The Bitching Thread

[Animeniax]

I can't believe I missed this entire discussion. I can't believe Dark Dragon said that learning for the sake of learning is stupid (-_-) I have issues with pretty much everything he said.

I don't think that's quite what DD said. If the purpose of going to school is to prepare you for work in that field, then extraneous classes outside that field can be seen as a waste of time. I disagree of course, since I think any class you take can help you better at your primary job. Ie, if you are an accountant, you could still stand to learn some fine arts/speech/writing/drama/social sciences, which would make you a better employee and person.

[Buffalobiian]

I don't think that's quite what DD said. If the purpose of going to school is to prepare you for work in that field, then extraneous classes outside that field can be seen as a waste of time. I disagree of course, since I think any class you take can help you better at your primary job. Ie, if you are an accountant, you could still stand to learn some fine arts/speech/writing/drama/social sciences, which would make you a better employee and person.

While a diverse education may cultivate your mind for better performance, not everyone agrees that it's something you must learn and even be assessed on. I would say that's better for highschool level learning (general skills and preparing individuals for society). In university, you're paying to study for your field. More often than not, it's to receive qualifications to work.

Looking at it through this qualification lense, you're basically saying that I (the professor) can degrade your overall mark due to a compulsory, non-related subject.. thereby making you seem less qualified based on overall academic merit.

A "better" person compared to an "average" person is evaluated by other people through an interview, not by a High Distinction in visual arts.

[Animeniax]

While a diverse education may cultivate your mind for better performance, not everyone agrees that it's something you must learn and even be assessed on. I would say that's better for highschool level learning (general skills and preparing individuals for society). In university, you're paying to study for your field. More often than not, it's to receive qualifications to work.

Looking at it through this qualification lense, you're basically saying that I (the professor) can degrade your overall mark due to a compulsory, non-related subject.. thereby making you seem less qualified based on overall academic merit.

A "better" person compared to an "average" person is evaluated by other people through an interview, not by a High Distinction in visual arts.

You pay for the degree but what that entails is not for you to decide. The school, and by extension potential employers who value a degree from that school, determine what courses are required to obtain that degree.

A professor can degrade your mark for a related subject just as easily by making difficult tests or not covering material in lecture that appears on tests. The problem is that these "unrelated" courses are often not taken seriously by students, so they don't put in the effort. If they were made to understand that it is an essential part of their learning and certification, instead of as a waste of time, it would become an integral part of their studies.

As it is, most courses that are related to your field do not come into play in the actual job. By your account then, those courses should also be removed from the curriculum, and courses should only cover exactly what you'll need on the job. The problem with that is that you can't know exactly what you'll need to know on the job.

[Dark Dragon]

My point is simply that you should focus on learning useful information that will be relevant to your aspirations. Sometimes, you'll need to adjust what you want to do in order to be relevant in society.

Learning for the sake of learning without any forethought on how that knowledge could be use is stupid. Society function in a way that knowledge is passed on to the next generation so that we can learn from the mistakes and successes of our predecessor. The act of learning is simply absorbing previous information created by others. At the core, you're simply following instructions that was created by someone previously. For the majority of college students, they're using some sort of loan/grant program that potentially puts them in debt to obtain this information. I don't think it's too much to ask that this information they're paying for is something that justify the money they're spending to obtain. If this is not the case then you're using resources to obtain knowledge without any plan of using it to contribute something back to society, a parasite if you will.

This isn't simply a problem of GPA. Sometimes people needs to be smart about picking their major. Is it too much to ask that someone does a little bit of research before deciding on what they want to do for the rest of their life? Look up the number of college grad in areas like theater or fashion designs, then compare that to growth that those sectors and you'll see a disparity. The question then becomes "is it a good idea for me to drop 40,000+ USD to not have a job?"

That isn't to say that having a well-rounded education is a bad thing. It's just that sometimes it's less about being well rounded and more about the University making as much money as possible before you get your degree.

[Buffalobiian]

You pay for the degree but what that entails is not for you to decide. The school, and by extension potential employers who value a degree from that school, determine what courses are required to obtain that degree.

A professor can degrade your mark for a related subject just as easily by making difficult tests or not covering material in lecture that appears on tests. The problem is that these "unrelated" courses are often not taken seriously by students, so they don't put in the effort. If they were made to understand that it is an essential part of their learning and certification, instead of as a waste of time, it would become an integral part of their studies.

If a professor wants to make tests hard or teach in a shitty manner, go for it. He should be ready for the feedback as well, but at least the learning objectives and examinable materials are set out in the course profiles. I'm seeing some problems with our lectures not covering much of the examinable content, but I'm happy in knowing that the work I'm putting in is being spent on a topic that is clinically relevant.

