On the uses of a liberal education as lite entertainment for bored college students..

[Lokasenna]

And then there are the missing ones. The ones who would relish the opportunity but who can't afford to be there or they don't know the right people or they are not born of that world. It's my opinion that the type you describe should be thrown out and the opportunity (which is golden let's face it) given to the more deserving. It's survival of the richest though of course so that would never happen...

Of course the real insult is that even those types you describe will probably end up walking out with a 2:2/2:1 which will still carry weight coming from a top university and having the right sort of contacts on the other side. Straight into a good job to perpetuate the cycle!

Agreed!

[Wilde woman]

I'll be honest. I saw a bit of myself in the students that Edmundson was criticizing. I agree with a lot of what he's saying, but at the same time, I feel like lots of students are like this because...

1) EVERYTHING is marketable now. That is simply how the world runs, like it or not.

2) Half the classes we take are requirements anyways, which are not necessarily meant to be enjoyable. But they are practical, even for the arts student. I had to slog through a class on the 18th-century novel to figure out that I hated it. But slogging through Middle English was awesome, and helped me decide to study medieval lit at the graduate level.

and...

3) How do you teach humanities/arts classes WITHOUT like/dislike comments? Especially at the undergraduate level? Even though scholars don't particularly care about your visceral gut reaction to a literary work, it's a good starting point for discussion, and tends to engage your students more than simply giving them a dry historical context and close readings. Let's face it: humanities courses are discussion-based, so it doesn't make sense to cut out personal reactions from the discussion. And it really is only through reading/discussion with others that a student discovers what really interests them in a text. AND, try as you might, one is simply not interested in every text put before him/her. I've run across texts which simply didn't engage me enough for me to form an opinion, one way or the other. Some works simply don't speak to you.

"So, have you read the novel?"
"Well, no. I'll just keep quiet. What about you?"
"I've read the first ten pages. I figured that'd be enough. How was last night?"
"I dunno. I think we got in about 5:00 am. We were well hammered - I've had, like, 2 hours sleep."

Yeah, I definitely remember my undergrad courses being somewhat like this. But, Lok, don't you find that much less frequently at the graduate level?

those types you describe will probably end up walking out with a 2:2/2:1

What do those numbers mean? Is it the British equivalent of our GPA system?

[OrphanPip]

What do those numbers mean? Is it the British equivalent of our GPA system?

A 2:1 is like a 3.0, but there are different courses of study sometimes.

Edit: It's not an exact science though, these numbers all mean different things depending on what uni you're coming from.

Edit2: A 3.0 being 70-75 average.

[LitNetIsGreat]

What do those numbers mean? Is it the British equivalent of our GPA system?

They're degree classifications. 70%+ marks = 1, a first, 60-69% = 2:1 (upper 2), 50-59% = 2:2, 40-49 a pass/third, below that a fail which will only usually happen if students fail to hand in work on time consistantly.

In most degree types, standard BAs for example, you have three years of study with the overall averaged marks from years two and three counting towards your final degree classification. The first year is not counted only as a pass or fail, which effectively means students can turn in just about anything and get through the first year, if they were that way inclinded.


There's a further breakdown here but it is a bit long winded:
http://www.internationalstaff.ac.uk/...sification.php

[Lokasenna]

Yeah, I definitely remember my undergrad courses being somewhat like this. But, Lok, don't you find that much less frequently at the graduate level?

True, it's less frequent, but I've still observed a worryingly high level of it at postgraduate level. This is principally a result of economics - all universities run at a loss on undergraduates, but make money out of postgraduates. As a result, with most British universities it is in fact an unwritten policy to accept almost anyone who applies for a postgraduate course - they will, in reality, accept even a high 2:2. I've heard my tutor complain before now that when he looks through MA applications, he has to spend huge amounts of time hunting for a concrete reason to turn down people who are blatantly incapable or disinterested, but nonetheless scrape the minimum requirements.

[Baudolina]

Over here it's kind of reversed. They make money off the undergrads, and then if you are a Ph.D. student they actually pay you, to teach the undergrads.

[Baudolina]

One other thing. If you are in school simply in order to get a (non-technical) job upon graduation, then the students in this exchange

"So, have you read the novel?"
"Well, no. I'll just keep quiet. What about you?"
"I've read the first ten pages. I figured that'd be enough. How was last night?"
"I dunno. I think we got in about 5:00 am. We were well hammered - I've had, like, 2 hours sleep."

are, ironically, doing the correct thing. Everyone knows that your grades mean nothing for getting a job with a bachelor's degree (again, non-technical), and that what is important are your connections and your extracurricular activities. The frat boys aren't stupid, at least not when it comes to practical matters.

[keilj]

Ha! Too true, this. Quick story: a while back our college was big into "critical thinking" and having our students say on those feedback forms that they were engaged in "critical thinking". So you know what I did?

I named all of my assignments "Critical Thinking activity" but otherwise changed my assignments in NO WAY AT ALL. And my marks for "engages in critical thinking"? Through the roof, baby!

brilliant

[Hurricane]

There are serious issues with those instructor evaluations though.

I remember talking to one of my professors about instructor evaluations and rate my professor. His favorite was the kid who just drew a giant middle finger.

So, yes, sometimes they are not always constructive.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think that the universities really need to broaden their humanities courses that are offered. Can you imagine a school offering a gun safety course? Or even a study of how volunteers have contributed to society (volunteer firefighters, hospital workers, etc)? Maybe a class that exposes the true nature of small business owners and how they are effected by the heavy tax structures imposed by government?

[Wilde woman]

with most British universities it is in fact an unwritten policy to accept almost anyone who applies for a postgraduate course - they will, in reality, accept even a high 2:2. I've heard my tutor complain before now that when he looks through MA applications, he has to spend huge amounts of time hunting for a concrete reason to turn down people who are blatantly incapable or disinterested, but nonetheless scrape the minimum requirements.

Wow. It's so different here. Ph.D. programs are quite competitive partially because there are a lot of people competing for a finite amount of funding. And graduate applications are a pain in the butt. Not only do you have to do practically everything you did for your undergrad application, but also more standardized testing, longer writing samples, more letters of recommendation. I remember having to reformat my writing sample countless times because each university wanted a different page length. And the application process is expensive as hell!

Over here it's kind of reversed. They make money off the undergrads, and then if you are a Ph.D. student they actually pay you, to teach the undergrads.

And funding for MA students is really sketchy. At my school, the MA program is one year, so very short. What that means is that they get very little funding, and many have to work as they complete the program. We've got twice as many MA students as Ph.D. students every year, which basically means that the fees the MA students pay are funding the fellowships for the Ph.D. students. How messed up is that?

[Lokasenna]

Wow. It's so different here. Ph.D. programs are quite competitive partially because there are a lot of people competing for a finite amount of funding. And graduate applications are a pain in the butt. Not only do you have to do practically everything you did for your undergrad application, but also more standardized testing, longer writing samples, more letters of recommendation. I remember having to reformat my writing sample countless times because each university wanted a different page length. And the application process is expensive as hell!

Ah, I should point out that funding is a seperate issue entirely. If you apply for a postgraduate course at a British university, you're likely to get an offer. You are also, paradoxically, highly unlikely to get funding. Take my department for example - we take on around 25 new PhD students each year. How many scholarships are there to go around. This year, it's one scholarship.

The same is true of the Masters course - around 60 students a year arrive, and there are only two scholarships available.