University Funding Slashed

[wren]

Or go with the Open University.

They offer science based courses.

Also, a lot more under 21s are now doing OU degrees, which didn't happen 15 years ago.

Also Birkbeck College if you are in or near London.

[Guest absolutezero]

...and when would the academics actually do their research (which is what they're actually paid for, in the main)?

Get the academics to do the research stuff and get lecturers to lecture.

Why should an academic lecture?

I can see it now. "2 year degrees create jobs"!

[Injin]

That's irrelevant to my point (but then one thing I've noticed about you is that you always have to have a come-back even if it is irrelevant.)

If we all agree on a standard way of communicating then we can communicate more effectively.

And why am I saying this?

Because if you try to spell in a more generally agreed way then you will be more effective in communicating.

The only reason not to is laziness.

There is no agreed way of spelling, no such thying as the engolish language, even.

There is one which lots of people were bullied into as kids, which gives the illusion of universality and an enduring myth based on sweet, sweet ****** all.

(And is where your attitude of "right way" comes from. It's simply a memory of childhood abuse.)

[wren]

Interestingly Edinburgh (definitely not a "lesser university") offer direct entry to the second year of their physics degree if you have AAB at A level.

That sounds like a tacit admission of year 1 being A level.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergraduate/finder/degree.php?id=0,4,F300

As a Scottish university don't they normally start at the age of 17 after Highers? That would explain the first year being a bit like the final year of A-level.

Not that I know, just guessing from my out-of-date knowledge of the UK system(s).

[Guest Skinty]

P.S. I think £35-40k is a respectable wage - I'd be happy on it. I've always thought this, and think that something's wrong when that sort of money is viewed as paltry. Certainly around here where the average wage is more like £25k, it's not to be scoffed at.

The most I've ever earned is 33K and that's with a degree from a 5* computing department, an MSc and a PhD in computing related subjects and 5 years in industry as a software engineer. And that's only because I talked them up to 33K from 31K.

Not that it made any difference as it all went on living expenses as I had to move to an expensive area and my work-life was generally hell.

[Guest absolutezero]

As a Scottish university don't they normally start at the age of 17 after Highers? That would explain the first year being a bit like the final year of A-level.

Not that I know, just guessing from my out-of-date knowledge of the UK system(s).

It's a 3 year degree though...

EDIT

No it isn't. It's a 4 year degree.

Makes me wonder why they bother with the first year though.

Edited December 23, 2009 by absolutezero

[Guest Skinty]

There is no agreed way of spelling, no such thying as the engolish language, even.

There is one which lots of people were bullied into as kids, which gives the illusion of universality and an enduring myth based on sweet, sweet ****** all.

(And is where your attitude of "right way" comes from. It's simply a memory of childhood abuse.)

You're still missing the point.

It is within your interests to communicate in a way that it easiest for the majority of people to read (regardless of why this is the case).

No one bullies GUI designers to design their interfaces in a certain way. It is in their interests to make their products intuitive and easy to use.

Why bother communicating at all if you aren't going to bother giving what you say the best chance of being understood?

And conversely, why should we bother reading your posts if you aren't bothered about how you write it?

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Edited December 23, 2009 by Skinty

[Scunnered]

Interestingly Edinburgh (definitely not a "lesser university") offer direct entry to the second year of their physics degree if you have AAB at A level.

That sounds like a tacit admission of year 1 being A level.

There's a historical reason for that, which is that Scottish universities take a lot of students from Scotland, where the school leaving qualifications have been less advanced than in England. I'm not sure exactly what happens these days, but when I was at school you did O grades (which were pretty much the same as O levels) after 4 years of secondary school, and then Higher grades after one more year; these certainly covered a lot less ground than English A-levels, so the Scottish universities started at a somewhat lower level than the English ones (and, correspondingly, the degrees took an extra year). Having said that, I went to Edinburgh, and I think that almost no-one with A-levels went directly into second year. I have a feeling that a lot of those who did didn't survive very long.

[DeepLurker]

The country doesn’t need more engineers or scientists we have too many as it is. Look at the wages paid for them, little over a normal office job so there is no shortage.

True.

I did an engineering degree in the 90s, worked for a few years in a factory on a miserable wage, eventually got fed up and looked around me.

Went into IT instead, after 2 years my wage was double what I'd been earning as an engineer... and it was in a nice air-con office, rather than in a smelly factory on an industrial estate.

No contest!

[Guest absolutezero]

There's a historical reason for that, which is that Scottish universities take a lot of students from Scotland, where the school leaving qualifications have been less advanced than in England. I'm not sure exactly what happens these days, but when I was at school you did O grades (which were pretty much the same as O levels) after 4 years of secondary school, and then Higher grades after one more year; these certainly covered a lot less ground than English A-levels, so the Scottish universities started at a somewhat lower level than the English ones (and, correspondingly, the degrees took an extra year). Having said that, I went to Edinburgh, and I think that almost no-one with A-levels went directly into second year. I have a feeling that a lot of those who did didn't survive very long.

