Is having a degree the new GCSE?

[_angel_]

and as usual once youve misquoted people and alledged people have said things they havent you act all innocent and shocked.
Pathetic... more and more people have the measure of you these days.
Time for another name change soon i suspect.

If I misquoted you somewhere I'm sorry, I'm not trying to fall out.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I think I'd phrase it as *you have to be reasonably literate to pass a degree* and basically parrot fashion what your lecturers say.

I'm just thinking about the er intelligence level of some of my fellow students.

There was one lass - lived with my mate who expressed bewilderment at the fact Leeds had electricity. I wish I was making it up.

Well - and you'll have to take my word for it that this is not personal - most of my acquaintance with graduates prior to my own degree was with scientists, rather than humanities, people, including teachers (my dad taught).

The general consensus amongst those did, it is true, tend to be that subjects like history were somewhat unique in that you could get on quite a long way in the subject by just regurgitating facts that you learned parrot-fashion. But take it from me that in many other subjects that simply isn't the case: they would be looking for originality, insight, and thought. The idea, say, of a physics graduate being able to "basically parrot fashion what your lecturers say" and get a good degree like a 2:1 is, frankly, laughable.

And it has crossed my mind, as I try to navigate through your flaws in elementary logic, that perhaps you're a case in point for your argument that one doesn't need to be intelligent to get a degree.

Perhaps it does just depend on the subject.

(and, before I upset any historians out there, I'm not saying that there aren't any insightful, original, intelligent and/or thoughtful history graduates!)

 

[_angel_]

And it has crossed my mind, as I try to navigate through your flaws in elementary logic, that perhaps you're a case in point for your argument that one doesn't need to be intelligent to get a degree.

Like I didn't see that one coming, jeez.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Like I didn't see that one coming, jeez.

Run to the mods and tell 'em about it, then. Go on, you know you want to. Given that we appear to be disagreeing on more than one thread now, perhaps it's time to start complaining that you have another stalker?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think I'd phrase it as *you have to be reasonably literate to pass a degree* and basically parrot fashion what your lecturers say.

For some subjects, being able to remember the reams of data your lecturers chunter is important, for other subjects the ability to think for yourself is more important.

 

[Jonti]

Like, well, philosophy on the one hand; and maths on the other.

*hides*

 

[_angel_]

Like, well, philosophy on the one hand; and maths on the other.

*hides*

Yeah there's a big difference between arts and sciences.. but going against the view of the tutor even in philosophy, isn't going to get you too far.

I can think of one example of this.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well - and you'll have to take my word for it that this is not personal - most of my acquaintance with graduates prior to my own degree was with scientists, rather than humanities, people, including teachers (my dad taught).

The general consensus amongst those did, it is true, tend to be that subjects like history were somewhat unique in that you could get on quite a long way in the subject by just regurgitating facts that you learned parrot-fashion. But take it from me that in many other subjects that simply isn't the case: they would be looking for originality, insight, and thought. The idea, say, of a physics graduate being able to "basically parrot fashion what your lecturers say" and get a good degree like a 2:1 is, frankly, laughable.

And it has crossed my mind, as I try to navigate through your flaws in elementary logic, that perhaps you're a case in point for your argument that one doesn't need to be intelligent to get a degree.

Perhaps it does just depend on the subject.

(and, before I upset any historians out there, I'm not saying that there aren't any insightful, original, intelligent and/or thoughtful history graduates!)

Reminds me of a poor benighted "History of Art" grad I worked with. He was a total "chinless wonder", and admitted himself that he found "thinking for himself" difficult, but his (non-eidetic) ability to remember the minutiae of stuff he read has served him in good stead in the civil service

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

But to 'go against' the tutor would suggest intelligence for formulate your own ideas... many these days dont like it, wben when you can support what you say... I wonder why? You reckon they feel threatened by these less than intelligent students they have to deal with?

I mean, you cant have it both ways, either degrees are for the intellectually challenged or they arent...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Like, well, philosophy on the one hand; and maths on the other.

*hides*

Kind of depends on the maths and the philosophy under discussion, doesn't it?

 

[_angel_]

But to 'go against' the tutor would suggest intelligence for formulate your own ideas... many these days dont like it, wben when you can support what you say... I wonder why? You reckon they feel threatened by these less than intelligent students they have to deal with?
I mean, you cant have it both ways, either degrees are for the intellectually challenged or they arent...

Yes sometimes I think that is the case.

I never actually said degrees are for the intellectually challenged, just that you didn't need to be particularly academic to get through many of them, it would appear.

 

[untethered]

I never actually said degrees are for the intellectually challenged, just that you didn't need to be particularly academic to get through many of them, it would appear.

That's because many courses are the aforementioned "vocational degrees".

There's a big difference between a degree in maths and one in golf course management.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But to 'go against' the tutor would suggest intelligence for formulate your own ideas... many these days dont like it, wben when you can support what you say... I wonder why? You reckon they feel threatened by these less than intelligent students they have to deal with?

I never found this myself, doing my degrees, but I've heard enough "horror stories" about tutors getting in a strop if you shift an inch from the consensus view to know it happens.
I think there's a bit of a problem with (and it's a point that a few Urbanites have raised on politics and on education threads) people leaving school without having been taught to think critically. if our education system produces homogeneous "product", then that'll eventually fiter through to our "teachers" as well as being instilled in their "students". A freshman uni student who has been taught to think critically may approach their subject with much less reverence or respect for the consensus view than their non-critical contemporaries, and to me that can mostly be a good thing. Questioning orthodoxy usually is.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Yeah there's a big difference between arts and sciences.. but going against the view of the tutor even in philosophy, isn't going to get you too far.

I can think of one example of this.