Educators and employers are different, and the former certainly don't look after the interest of the latter. As I said in my previous post, there's a difference between a "desirable" quality and something that affects your qualification. I might want to employ an engineer with a more social personality because I think he'll fit in with my team better. It doesn't make him less qualified.

As it is, most courses that are related to your field do not come into play in the actual job. By your account then, those courses should also be removed from the curriculum, and courses should only cover exactly what you'll need on the job. The problem with that is that you can't know exactly what you'll need to know on the job.

That's why areas like medicine and law where (educators will even admit that) the knowledge you learn in university is either too little or quickly outdated teach using Problem Based Learning to facilitate self-education. It gets you into identifying gaps in your knowledge and knowing how best to fill them to the depth that is required at the time.

You're right in that you won't know exactly what you need for a job (though people generally have a pretty good idea - or can get such insight from talking to people in the field). So what are you doing throwing in a left-field courses in there?

I found out the other day that having a better idea of Australian geography and raising cattle could build rapport with people, especially those who live rurally and expect people to go "I don't know where that places is..". I might go read for half an hour on it when I have time, but I'm not going to attend a summer course for it. (Let alone getting failed in my professional degree for something like that).

It's a Nice to Know, not Need to Know.

[enkoujin]

I disagree of course, since I think any class you take can help you better at your primary job. Ie, if you are an accountant, you could still stand to learn some fine arts/speech/writing/drama/social sciences, which would make you a better employee and person.

I agree with Animeniax to some extent here. It's important for anyone in any field to be well-rounded, but students should have a choice of which compulsory non-related courses they should be taking so that they're more involved and interested in what they're taking.

At the very best, non-compulsory classes can enhance your other skills to make you more employable, help you later down the road for transdisciplinary tasks or problems, develop your social skills with people outside your study, and establish a common paradigm amongst peers from different faculties, which you can use to effectively communicate.

At the very worst, you've hopefully gained an appreciation of a different faculty/department, which will allow you to be more understanding of people's tasks. e.g., junior micro and macroeconomics courses allows for the understanding that economics is more than just supply and demand.

While a diverse education may cultivate your mind for better performance, not everyone agrees that it's something you must learn and even be assessed on. I would say that's better for highschool level learning (general skills and preparing individuals for society). In university, you're paying to study for your field. More often than not, it's to receive qualifications to work.

Looking at it through this qualification lense, you're basically saying that I (the professor) can degrade your overall mark due to a compulsory, non-related subject.. thereby making you seem less qualified based on overall academic merit.

The problem is incentive, though. If you're not going to be marked on the work you produced, what's the point of paying attention or even attending non-related class? Even if attendance is mandatory, what's stopping the typical unmotivated whiners and disruptors from degrading the class environment?

A "better" person compared to an "average" person is evaluated by other people through an interview, not by a High Distinction in visual arts.

I'm not entirely sure how HR operates, but it's important for job candidates to be well-rounded, which includes an appreciation for other fields of study, which translates into different types of work. Even if you already have an appreciation for other disciplines, not everyone was educated with the same mindset and this could particularly lead to unstable transdiscplinary teams if there are social issues - especially when the invisible career hierarchies in the workplace are important to some people.

As it is, most courses that are related to your field do not come into play in the actual job. By your account then, those courses should also be removed from the curriculum, and courses should only cover exactly what you'll need on the job. The problem with that is that you can't know exactly what you'll need to know on the job.

I strongly agree with this statement to some extent. There are some students today are being trained for jobs that do not even exist yet. Obviously, there's a strong discrepancy between completely unrelated disciplines, such as engineering and dance, but if it was something like engineering and medicine (biomedical engineering), new fields can be created.

Non-compulsory courses allow some students insight and flexibility too in case they decide that their current discipline isn't for them. It's not uncommon to change majors in western countries and part of that reason of switching majors is because a non-related course has interested that particular student more so than than their current major.

My point is simply that you should focus on learning useful information that will be relevant to your aspirations. Sometimes, you'll need to adjust what you want to do in order to be relevant in society.

I agree with this as well; it's important to excel in your particular discipline to be productive in your workplace and sometimes compulsory non-related courses may seem like a hindrance. While we know what is relevant in society today may not be relevant tomorrow and as aforementioned, non-related courses can give students a direction if their job markets are performing poorly.

Learning for the sake of learning without any forethought on how that knowledge could be use is stupid. Society function in a way that knowledge is passed on to the next generation so that we can learn from the mistakes and successes of our predecessor. The act of learning is simply absorbing previous information created by others. At the core, you're simply following instructions that was created by someone previously. For the majority of college students, they're using some sort of loan/grant program that potentially puts them in debt to obtain this information. I don't think it's too much to ask that this information they're paying for is something that justify the money they're spending to obtain. If this is not the case then you're using resources to obtain knowledge without any plan of using it to contribute something back to society, a parasite if you will.