Interesting. Thank you for that.

Why were the Highers less "rigorous" than the English A-levels?

[DeepLurker]

*sigh*

Let me put it in bold and big red letters for you ...

If we all agree on a standard way of communicating then we can communicate more effectively.

Are you suggesting that we standardise on the Eric Pebble way of communicating?

[wealthy]

Get the academics to do the research stuff and get lecturers to lecture.

Why should an academic lecture?

I can see it now. "2 year degrees create jobs"!

There's no distinction between academic and lecturer at traditional Universities

You can't just pick someone up and get them to teach an advanced third year topic in their field. It would take them months of prep time versus what's often over a decade of understanding that specific subject. Besides which they would get pulled left and right by the students. You can't read textbook or follow a syllabus or something, that's why the pre-requisite is typically a PhD and several years of published research rather than an undegrad degree so the lecturer actually understands what they're teaching.

Often they teach their own research at the latter stages of the course anyway, right up to date. It creates a feedback loop which is win-win.

Teaching associates and research fellows frequently teach the basic stuff in the earlier years.

If you don't want all that and just want a "lecturer" then there are many Universities that don't do much research if any at all. The bright kids don't seem to want to go there though.

[Guest absolutezero]

There's no distinction between academic and lecturer at traditional Universities

You can't just pick someone up and get them to teach an advanced third year topic in their field. It would take them months of prep time versus what's often over a decade of understanding that specific subject. Besides which they would get pulled left and right by the students. You can't read textbook or follow a syllabus or something, that's why the pre-requisite is typically a PhD and several years of published research rather than an undegrad degree so the lecturer actually understands what they're teaching.

Often they teach their own research at the latter stages of the course anyway, right up to date. It creates a feedback loop which is win-win.

Teaching associates and research fellows frequently teach the basic stuff in the earlier years.

If you don't want all that and just want a "lecturer" then there are many Universities that don't do much research if any at all. The bright kids don't seem to want to go there though.

Blimey!

Where were you the other day when I was arguing about "teaching" meaning knowing your field and subject content? Could have done with you then.

[Scunnered]

Interesting. Thank you for that.

Why were the Highers less "rigorous" than the English A-levels?

No idea. I don't think they were less rigorous in any way, it's just that they didn't cover so much material. As far as I know that's just the way it always was, although I think the Scottish system has tended to be more broadly based than the English one. For example, I took Highers in five subjects, whereas I believe that most A-level students only take three subjects. Something similar was true at university, where you took courses in three subjects in your first two years before concentrating exclusively on your degree subject in the final two years.

I've dug into the Edinburgh Physics web pages, and you can see more about how things are organised here. It appears that things have changed a bit, and they have officially two streams of study: there's a "fast-track" one where they cover the basics in one year, and a "broad-based" one where it takes two years, but perhaps with more outside subjects. Within the University this system seems to be unique to the Physics department, and I have no idea how many people take each option, or what their backgrounds might be.

[wren]

Interesting. Thank you for that.

Why were the Highers less "rigorous" than the English A-levels?

Traditionally those who continued beyond the legally required school leaving age continued until they were 17. They would probably do 5 or 6 subjects. At the age of 17 in their stronger subjects they would take a Higher exam and in weaker subjects a Lower exam.

Highers are (or at least were) less difficult than the English A-level.

They would leave school at 17. This is why university entry was traditionally at age 17 and what would be a 3-year degree in England would be a 4-year degree in Scotland to reach a comparable standard.

So the first year of a Scottish degree is probably similar to the final year of A-level.

(My parents did Scottish Highers and Lowers but I went through the English system.)

[oldmisery]

Although we are in recession the is still a shortage of good engineers. i am a consulting engineer in building services (heating ventilation air conditioning electrics and ligting etc) we cannot get a senior electrical engineer. i have had 4 people in a year that we have had to let go because they were sh?t. one was a 32 year old degree qualified chartered electrical engineer who didn't know anything about electrical engineering.

the problem is not only qualifications,its also training. i do think that to practice engineering (especially design) you need to have a degree in engineering. this is the stating point and in 5 to 10 years you may know what yor talking about.

the problem with engineering in this country is that it is not understood or valued.

[Guest absolutezero]

No idea. I don't think they were less rigorous in any way, it's just that they didn't cover so much material. As far as I know that's just the way it always was, although I think the Scottish system has tended to be more broadly based than the English one. For example, I took Highers in five subjects, whereas I believe that most A-level students only take three subjects. Something similar was true at university, where you took courses in three subjects in your first two years before concentrating exclusively on your degree subject in the final two years.

