
Original post by fortransexual
never said it wasn't - you're just being childish now
Well why the hell did you ask "and if it trains you for a profession and has an academic element?" then?
Original post by Smack
Well why the hell did you ask "and if it trains you for a profession and has an academic element?" then?
because unlike you I think that some degrees can have a mixture of academic and vocational elements without being fully one or the other.
if something is vocational and academic... it doesnt mean it's not vocational... come on I know it's not just a plug and chug equation question but seriously
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by fortransexual
because unlike you I think that some degrees can have a mixture of academic and vocational elements without being fully one or the other.
And as I've said a few times before, you do not understand the definition of a vocational degree.
Original post by Smack
And as I've said a few times before, you do not understand the definition of a vocational degree.
no, you are just operating on a definition that is too superficial
Original post by fortransexual
no, you are just operating on a definition that is too superficial
I'm operating on the correct definition. I'm afraid you cannot make up your own definitions for terms as you go along so that you can accuse others of being too superficial...
Original post by fortransexual
no, you are just operating on a definition that is too superficial
I think you're an idiot
Original post by Lamps08
I think you're an idiot
such intellectuals that side against me...
this is what I expect really the morons that just go with the most obvious answer 'this think it is in this category because that is what I believe to be true' rather than justifying how there can be no range of how vocational something is - I am yet to see a logical response above the 'gcse answer' as such
Mine's not even a piece of paper - seven years after finishing, I still haven't gone to actually pick up my degree yet 
Having just done a maths degree I too question the validity of the three years that I spent, working hard for my degree. Universities sometimes don't do enough, and I'll talk about that below. (especially coming from my degree at my uni)
I was always about the understanding... I hated rote learning and I never wanted to succumb to its grasp. Yet I *know* that there are plenty of first class degree holders that will admit to rote learning the modules they hated.
Rather than cramming everyone into university, what should happen is that there should be less unis and the government should invest more money into these fewer institutions. In turn, these fewer institutions give fewer places for students (only those who truly want to study rather than party; this can be deduced from more rigorous interviews), and finally results should be both based upon a physical exam AND the impression that the lecturer got from the student over the course of the three years.
This would have completely changed people's attitudes towards their education. The passionate ones would be fine; those there for money or for laughs would be kicked up the backside and forced to work to a good standard rather than rote learning and adding to the devaluation of degrees.
I'm also pretty baffled by how many people get firsts. If anything, those who work incredibly hard and get into the top 1% of the institution should be rewarded with some kind of award to put on their CV. This is done far too little and the people who go to university and work for the love of their subject should be rewarded as such, thus giving them more reward for more work. It's hardly game breaking if each institution hands out an achievement award for the top 3-4 candidates in each department.
As for the overall issue, even if that can't be fixed, doing the award system above will stop people whining because you can't say much if the people who worked hard, didn't rote learn and truly understood the material were rewarded for it and distinguished from the other countless two-a-penny first/2:1 degree holders.
I was always about the understanding... I hated rote learning and I never wanted to succumb to its grasp. Yet I *know* that there are plenty of first class degree holders that will admit to rote learning the modules they hated.
Rather than cramming everyone into university, what should happen is that there should be less unis and the government should invest more money into these fewer institutions. In turn, these fewer institutions give fewer places for students (only those who truly want to study rather than party; this can be deduced from more rigorous interviews), and finally results should be both based upon a physical exam AND the impression that the lecturer got from the student over the course of the three years.
This would have completely changed people's attitudes towards their education. The passionate ones would be fine; those there for money or for laughs would be kicked up the backside and forced to work to a good standard rather than rote learning and adding to the devaluation of degrees.
I'm also pretty baffled by how many people get firsts. If anything, those who work incredibly hard and get into the top 1% of the institution should be rewarded with some kind of award to put on their CV. This is done far too little and the people who go to university and work for the love of their subject should be rewarded as such, thus giving them more reward for more work. It's hardly game breaking if each institution hands out an achievement award for the top 3-4 candidates in each department.
