Vivi's back!

[mordok]

the state IS getting something out of it - someone bringing up their kid.

i see, as usual, that being a mother is relegated to "useless".  i sometimes wonder how far we've really come in the fight for equal opportuinites. 

Someone doing one of those courses has got almost nothing out of it, thats the whole point. They cant even pass on their knowledge to their children, becuase they gained none from that course. In Callaways case, I would agree with you because she took an academically rigourous course, and learned stuff.

Oh...  balls.  How do you know what people have gotten out of those courses?  Hadron, you make my ass twitch.

The 25% or above drop out rates for a start. And the earlier report by the taxpayers allience, which I began with. Another thing that stands out is the laughable entry requirements, have you heard of the acronym GIGO before?

Might it be possible that the high drop rate is due to people entering the class thinking the same as you and find out *gasp!* that they'll actually have to work?

I have no idea, you would have to ask them. It could also be the courses are total shit as well.

True enough.  My point, that you've just validated, is that you don't know either way.  You're talking out of your ass.  You've reached a conclusion and now any and all facts support that conclusion in your mind.

When the only tool you have is a hammer.....

Either way the course shouldnt be there. I would love to see an explaination for the high drop out rate that doesnt make the course look bad. I went to an HE fair about 18 months ago now, and at the fair there was a place called "Writtle College", who was selling some of these courses. They tried to sell them to me and my friend basically as a fun doss. They even gave us nice lollypops.

You've never taken one or any other college level course yet you say they shouldn't be there.  When asked for proof, you offer up supposition.  When called on that, you offer up an anecdote (i.e. one instance).  Here's a lesson I learned in college, anecdote <> data.

And regarding that anecdote itself, at that school it may have been a blowoff course.  Does that guarantee that similarly named courses in respectable and known places of education would also have no merit?

No, they tried to sell me several courses (we let them because we liked the lollypops). If you want a more scientific arguement, you can compare the entry requirements of these courses with a meaningful course and see if it helps you make up your mind. Remember GIGO 

One or several, so what?  It's still only one source.

Sure, I wouldn't mind a scientific argument.  Feel free to make one.  (Hint: Telling someone else to do your work is not making an argument.)  For bonus points, make sure that you understand the differences between scientific, logical, statistical and rhetorical arguments.

[Lucifer]

  mordok.

however...

he won't listen, mordok.  several of us have tried, and failed, to get him out from his own arse.  he'll learn, eventually.  sadly, the painful way, i suspect.

[Christopher McCandless]

mordok.

however...

he won't listen, mordok.  several of us have tried, and failed, to get him out from his own AAARRSE!!.  he'll learn, eventually.  sadly, the painful way, i suspect.

Are you actually going to argue that outdoor adventure with philosopy is a good quality and worthwhile degree. I would love to hear your case for it.

[Christopher McCandless]

the state IS getting something out of it - someone bringing up their kid.

i see, as usual, that being a mother is relegated to "useless".  i sometimes wonder how far we've really come in the fight for equal opportuinites. 

Someone doing one of those courses has got almost nothing out of it, thats the whole point. They cant even pass on their knowledge to their children, becuase they gained none from that course. In Callaways case, I would agree with you because she took an academically rigourous course, and learned stuff.

Oh...  balls.  How do you know what people have gotten out of those courses?  Hadron, you make my ass twitch.

The 25% or above drop out rates for a start. And the earlier report by the taxpayers allience, which I began with. Another thing that stands out is the laughable entry requirements, have you heard of the acronym GIGO before?

Might it be possible that the high drop rate is due to people entering the class thinking the same as you and find out *gasp!* that they'll actually have to work?

I have no idea, you would have to ask them. It could also be the courses are total shit as well.

True enough.  My point, that you've just validated, is that you don't know either way.  You're talking out of your ass.  You've reached a conclusion and now any and all facts support that conclusion in your mind.

When the only tool you have is a hammer.....

Either way the course shouldnt be there. I would love to see an explaination for the high drop out rate that doesnt make the course look bad. I went to an HE fair about 18 months ago now, and at the fair there was a place called "Writtle College", who was selling some of these courses. They tried to sell them to me and my friend basically as a fun doss. They even gave us nice lollypops.

You've never taken one or any other college level course yet you say they shouldn't be there.  When asked for proof, you offer up supposition.  When called on that, you offer up an anecdote (i.e. one instance).  Here's a lesson I learned in college, anecdote <> data.

And regarding that anecdote itself, at that school it may have been a blowoff course.  Does that guarantee that similarly named courses in respectable and known places of education would also have no merit?

No, they tried to sell me several courses (we let them because we liked the lollypops). If you want a more scientific arguement, you can compare the entry requirements of these courses with a meaningful course and see if it helps you make up your mind. Remember GIGO 

One or several, so what?  It's still only one source.

Sure, I wouldn't mind a scientific argument.  Feel free to make one.  (Hint: Telling someone else to do your work is not making an argument.)  For bonus points, make sure that you understand the differences between scientific, logical, statistical and rhetorical arguments.

