The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[worm]

a real choice would be "you can learn this or that or both. Being made to not have a subject isn't really a choice, is it

[Ed209]

For example, the skills you learn from a bachelors in maths are hardly any different to the skills you learn from a bachelors in travel and tourism.

[worm]

I actually believe that you believe this is the case, and that you think yourself no less knowledgeable about (say) Chemical Engineering as you do (say) psychology.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I have to agree with Neil, that's absolute bull, worm.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Who said anything about job? A job has nothing to do with it. Unless that job is research, in which case the person with a degree is suited.

if you think a person with a degree in (say) travel and tourism is as well-suited to carry out research in chemical engineering as someone with a chemical engineering degree, you're far FAR more stupid than I've ever thought before.

But it does explain an awful lot of what you post and why - cos the 'what' is so often wrong, and the 'why' is driven by arrogance and not knowledge.

[eFestivals]

But you'll seldom find any relationship between degree type and career type.

'seldom' is utterly wrong, it's massively understating the case.

The reason why theree's often no relationship between degree type and job type is because we're turning people oiut of unis with degrees for whiuch there aren't a matching number of jobs.

People in general don't go into doing a (say) travel and tourism degree while thinking they'll end up working in (say) marketing - they're hoping to be working in travel and tourism. They end up working in (say) marketing because that's where a job is that they can get, and not for other reasons.

[worm]

if you think a person with a degree in (say) travel and tourism is as well-suited to carry out research in chemical engineering as someone with a chemical engineering degree, you're far FAR more stupid than I've ever thought before.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

You learn how to research, how to write essays, how to condense words, how to reference, how to form a cohesive argument, how to attend seminars, how to follow a schedule, how to incorporate other people's points of view, how to cite to a level equal across both disciplines.

These are the skills you learn. The knowledge you become aware of is obviously different, but it's exceptionally general hence being considered a bachelor and not a master.

These are skills necessary for any learning process.

But by themselves they teach you nothing at all about any subject. All they give you are the pre-requisites to be able to learn about a subject, *IF* you have an aptitude for that subject.

Can someone with all those skills become a chemical engineer? Nope, not if they can't grasp anything about chemical engineering, which none of those things enable a person towards.

[worm]

These are skills necessary for any learning process.

But by themselves they teach you nothing at all about any subject. All they give you are the pre-requisites to be able to learn about a subject, *IF* you have an aptitude for that subject.

[eFestivals]

If you can conduct research in one discipline you can conduct it just as well in another.

complete bollocks.

To carry out research into chemical engineering you have to know about chemicals, how they work, interact, etc, etc, etc. The most important pre-requisite is to have an aptitude for undertstanding about chemicals, because without that you will get no where at all.

It is only a fool who thinks himself able to understand every subject. Each person has a slant towards certain things and not others.

I have a friend who is a chemical engineer, with a first class degree from the most respected uni in the land for it. She also has an MBA from Imperial College. She's an EXTREMELY smart girl, so far ahead of you that you're not worthy to lick her boots.

Does she grasp anything about politics, or think herself able to? Nope. Because her strengths lie elsewhere.

Edited February 14, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

These are the skills you learn, ready to be applied to the subject/job on leaving university.

These are the skills you learn, only able to be applied to the subject/job on leaving university if you have an aptitude for the subject.

Without an aptitude for the particular subject those skills will get no one anywhere.

[worm]

Can someone with all those skills become a chemical engineer? Nope, not if they can't grasp anything about chemical engineering, which none of those things enable a person towards.

[eFestivals]

If you can conduct research in one discipline you can conduct it just as well in another.

that's right, because every degree requires an understanding and practice of both quantitative and qualitative research, eh? - because all degrees are all the same.

[eFestivals]

If you can research then you can grasp something about chemical engineering. What is unknown is that you can grasp anything specific to chemical engineering. But that only comes with a masters degree, not a bachelors degree.

Unbelievable, you really are.

All an employer knows is that the person with a Ba has a very general knowledge about chemical engineering and is probably more impressed that they've shown that they're keen by doing it at Uni.

That's right - (for example) Shell's chemical engineering department's are packed full with people with degrees in (say) Literature, and have no one with a degree in chemical engineering. :lol

[worm]

To carry out research into chemical engineering you have to know about chemicals, how they work, interact, etc, etc, etc.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Unbelievable, you really are.

That's right - (for example) Shell's chemical engineering department's are packed full with people with degrees in (say) Literature, and have no one with a degree in chemical engineering. :lol

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

All primary research at Ba level is based upon established knowledge.

Correct.

And all success at anything at any level is based upon an aptitude for that thing.

Is there any reason why there are both Arts and Science degrees in particular subjects? In your world, there's no reason at all, it's all the same thing.