This isn't simply a problem of GPA. Sometimes people needs to be smart about picking their major. Is it too much to ask that someone does a little bit of research before deciding on what they want to do for the rest of their life? Look up the number of college grad in areas like theater or fashion designs, then compare that to growth that those sectors and you'll see a disparity. The question then becomes "is it a good idea for me to drop 40,000+ USD to not have a job?"

That isn't to say that having a well-rounded education is a bad thing. It's just that sometimes it's less about being well rounded and more about the University making as much money as possible before you get your degree.

I definitely agree with practicality of a degree, but I think it's important to be a lifelong learner, which encompasses learning for the sake of learning. Pulled from Wiki:

Lifelong learning is the "ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated"[1] pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons. Therefore, it not only enhances social inclusion, active citizenship and personal development, but also competitiveness and employability.[2]

... The economic impact of educational institutions at all levels will continue to be significant into the future as formal courses of study continue and interest-based subjects are pursued. The institutions produce educated citizens who buy goods and services in the community and the education facilities and personnel generate economic activity during the operations and institutional activities. ... there is a great economic impact worldwide from learning, including lifelong learning, for all age groups. The lifelong learners, including persons with academic or professional credentials, tend to find higher-paying occupations, leaving monetary, cultural, and entrepreneural impressions on communities ...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning

For the most part, it's better for those to pursue what they really want and interested in (completely different than those who blindly pick a disciplines and go to college because everyone else from high school is doing it). Both industry and students don't know if prospective students are competent for jobs in that field, and without trying, how do they know their degree is completely useless?

For us, it also means that there's less competition for jobs in our fields and incompetence in our fields. When we talk practicality of a degree, four fields immediately come to mind: law, engineering, medicine, and business. Because there are students pursuing other fields, this is simply a supply and demand issue. Furthermore, with the exceedingly high standards that these fields have, it would be difficult for the average college student to be competent in these fields, which would probably lower the professionalism of these fields. If the job markets are saturated with people disinterested in their discipline or incompetent in them and were hired, then the four fields aforementioned would also degrade in professionalism and quality.

It's a Nice to Know, not Need to Know.

Overall, this nicely wraps up my point.

[Buffalobiian]

I'm just going to clarify my point since Enkoujin kind of agreed and disagreed.

Lifelong learning is the "ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated"[

The problem is incentive, though. If you're not going to be marked on the work you produced, what's the point of paying attention or even attending non-related class? Even if attendance is mandatory, what's stopping the typical unmotivated whiners and disruptors from degrading the class environment?

It's a Nice to Know, not Need to Know.

These are exactly the reasons why the course (or a time-tabled section for a compulsory, self-selected course) should not exist. Extra-curricular learning should be attended by those who desire and want to learn something new, not mandated to everybody as a whole. If you make everybody do it, it becomes a need which it certainly isn't.

[Sapphire]

Unfortunately, over the years, I've come to deeply understand why they say pride is a sin.

Time and time again I've seen people act carelessly in such a way that literally puts others in life-threatening danger, and then completely IGNORE/disregard the close-call situation in order to safe face. Why can't people fucking PROCESS their own carelessness even when it comes to nearly ending someone else's life?

This is soul-crushing to me.

[Buffalobiian]

Unfortunately, over the years, I've come to deeply understand why they say pride is a sin.

Time and time again I've seen people act carelessly in such a way that literally puts others in life-threatening danger, and then completely IGNORE/disregard the close-call situation in order to safe face. Why can't people fucking PROCESS their own carelessness even when it comes to nearly ending someone else's life?


This is soul-crushing to me.

Any de-identified specifics available? Or just venting?

[Animeniax]

I had that happen to me recently. Some guy changed lanes into my lane at 70mph, causing me to swerve into the lane to my right. Luckily no one was in that lane at the time or I'd be dead. I then spent the next 5 minutes blocking the guy who almost killed me from passing, and giving him the bird. Then I got pulled over by a highway patrol officer, who said he saw the entire thing, but wanted me to explain my side. He let me go with a warning and even more respect for the men and women in uniform who keep us safe.

[Sapphire]

Any de-identified specifics available? Or just venting?

In addition to Ani's example, I just see shit like this too frequently. For example, I remember going to stay with a close family friend when I was a little kid.

tl;dr

[Buffalobiian]

Ah. That sucks.

What I've ended up concluding through my experiences is that admitting saves more face than being a loser. I'm not able to differentiate as to whether I admit because it's the "right thing" to do, or because it's the one that saves more face in the end (or that I'm lazy and it's easier to give in than to put up an act and think of lies).. but the outcome's good so I've given up caring about the reason I do it.

