Professions and Behavioral Standards

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, it does suck if most of one's schooling, especially when it comes to the humanities, is spent being lectured. The best way to learn is to discuss, to exchange ideas with one another, blah blah blah. If you want to be lectured, just go buy some books about whatever subject it is--it does the same job and probably much more effectively. In my English courses, my university does almost zero lecturing.

I wasn't trying to insult Alex, just merely expressing my opinion on the ****ty education he's probably spending a ton of money on (or, to be more accurate, that his parents are spending a ton of money on).

[Alexander III]

Well, it does suck if most of one's schooling, especially when it comes to the humanities, is spent being lectured. The best way to learn is to discuss, to exchange ideas with one another, blah blah blah. If you want to be lectured, just go buy some books about whatever subject it is--it does the same job and probably much more effectively. In my English courses, my university does almost zero lecturing.

I wasn't trying to insult Alex, just merely expressing my opinion on the ****ty education he's probably spending a ton of money on (or, to be more accurate, that his parents are spending a ton of money on).

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's, I would rather stay at home smoke some weed and talk with my friends and hosuemates about literature, history and philosophy rather than most of my fellow students who are about as stimulating as an unwashed ball-sack.


As to the education costs, English university is quite cheap compared to American ones. I pay 3,500 pounds a year, which would be roughly 10,000 U.S dollars, and most American universities are double or triple that rate.

Of-course for the freshmen starting this year rates have gone up nationwide to 9,500 pounds, so it is the same for them as an American tuition.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education. Back in the 18th century, before starting off in life you would have an influential relative write you a letter or recommendation , and said letter would open the necessary doors leading to a prestigious career. Nowadays a university diploma has replaced the letter of recommendation. You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

P.s The picture was not mean to insult you, just state that I had no idea wtf you were talking about.

[Volya]

Many people go to university/are planning on going to university to get an 'actual' education.

[Alexander III]

Many people go to university/are planning on going to university to get an 'actual' education.

No one at univ cares about an actual education a few months into their first year. Although I have heard legends that there are some colleges with students who actually come for educations rather than a letter of recommendation and an impressive display of social contacts. Also I have been told that Cambridge is far better in that regard of students who want education. But I think it is a case of the grass is just greener on the other side. "Gee Alex everyone here is a damned philistine, I heard that at Cambridge they have actual students who care." Wishful thinking if you ask me.

Besides if your interest is actual education why spend 9,500 pounds when you can go to a public library and learn everything you could possibly want. 3000 years of human literature, philosophy and history for a few pounds.

[Volya]

An education is not just about reading books.

[qimissung]

An education may not be just about reading books, but Alex is right. I read somewhere once that you can get the equivalent of a college education if you read.

[Alexander III]

An education is not just about reading books.

Ah well if we are being open minded, I have learnt many things at university

1) How to handle my liquor
2) How to roll my own joint
3) The art of conversation and entertainment
4) The decorum of how to conduct a transaction with a prostitute
5) How to play Polo
6) How to sail a boat
7) How to properly fvuck a woman
8) How to throw a proper party sparing no expense
9) The value of money
10) The importance of social contacts
11) The art of Savile Row
12) The true value of most drugs and how to haggle with pushers and how to recognize the phony from the good stuff
13) How to play Chess
14) How to roll my own cigarettes
15) The importance and art of nonchalance
16) The various cultural differences of Europe
17) The zeitgeist of my generation
18) The beauty and damnation of Idleness
19) How to appear respectable to those who need respectability and how to appear debauched to those who want debauchery
19) The virtues I loath and the vices I admire in others
20) How to play a saxophone

[Scheherazade]

How many of those could you have achieved without having to go to the univerisity?

[Alexander III]

How many of those could you have achieved without having to go to the univerisity?

Who knows

[Volya]

....so you learnt how to be a posh snob?

[Paulclem]

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's, I would rather stay at home smoke some weed and talk with my friends and hosuemates about literature, history and philosophy rather than most of my fellow students who are about as stimulating as an unwashed ball-sack.


As to the education costs, English university is quite cheap compared to American ones. I pay 3,500 pounds a year, which would be roughly 10,000 U.S dollars, and most American universities are double or triple that rate.

Of-course for the freshmen starting this year rates have gone up nationwide to 9,500 pounds, so it is the same for them as an American tuition.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education. Back in the 18th century, before starting off in life you would have an influential relative write you a letter or recommendation , and said letter would open the necessary doors leading to a prestigious career. Nowadays a university diploma has replaced the letter of recommendation. You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

P.s The picture was not mean to insult you, just state that I had no idea wtf you were talking about.

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's,

Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.

It's like teaching. A really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.

This is nonsense.

You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.

[BienvenuJDC]

Unfortunately, there are more and more teachers and professors who have academic learning, but have a lack of "world experience". I'd like to see more teachers that have a greater storehouse of experience, and maybe not so much academic learning. We have an education system that is feeding itself. There are many individuals that have gained a great education through hands on learning, and self taught methods. Why do we bar these individuals from teaching in our universities, just because they haven't completed certain academic coursework?