I've dug into the Edinburgh Physics web pages, and you can see more about how things are organised here. It appears that things have changed a bit, and they have officially two streams of study: there's a "fast-track" one where they cover the basics in one year, and a "broad-based" one where it takes two years, but perhaps with more outside subjects. Within the University this system seems to be unique to the Physics department, and I have no idea how many people take each option, or what their backgrounds might be.

What happens in England now is we have AS (Advanced Supplementary) levels (first year of sixth form college) and A2 levels (second year of sixth form).

The idea is that students are meant to take 5 AS levels in year 1 and then concentrate on 3 of them at A2, thereby making a full A-level. In other words they come out wirh 3 A levels and 2 AS levels.

Is that similar?

[Guest absolutezero]

Traditionally those who continued beyond the legally required school leaving age continued until they were 17. They would probably do 5 or 6 subjects. At the age of 17 in their stronger subjects they would take a Higher exam and in weaker subjects a Lower exam.

Highers are (or at least were) less difficult than the English A-level.

They would leave school at 17. This is why university entry was traditionally at age 17 and what would be a 3-year degree in England would be a 4-year degree in Scotland to reach a comparable standard.

So the first year of a Scottish degree is probably similar to the final year of A-level.

(My parents did Scottish Highers and Lowers but I went through the English system.)

Sounds like an excessive amount of faff to me!

Why not just have one system, whichever one that may be?

[Injin]

You're still missing the point.

It is within your interests to communicate in a way that it easiest for the majority of people to read (regardless of why this is the case).

No one bullies GUI designers to design their interfaces in a certain way. It is in their interests to make their products intuitive and easy to use.

Why bother communicating at all if you aren't going to bother giving what you say the best chance of being understood?

And conversely, why should we bother reading your posts if you aren't bothered about how you write it?

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Yes, I do.

You are now at the correct position on this from your earlier innacurate one. Congratulations.

Edi - you also outline how we can have market anarchy without the sky falling in as well. Not bad!

Edited December 23, 2009 by Injin

[wealthy]

Blimey!

Where were you the other day when I was arguing about "teaching" meaning knowing your field and subject content? Could have done with you then.

Too busy working! I did see a thread where someone was chiming in and expecting you to turn bad students into einsteins or something. I was just shaking my head.

You get some funny views here sometimes as I'm sure you've come to expect.

[Guest absolutezero]

Too busy working! I did see a thread where someone was chiming in and expecting you to turn bad students into einsteins or something. I was just shaking my head.

You get some funny views here sometimes as I'm sure you've come to expect.

I shake my head regularly when I come on here...

[porca misèria]

Isn't it wonderful the way things get upside down nowadays? The guy who is supposed to think he's better than everyone else actually thinks almost all people have great potential, while the one paid to develop and expand minds thinks they don't.

The reason, of course, is that people become successful capitalists irresective of their education; it's about a mental outlook and preparedness to take risks, whereas teachers on the whole....... don't.

What chance do kids have when so many teachers have your attitude?

Summary:

bogbrush the capitalist pays people to do a job of work, and looks for the best in his employees. 'Cos if he doesn't, he's out of business and they're all out of a job.

absolutezero the socialist gets paid to teach his charges according to a common box-ticking agenda. It matters very little to him if they succeed or fail - except insofar as he may have an emotional investment in it.

[porca misèria]

Get the academics to do the research stuff and get lecturers to lecture.

Why should an academic lecture?

I can see it now. "2 year degrees create jobs"!

Erm, nice idea. I loved my time as a research fellow, but couldn't make it a career without moving into lecturing

Lecturers who go stale (have no stake in original research) are at best scoolteachers for older pupils, more likely mere trainers or wastes of space.

[Injin]

Summary:

bogbrush the capitalist pays people to do a job of work, and looks for the best in his employees. 'Cos if he doesn't, he's out of business and they're all out of a job.

absolutezero the socialist gets paid to teach his charges according to a common box-ticking agenda. It matters very little to him if they succeed or fail - except insofar as he may have an emotional investment in it.

Err no.

If bogbrush fails, he doesn't get paid.

If you fail, you still get paid - and if we refuse to pay you, we are threatened with jail.

Not hard to work out who will be best motivated to do a good job. You haven't even got a signal that tells you what you are doing is working or not!

[Guest absolutezero]

Summary:

bogbrush the capitalist pays people to do a job of work, and looks for the best in his employees. 'Cos if he doesn't, he's out of business and they're all out of a job.

absolutezero the socialist gets paid to teach his charges according to a common box-ticking agenda. It matters very little to him if they succeed or fail - except insofar as he may have an emotional investment in it.

As you wish.

One other difference being I realise not everyone can do everything.

In fact some people can actually do very little beyond repetitive, non-demanding tasks. These are the ones whose jobs get replaced by machines.

It's all very well BogBrush saying all this nonsense but if he could automate his workplace he would do, thereby putting these people he "cares" deeply about on the scrapheap.