Here is the university league table from the Times Good University Guide:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php
Look at Durham, the place I am off to, and compare the figures with that of Derby, named in the report as the greatest provider of non-courses. Take a good look at the difference in entry standards as well.

[mordok]

mordok.

however...

he won't listen, mordok.  several of us have tried, and failed, to get him out from his own AAARRSE!!.  he'll learn, eventually.  sadly, the painful way, i suspect.

Are you actually going to argue that outdoor adventure with philosopy is a good quality and worthwhile degree. I would love to hear your case for it.

Sounds like Thoreau to me.

[mordok]

the state IS getting something out of it - someone bringing up their kid.

i see, as usual, that being a mother is relegated to "useless".  i sometimes wonder how far we've really come in the fight for equal opportuinites. 

Someone doing one of those courses has got almost nothing out of it, thats the whole point. They cant even pass on their knowledge to their children, becuase they gained none from that course. In Callaways case, I would agree with you because she took an academically rigourous course, and learned stuff.

Oh...  balls.  How do you know what people have gotten out of those courses?  Hadron, you make my ass twitch.

The 25% or above drop out rates for a start. And the earlier report by the taxpayers allience, which I began with. Another thing that stands out is the laughable entry requirements, have you heard of the acronym GIGO before?

Might it be possible that the high drop rate is due to people entering the class thinking the same as you and find out *gasp!* that they'll actually have to work?

I have no idea, you would have to ask them. It could also be the courses are total shit as well.

True enough.  My point, that you've just validated, is that you don't know either way.  You're talking out of your ass.  You've reached a conclusion and now any and all facts support that conclusion in your mind.

When the only tool you have is a hammer.....

Either way the course shouldnt be there. I would love to see an explaination for the high drop out rate that doesnt make the course look bad. I went to an HE fair about 18 months ago now, and at the fair there was a place called "Writtle College", who was selling some of these courses. They tried to sell them to me and my friend basically as a fun doss. They even gave us nice lollypops.

You've never taken one or any other college level course yet you say they shouldn't be there.  When asked for proof, you offer up supposition.  When called on that, you offer up an anecdote (i.e. one instance).  Here's a lesson I learned in college, anecdote <> data.

And regarding that anecdote itself, at that school it may have been a blowoff course.  Does that guarantee that similarly named courses in respectable and known places of education would also have no merit?

No, they tried to sell me several courses (we let them because we liked the lollypops). If you want a more scientific arguement, you can compare the entry requirements of these courses with a meaningful course and see if it helps you make up your mind. Remember GIGO 

One or several, so what?  It's still only one source.

Sure, I wouldn't mind a scientific argument.  Feel free to make one.  (Hint: Telling someone else to do your work is not making an argument.)  For bonus points, make sure that you understand the differences between scientific, logical, statistical and rhetorical arguments.

Here is the university league table from the Times Good University Guide:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php
Look at Durham, the place I am off to, and compare the figures with that of Derby, named in the report as the greatest provider of non-courses. Take a good look at the difference in entry standards as well.

Wait.  I thought you were comparing courses.  Now you're talking about comparing schools.  Do make up your mind, please.

[Christopher McCandless]

the state IS getting something out of it - someone bringing up their kid.

i see, as usual, that being a mother is relegated to "useless".  i sometimes wonder how far we've really come in the fight for equal opportuinites. 

Someone doing one of those courses has got almost nothing out of it, thats the whole point. They cant even pass on their knowledge to their children, becuase they gained none from that course. In Callaways case, I would agree with you because she took an academically rigourous course, and learned stuff.

Oh...  balls.  How do you know what people have gotten out of those courses?  Hadron, you make my ass twitch.

The 25% or above drop out rates for a start. And the earlier report by the taxpayers allience, which I began with. Another thing that stands out is the laughable entry requirements, have you heard of the acronym GIGO before?

Might it be possible that the high drop rate is due to people entering the class thinking the same as you and find out *gasp!* that they'll actually have to work?

I have no idea, you would have to ask them. It could also be the courses are total shit as well.

True enough.  My point, that you've just validated, is that you don't know either way.  You're talking out of your ass.  You've reached a conclusion and now any and all facts support that conclusion in your mind.

When the only tool you have is a hammer.....

Either way the course shouldnt be there. I would love to see an explaination for the high drop out rate that doesnt make the course look bad. I went to an HE fair about 18 months ago now, and at the fair there was a place called "Writtle College", who was selling some of these courses. They tried to sell them to me and my friend basically as a fun doss. They even gave us nice lollypops.

You've never taken one or any other college level course yet you say they shouldn't be there.  When asked for proof, you offer up supposition.  When called on that, you offer up an anecdote (i.e. one instance).  Here's a lesson I learned in college, anecdote <> data.

And regarding that anecdote itself, at that school it may have been a blowoff course.  Does that guarantee that similarly named courses in respectable and known places of education would also have no merit?

No, they tried to sell me several courses (we let them because we liked the lollypops). If you want a more scientific arguement, you can compare the entry requirements of these courses with a meaningful course and see if it helps you make up your mind. Remember GIGO 

One or several, so what?  It's still only one source.