As for the overall issue, even if that can't be fixed, doing the award system above will stop people whining because you can't say much if the people who worked hard, didn't rote learn and truly understood the material were rewarded for it and distinguished from the other countless two-a-penny first/2:1 degree holders.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by wanderlust.xx
Having just done a maths degree I too question the validity of the three years that I spent, working hard for my degree. Universities sometimes don't do enough, and I'll talk about that below. (especially coming from my degree at my uni)
I was always about the understanding... I hated rote learning and I never wanted to succumb to its grasp. Yet I *know* that there are plenty of first class degree holders that will admit to rote learning the modules they hated.
Rather than cramming everyone into university, what should happen is that there should be less unis and the government should invest more money into these fewer institutions. In turn, these fewer institutions give fewer places for students (only those who truly want to study rather than party; this can be deduced from more rigorous interviews), and finally results should be both based upon a physical exam AND the impression that the lecturer got from the student over the course of the three years.
This would have completely changed people's attitudes towards their education. The passionate ones would be fine; those there for money or for laughs would be kicked up the backside and forced to work to a good standard rather than rote learning and adding to the devaluation of degrees.
I'm also pretty baffled by how many people get firsts. If anything, those who work incredibly hard and get into the top 1% of the institution should be rewarded with some kind of award to put on their CV. This is done far too little and the people who go to university and work for the love of their subject should be rewarded as such, thus giving them more reward for more work. It's hardly game breaking if each institution hands out an achievement award for the top 3-4 candidates in each department.
As for the overall issue, even if that can't be fixed, doing the award system above will stop people whining because you can't say much if the people who worked hard, didn't rote learn and truly understood the material were rewarded for it and distinguished from the other countless two-a-penny first/2:1 degree holders.
I was always about the understanding... I hated rote learning and I never wanted to succumb to its grasp. Yet I *know* that there are plenty of first class degree holders that will admit to rote learning the modules they hated.
Rather than cramming everyone into university, what should happen is that there should be less unis and the government should invest more money into these fewer institutions. In turn, these fewer institutions give fewer places for students (only those who truly want to study rather than party; this can be deduced from more rigorous interviews), and finally results should be both based upon a physical exam AND the impression that the lecturer got from the student over the course of the three years.
This would have completely changed people's attitudes towards their education. The passionate ones would be fine; those there for money or for laughs would be kicked up the backside and forced to work to a good standard rather than rote learning and adding to the devaluation of degrees.
I'm also pretty baffled by how many people get firsts. If anything, those who work incredibly hard and get into the top 1% of the institution should be rewarded with some kind of award to put on their CV. This is done far too little and the people who go to university and work for the love of their subject should be rewarded as such, thus giving them more reward for more work. It's hardly game breaking if each institution hands out an achievement award for the top 3-4 candidates in each department.
As for the overall issue, even if that can't be fixed, doing the award system above will stop people whining because you can't say much if the people who worked hard, didn't rote learn and truly understood the material were rewarded for it and distinguished from the other countless two-a-penny first/2:1 degree holders.
Totally agree with you on this. For maths you should always work towards understanding rather than cramming the material.
Imo, universities should implement some sort of ranking system, so that employer's can see how dedicated/talented you were at your subject.
I think it's the seeming decrease in status of having a degree that irritates the people at top institutions rather than a worry they'll lose out in the job market. Although I feel I'm comfortably going to get a 2.1 in my degree (MChem from a RG University), so it's not 2.2 sour grapes, it annoys me when I see people celebrating getting a 2.1 in their degree when I probably worked harder in my 2nd year than they did their entire time at university. I'm not concerned they'll beat me in the job market but our achievements are not equivalent.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should an aspiring artist/writer pursue a degree?
- I got a 2:2 :'(
- Disappointed by university grades
- Animation Portfolio
- PhD/Doctorate in the UK
- Oxford written work
- Is the 11 plus the unfairest of all academic exams?
- Can I use my a level portfolio for uni after 2 year gap?
- A-level choices
- Is picking psychology as a degree a mistake?
- How hard to get a place at top uni as postgraduate?
- Would you bother with uni knowing what you know now?
- Scribbr Plagiarism Checker
- Masters with a 3rd class degree
- How do I know if Maths is right for me at uni?
- Advice (Vet Med)
- Graduate medicine
- Degree advice for business ,marketing, economics
- Oxford vs Cambridge Mature Student
- Is it ok to criticise certain aspects of a subject in a personal statement?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