I must pass that on the professors I know who opted to start their higher learning with one and not the other, for being so stupid as to not think the same as worm that everything is the same.

Edited February 14, 2011 by eFestivals

[diddly-dee]

Plenty of degrees are, purely, vocational. Pleanty are not.

And I'm detailing my history in academia not as part of some preposterous d*ck-swinging exercise but, insetad, to illustrate that I have some insider knowledge. As such, my first degree (BA Sociology and Anthropology) was wholly non-vocational and did involve all of the research 'training' as cited by worm. My next degree (MSc Wastes and Environmental Management) was wholly vocational and near exclusively industrial 'training' with none of the 'research training' that Worm might associate with academia - even the written reports and suchlike furnished as part of the MSC had only a scant requirement for any evidence of 'referencing' or 'original research' - it was all a display that you had a technical and scientific knowlegde of a certain level. My third degree, however, (MA Social and Cultural History (by research)) was back to the research processes and techniques and the intellectual justification for any findings - although most taught Master of Arts (as opposed to Master of Arts by Research) are not purely philosophical discourses but involve the 'teaching' of a subject combined with a greater element of original research that that evident within a Batchelor's degree. I know some universities used to offer Batchelor's degrees by research alone (i.e. no taught modules or courses other than the briefest of research training - moreover these degrees were of an intellectual standard comprabale to many contemporary Master's degrees) but, (i) due to the amount of staff time taken up with them, (ii) their hands-off nature they had high non-completion rates (not good for the institution's statistics) and, (iii) that simply they didn't generate as much money for universities as taught degrees I don't think they're offered by Universities anymore (i could be wrong though).

[worm]

As such, my first degree (BA Sociology and Anthropology) was wholly non-vocational and did involve all of the research 'training' as cited by worm. My next degree (MSc Wastes and Environmental Management) was wholly vocational and near exclusively industrial 'training' with none of the 'research training' that Worm might associate with academia - even the written reports and suchlike furnished as part of the MSC had only a scant requirement for any evidence of 'referencing' or 'original research' - it was all a display that you had a technical and scientific knowlegde of a certain level.

[worm]

Correct.

[eFestivals]

Plenty of degrees are, purely, vocational. Pleanty are not.

And I'm detailing my history in academia not as part of some preposterous d*ck-swinging exercise but, insetad, to illustrate that I have some insider knowledge. As such, my first degree (BA Sociology and Anthropology) was wholly non-vocational and did involve all of the research 'training' as cited by worm. My next degree (MSc Wastes and Environmental Management) was wholly vocational and near exclusively industrial 'training' with none of the 'research training' that Worm might associate with academia - even the written reports and suchlike furnished as part of the MSC had only a scant requirement for any evidence of 'referencing' or 'original research' - it was all a display that you had a technical and scientific knowlegde of a certain level. My third degree, however, (MA Social and Cultural History (by research)) was back to the research processes and techniques and the intellectual justification for any findings - although most taught Master of Arts (as opposed to Master of Arts by Research) are not purely philosophical discourses but involve the 'teaching' of a subject combined with a greater element of original research that that evident within a Batchelor's degree. I know some universities used to offer Batchelor's degrees by research alone (i.e. no taught modules or courses other than the briefest of research training - moreover these degrees were of an intellectual standard comprabale to many contemporary Master's degrees) but, (i) due to the amount of staff time taken up with them, (ii) their hands-off nature they had high non-completion rates (not good for the institution's statistics) and, (iii) that simply they didn't generate as much money for universities as taught degrees I don't think they're offered by Universities anymore (i could be wrong though).

Thank you for detailing that things are not as worm has claimed.

Cos you mentioned your BA, I'll just detail the other side of things to (almost) that - that there's also a BSc in Sociology run by some (or perhaps just one?) unis, where the majority *IS* vocational.

[Kizzie]

Plenty of degrees are, purely, vocational. Pleanty are not.

And I'm detailing my history in academia not as part of some preposterous d*ck-swinging exercise but, insetad, to illustrate that I have some insider knowledge. As such, my first degree (BA Sociology and Anthropology) was wholly non-vocational and did involve all of the research 'training' as cited by worm. My next degree (MSc Wastes and Environmental Management) was wholly vocational and near exclusively industrial 'training' with none of the 'research training' that Worm might associate with academia - even the written reports and suchlike furnished as part of the MSC had only a scant requirement for any evidence of 'referencing' or 'original research' - it was all a display that you had a technical and scientific knowlegde of a certain level.

[diddly-dee]

Teaching is part of the philosophical tradition too Chief.

[worm]

Yes, that is true. I suppose I was equating original empirically based and theoretically underpinned 'research' as being the 'highest' form of philosophical discourse within an academic context (and this works for both arts and science research).

[Ed209]

Rubbish.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Ed209