[Ryllharu]

I had that happen to me recently. Some guy changed lanes into my lane at 70mph, causing me to swerve into the lane to my right. Luckily no one was in that lane at the time or I'd be dead. I then spent the next 5 minutes blocking the guy who almost killed me from passing, and giving him the bird. Then I got pulled over by a highway patrol officer, who said he saw the entire thing, but wanted me to explain my side. He let me go with a warning and even more respect for the men and women in uniform who keep us safe.

Just a question: If you hadn't spent the next five minutes in road rage fueled retaliation, would the cops have pulled over the guy who was driving carelessly and recklessly rather than pulling you over for road rage and looking for an explanation?

He saw the whole thing...but chose to pull you over and gave you the warning. Or was there more than one patrol car?

[Animeniax]

Just a question: If you hadn't spent the next five minutes in road rage fueled retaliation, would the cops have pulled over the guy who was driving carelessly and recklessly rather than pulling you over for road rage and looking for an explanation?

He saw the whole thing...but chose to pull you over and gave you the warning. Or was there more than one patrol car?

I wouldn't say the other guy was driving recklessly, just being careless for a second so the officer wouldn't really have had any justification to pull him over. But that one moment of carelessness on his part could have cost me my life, which is what was so upsetting. It was a Saturday morning at 2:30a and I was driving home from work, so I admitted to the officer that I overreacted and apologized. I think his main concern was that I wasn't intoxicated, and once he established that, all was ok. I think when he said that he saw everything that happened, he meant he saw me swerving and braking in front of the guy and flicking him off, so he probably didn't even see the other guy almost kill me.

In addition to Ani's example, I just see shit like this too frequently. For example, I remember going to stay with a close family friend when I was a little kid.

I think strep is contagious so maybe you got some of them sick too. Well you turned out ok so hopefully your upbringing just helped build character and made you aware of the injustices in the world so you can fight them.

[Kraco]

Just a question: If you hadn't spent the next five minutes in road rage fueled retaliation, would the cops have pulled over the guy who was driving carelessly and recklessly rather than pulling you over for road rage and looking for an explanation?

If I have learned anything from traffic, it's that it's every bit as full of trolls, wilful or natural, as the Internet, and losing your cool means you are also going to be the one losing money or worse. The troll always gets the last laugh if you let their behavior get under your skin.

[shinta|hikari]

Here we just shoot down traffic trolls, or maybe destroy their windshield with a pipe or bat. I've seen others pull out wipers, throw cans, and kick doors.

It works because the trolls are usually too poor to press charges.

[Buffalobiian]

Here we just shoot down traffic trolls, or maybe destroy their windshield with a pipe or bat. I've seen others pull out wipers, throw cans, and kick doors.

It works because the trolls are usually too poor to press charges.

So vandalising private property is not criminal in any form? Police have no say in it even if they saw you?

[Sapphire]

Ah. That sucks.

What I've ended up concluding through my experiences is that admitting saves more face than being a loser. I'm not able to differentiate as to whether I admit because it's the "right thing" to do, or because it's the one that saves more face in the end (or that I'm lazy and it's easier to give in than to put up an act and think of lies).. but the outcome's good so I've given up caring about the reason I do it.

Good on you, Buff! I'd be nice if people actually fessed up of their wrongdoings (to others) more often, but I don't know that I'm lamenting the lack of this specifically.

What really bothers me is that immediate moment after the deed where someone goes into "auto-defense" mode and just blurts out something facetious to excuse whatever they did, or does the dangerous thing again to prove they can get away with it or basically flip the concept of responsibility the bird. So it's when people actively do the exact opposite of owning up to something just because they're too prideful/cowardly/who knows why. Isn't that a mockery of the concept of "integrity"?

I think it's because to me, self-reflection is the ultimate and final tool of growth. If this is blocked because of pride, to the extent where your own choices that nearly take someone else's life can't even sink in, then the consequences of that can be very real and irreversible.

-

@shinta: That's hella scary lol

[shinta|hikari]

@Buff - There are hardly any cops around. They usually camp inside their air conditioned stations unless they want a bit of cash for some grub. That's when they go get pay offs or free food from restaurants, or catch traffic rule violators for some bribe money. If they catch you busting up a troll's car, yeah they will arrest you. Then you just pay off the judge so you can get off quickly. This only works if the other party is poor, or at least poorer than you are. Bribe contests are a quick way to lose a lot of money for both parties in disputes.

I have been pulled over (half rightfully, half unjustly) for traffic violations 10x. I have bribed my way through all of them. In fact, I got my driver's license without a practical test, and the written test had the answers written in when I got the sheet, and all I had to pay was like 25 USD all in all.

@Sapph - Pride is probably my greatest sin. However, I have also always taken great pride in being able to admit my mistakes. Pride that necessitates petty actions is not real pride. Pride that requires one to make excuses for oneself is nothing but cowardice.

[Buffalobiian]

Aaahhhh...

And therein lies the answer behind crazy S/SE-Asian traffic.