Sure, I wouldn't mind a scientific argument.  Feel free to make one.  (Hint: Telling someone else to do your work is not making an argument.)  For bonus points, make sure that you understand the differences between scientific, logical, statistical and rhetorical arguments.

Here is the university league table from the Times Good University Guide:
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php
Look at Durham, the place I am off to, and compare the figures with that of Derby, named in the report as the greatest provider of non-courses. Take a good look at the difference in entry standards as well.

Wait.  I thought you were comparing courses.  Now you're talking about comparing schools.  Do make up your mind, please.

I am comparing courses by means of the universities that run them. Derby is the main culprit for the non-courses, according to the initial report that I posted, where as Durham does not run a single one.

[Kosmonaut]

I am comparing courses by means of the universities that run them. Derby is the main culprit for the non-courses, according to the initial report that I posted, where as Durham does not run a single one.

Problem with Durham is that it is full of people who have grudges because they failed to get in Oxbridge.
I don't care if it is the best establishment in England, it is no fun pretending that you are not really a failure for 3 years.
May as well go to Leeds or wherever and have a good time.

[Christopher McCandless]

I am comparing courses by means of the universities that run them. Derby is the main culprit for the non-courses, according to the initial report that I posted, where as Durham does not run a single one.

Problem with Durham is that it is full of people who have grudges because they failed to get in Oxbridge.
I don't care if it is the best establishment in England, it is no fun pretending that you are not really a failure for 3 years.
May as well go to Leeds or wherever and have a good time.

Same with most top unis these days, asides Oxbridge. Asides, I chose the uni because I like the place, and the course suited me. I doubt Oxford would have suited me as well tbh.

[Kosmonaut]

I am comparing courses by means of the universities that run them. Derby is the main culprit for the non-courses, according to the initial report that I posted, where as Durham does not run a single one.

Problem with Durham is that it is full of people who have grudges because they failed to get in Oxbridge.
I don't care if it is the best establishment in England, it is no fun pretending that you are not really a failure for 3 years.
May as well go to Leeds or wherever and have a good time.

Same with most top unis these days, asides Oxbridge. Asides, I chose the uni because I like the place, and the course suited me. I doubt Oxford would have suited me as well tbh.

There is a big difference between the colleges. eg. You wouldn't want to be at Christ Church if you were from a working class background.
Some colleges are more Northern, sporty, whatever, it is a bit of a mix.
You will find as many pretentious people at Durham as at Oxford. I would argue more - but anyway, im sure there are some good people too.
I don't know about the other 'top unis', and i don't which they are either - i guess they have changed over the last 10 years.
I spent some time at York uni, and i would recommend it for sure.

[Christopher McCandless]

I am comparing courses by means of the universities that run them. Derby is the main culprit for the non-courses, according to the initial report that I posted, where as Durham does not run a single one.

Problem with Durham is that it is full of people who have grudges because they failed to get in Oxbridge.
I don't care if it is the best establishment in England, it is no fun pretending that you are not really a failure for 3 years.
May as well go to Leeds or wherever and have a good time.

Same with most top unis these days, asides Oxbridge. Asides, I chose the uni because I like the place, and the course suited me. I doubt Oxford would have suited me as well tbh.

There is a big difference between the colleges. eg. You wouldn't want to be at Christ Church if you were from a working class background.
Some colleges are more Northern, sporty, whatever, it is a bit of a mix.
You will find as many pretentious people at Durham as at Oxford. I would argue more - but anyway, im sure there are some good people too.
I don't know about the other 'top unis', and i don't which they are either - i guess they have changed over the last 10 years.
I spent some time at York uni, and i would recommend it for sure.

York didnt have as good a course, Bath was actually my insurance choice. As for Durham, if you stay clear of Castle and Hatfield then you can more or less miss off most of the snobs.

[renaeden]

Are you actually going to argue that outdoor adventure with philosopy is a good quality and worthwhile degree. I would love to hear your case for it.

What if you were going to lead people along the Kokoda trail as your profession?
The two subjects combined is interesting.

If you go to a class and learn something, then it is not pointless.

[Christopher McCandless]

Are you actually going to argue that outdoor adventure with philosopy is a good quality and worthwhile degree. I would love to hear your case for it.

What if you were going to lead people along the Kokoda trail as your profession?
The two subjects combined is interesting.

If you go to a class and learn something, then it is not pointless.

Reneden, the problem is they are selling something more akin to A-levels as a degree. I seriously doubt any degree level learning will be going on in such a course, and some of the stuff that is on the course sounds like total bull. To be a guide you need experience, not an academic qualification.

[Walkie]

... the state is sponsoring you to do it (in the UK), so really the state should get something back out of it.

Hold on. State sponsorship, in the UK, increasinfgly takes the form of loans, not grants. And if they were'nt increasing the numer of people in "higher" education (Yep, i do wonder how much "higher" it actually is, in many instances) then they'd only have to pay out more (non-repayable)unemployments benefits. So the State does pretty well out of the deal, imo.

Is lucifer's "Ask away" thread the right place for this debate, btw? I'd rather see it split off and given a more relevant title.

[Scrapheap]

Are you a crazy cat woman?? or do I need to pu that another way??