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately, there are more and more teachers and professors who have academic learning, but have a lack of "world experience". I'd like to see more teachers that have a greater storehouse of experience, and maybe not so much academic learning. We have an education system that is feeding itself. There are many individuals that have gained a great education through hands on learning, and self taught methods. Why do we bar these individuals from teaching in our universities, just because they haven't completed certain academic coursework?


At the college level there have always been those teachers/professors who came to the field with a "real world" work experience. Within my own field of art education, I would say that a good majority of the professors I know who teach art are working and exhibiting artists... a good many having worked and exhibited for years prior to teaching.

When you speak of grade-school/public education the "game" is altogether different. Of course the teacher needs to know his or her subject to a great extent to teach at the given grade level... but the necessary knowledge or skills expected of those who teach children go well beyond "world world" experience of the subject. Teaching children involves far more of an understanding of pedagogy... how children at a given grade level...learn, child psychology, gaining parental support, classroom control, how to motivate and teach students of vastly different abilities, to say nothing of all the various tests and other assessments.

There are efforts to put such individuals with real world work experience into the classrooms after completing a limited number of courses in teacher preparation, but such an idea is no cure-all to our current problems in public education. From my experience, few of these "real world" professionals last long in education after they are confronted by the realities such as a lack of necessary materials/supplies, lack of respect for the profession, lack of respect/abuse from students, parents, and incompetent administrators, poor student motivation, poor/meaningless professional development/training, ever-increasing demands for documentation and standardized assessments... to say nothing of the likely cut in pay they will be facing in coming from a successful position in the corporate world to public education.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's personal opinion. When I go to a lecture I do not care about the other students ideas, most of them are dumb. I want to hear a well educated man with more experience of the world and literature than myself, lecture on a given subject from which I can learn. I do not want to hear my fellow student discuss their idea's,

Lecturing and seminar discussions are only one way of learning. It is useful to engage in discussion - not because of what your apparently ignorent student colleagues say and think, but of your responses to them. The formulation of answers/ responses/ contributions are the real reason why discussion is good. In talking, one can reflect upon the topic in hand and format it for your use in essays and exams. Then again one of them might disengage themselves from their ignorence and say something worthwhile and coherent.

It's like teaching. A really good way to learn something is to teach it. It seems counterintuitive - surely you know about a subject before you present it to others - but the nuances of the topic, the difficulties, particularities of language, the awkward questions and inconsistencies with what you know really give an insight into a subject. It is this kind of knowledge that makes a good lecturer, but more is needed from the student's side to really learn.

Besides no one goes to university for an actual education.

This is nonsense.

You have to pay a high fee to go to a university, show that you are a semi-competent individual by attaining your diploma in 3/4 years, and said diploma is essentially your letter of recommendation which opens the necessary door to a prestigious career.

Unfortunately students are no longer walking into jobs. I doubt they ever did. Of course your situation may be different and a job may be no problem for you, but other students will not only have to complete their degrees, but they will have to become pretty good at interviews and selection procedures to get into "prestigious careers", and then many of them will undertake further career training - such as in law and any number of jobs.

If your truly want an education, you go to a library.

More nonsense. You expect a university education - particularly in the sciences and techology- to keep up with and informed about current developments - especially research where the careers might lie.

This is pretty much exactly what I was planning to say. Discussion is more than just hearing what your ignorant classmates have to say--we can learn from everyone. It happens all the time when I'm teaching; my ignorant students consistently come up with ideas I don't think of. Saying people don't go to universities to get an education is one of the the dumbest things I've ever heard. And there are things from person-to-person interaction one just can't get from reading a book (which is why lecturing is useless, because it's just a one-way flow of information . . . like a book).

[BienvenuJDC]

When you speak of grade-school/public education the "game" is altogether different. Of course the teacher needs to know his or her subject to a great extent to teach at the given grade level... but the necessary knowledge or skills expected of those who teach children go well beyond "world world" experience of the subject. Teaching children involves far more of an understanding of pedagogy... how children at a given grade level...learn, child psychology, gaining parental support, classroom control, how to motivate and teach students of vastly different abilities, to say nothing of all the various tests and other assessments.

There are efforts to put such individuals with real world work experience into the classrooms after completing a limited number of courses in teacher preparation, but such an idea is no cure-all to our current problems in public education. From my experience, few of these "real world" professionals last long in education after they are confronted by the realities such as a lack of necessary materials/supplies, lack of respect for the profession, lack of respect/abuse from students, parents, and incompetent administrators, poor student motivation, poor/meaningless professional development/training, ever-increasing demands for documentation and standardized assessments... to say nothing of the likely cut in pay they will be facing in coming from a successful position in the corporate world to public education.

Well, from the results that are coming from the teachers that I see, the educations system's efforts are failing. Maybe we should try something new.