I think you'd need rather more than one example to be able to claim it as a general rule.

And I don't think most undergrads are generally going to be learned or experienced enough to out-argue a tutor, especially in philosophy, anyway.

 

[118118]

i'm getting a thrid. my tutors says that practically anyone is capable of getting a thrid. if you thik about it bottom 10% of university graduates, must reach quite low levels of intelligence

 

[118118]

my dad got one gcse, set up his own surveying business, and we lived in a mansion for most of my childhood

eta: i got into a pretty good med school but can't get an undergraguate degree. go figure.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Yes sometimes I think that is the case.

I never actually said degrees are for the intellectually challenged, just that you didn't need to be particularly academic to get through many of them, it would appear.

Actually, that's not what you said. What you said, here, was:

This is rubbish. Having a degree is nothing to do with intelligence anyway.

I do so hope this helps.

 

[pembrokestephen]

That's because many courses are the aforementioned "vocational degrees".

There's a big difference between a degree in maths and one in golf course management.

My degree was taught in the "School of Human & Life Sciences": this meant that it was in the same building as the various sports-related subjects.

Now, perhaps their written/academic work was utterly different, but when you encounter a roomful of tracksuit-clad types speaking in an urgent Sarf Lahndon patois, larded with "kna'a'meen"'s and "innit"'s, it's hard to square that with the kind of work they were demanding of us (and which I frequently failed to achieve to much more than around 60-65% in).

There was certainly a distinct academic/vocational split between the students, with counselling, anthropology, psychology and various zoology/combination courses on one side, and most of the sporty stuff on the other. I may be being unreasonably judgemental, so I'll claim this only as a very subjective opinion.

As far as I know, Roehampton never offered a course in golf course management . And I shudder to think what a degree in Leisure & Tourism involves. I'm sure they could be valid subjects. But I'm struggling with how they could really be taught as a degree subject.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I never found this myself, doing my degrees, but I've heard enough "horror stories" about tutors getting in a strop if you shift an inch from the consensus view to know it happens.
I think there's a bit of a problem with (and it's a point that a few Urbanites have raised on politics and on education threads) people leaving school without having been taught to think critically. if our education system produces homogeneous "product", then that'll eventually fiter through to our "teachers" as well as being instilled in their "students". A freshman uni student who has been taught to think critically may approach their subject with much less reverence or respect for the consensus view than their non-critical contemporaries, and to me that can mostly be a good thing. Questioning orthodoxy usually is.

I certainly found that was the case at my uni.. if you looked for new or original research which wasnt what the tutor had preached in the lecture hall you would get marked down. For instance I had to write a psychology essay on attachment. The lecturer had lecturered on Bowlby so I found lots of new and relevant research and wrote him what i thought was a well thought out and researched essay for which he gave me a D.....

 

[pembrokestephen]

my dad got one gcse, set up his own surveying business, and we lived in a mansion for most of my childhood

eta: i got into a pretty good med school but can't get an undergraguate degree. go figure.

Nothing particularly to add, except to say how fucking scary it is to hear people saying "my dad got...GCSE"

 

[118118]

a good mate of mine did a tourism degre and got a 2,2. he now is a tour guide in peru. some would class that as a success...

 

[118118]

mistype innt.

 

[pembrokestephen]

I never found this myself, doing my degrees, but I've heard enough "horror stories" about tutors getting in a strop if you shift an inch from the consensus view to know it happens.
I think there's a bit of a problem with (and it's a point that a few Urbanites have raised on politics and on education threads) people leaving school without having been taught to think critically. if our education system produces homogeneous "product", then that'll eventually fiter through to our "teachers" as well as being instilled in their "students". A freshman uni student who has been taught to think critically may approach their subject with much less reverence or respect for the consensus view than their non-critical contemporaries, and to me that can mostly be a good thing. Questioning orthodoxy usually is.

Definitely. There's no excuse for having a strop if someone questions the orthodoxy. But I also think that it's quite important that expectations are managed properly from the outset: the chances are that no freshman undergrad is going to be bringing brand new insights to the subject. That's not to say he/she shouldn't be allowed to try, and I'd hope that the attempt would be treated respectfully but not so respectfully as to encourage him/her to carry on thinking that they'd got the subject sussed already .

 

[118118]

carry on thinking that they'd got the subject sussed already

these words don't mean anything.

 

[pembrokestephen]

carry on thinking that they'd got the subject sussed already

these words don't mean anything.

 

[118118]

i just mean like, no e.g. undergraduate philosophy student who is not psychotic is going to think they have read/learnt more about philosophy than their tutors. what does "got the subject sussed" mean exactly?

 

[pembrokestephen]

i just mean like, no e.g. undergraduate philosophy student who is not psychotic is going to think they have read/learnt more about philosophy than their tutors. what does "got the subject sussed" mean exactly?

Essentially, that he knows more about it than his tutors. He might, in some particular narrow case, but it's unlikely.

 

[118118]

anyway the facts are: 40% of variation in the population in success at undergraduate level is because of raw intelligence [iq]. this figure is slightly higher for work success.

so yeah, some people will do well at uni despite lacking intelligence/whatever. others not.

what is intelligence anyway. an intelligent animal adapts to its surroundings. or something like that.

 

[118118]

Essentially, that he knows more about it than his tutors. He might, in some particular narrow case, but it's unlikely.

what is this "it"? the subject? is the subject really a determined/bounded thing which some people can know more about? if so you think that many student's think they do know more about the subject than their tutors?

i honestly don't know what you are saying. but it seems to simply be that you don't think it right for students to be confident/arrogant infront of academics.

 

[118118]

maybe define 'subject', and then consider whether a sane individual is ever going to think they "know more about" it than an academic.