University

[Kyrite]

Just wondering what sort of courses you guys have studied, are studying or planning to study. I will hopefully be starting to study archaeology in september :cool:.

[Bilan]

I'm doing sociology and politics.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

History & Politics starting in September

[Bandito]

Journalism.

[Tjis]

Computer science. I should be studying now too actually (3 exams coming up and 3 done past week ugh) but meh.

[Module]

Law is my 'goal'!

[Il Medico]

Majoring in English, but right now just taking a bunch of mandatory classes.

[LOLseph Stalin]

History and Political Science, both as part of the Bachelor of Arts degree.

[#FF0000]

Secondary education for Social Studies.

[Jack]

Major in History with a minor in Education.

[DreamWeaver]

History & Politics starting in September

Yea, that.

[Trystan]

If everything goes to plan, I'm gonna study philosophy.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I just registered for classes in the fall. I'm taking French, Spanish, Intro to Anthropology, and a "first year seminar" on art.

[Malakangga]

Information Technic

[Sam_b]

Going into Honours Slavonic Studies & Central and East European Studies

[hugsandmarxism]

Sociology, Officer. :glare:

[Raúl Duke]

History with possible minors in Anthropology and Sociology

[amandevsingh]

Linguistics, after med. school :lol:

[scarletghoul]

I cant get into university :(

[F9]

I cant get into university :(

why?

[Pawn Power]

I went to school and got a BA.

But seriously:

"Education is a system of imposed ignorance." Noam Chomsky

[revolution inaction]

I did physics

[RHIZOMES]

Bachelor of Arts, double major in English and Sociology.

Politics and History would require me to deal with too much bourgeois bullshit for my liking. I prefer Sociology as it gives me more opportunities to talk about Marx.

[Mindtoaster]

Sociology and Anthroplogy

I'm hoping I'll be able to travel around the world with that.

[which doctor]

so many liberal arts majors...

[black magick hustla]

do you really learn that much in liberal arts?????????????????????? i am being a goddamn egocentric here but a lot of the liberal arts hippies i have met didnt stand a chance againsrt my wittgensteinian/marxist attack

[Pawn Power]

do you really learn that much in liberal arts?????????????????????? i am being a goddamn egocentric here but a lot of the liberal arts hippies i have met didnt stand a chance againsrt my wittgensteinian/marxist attack

philosophy/economics are liberal arts.

[Killfacer]

Liberal arts?

You're a bunch of condecending pricks. Go fuck yourself.

[Raúl Duke]

Politics and History would require me to deal with too much bourgeois bullshit for my liking. I prefer Sociology as it gives me more opportunities to talk about Marx.I agree, political sciences (in the U.S.) tend to have too much bull-shit plus the poli-sci majors in my uni are mostly...well...dumb about politics.

Actually, I have considered the possibility of getting into sociology or anthropology instead after my BA (if I decide to go to grad school).

[Hiero]

Ancient history and Sociology/Anthropology majors.

[Bilan]

Politics and History would require me to deal with too much bourgeois bullshit for my liking. I prefer Sociology as it gives me more opportunities to talk about Marx.

In regards to the former, at my uni, you would probably pass out. Some truly shallow analyses of politics ever. The one on racism and nationalism was very good. My tutor did the lecture. He's awesome.
But yes.
History at my uni is apparently very good, and heavily science based. Apparently.

Also, yeah, sociology is awesome.

[Module]

Liberal arts?

You're a bunch of condecending pricks. Go fuck yourself. ... :huh:

[nuisance]

i am being a goddamn egocentric here but a lot of the liberal arts hippies i have met didnt stand a chance againsrt my wittgensteinian/marxist attack
Don't lie.

[which doctor]

History at my uni is apparently very good, and heavily science based. Apparently.

What exactly is "science based" history?

[scarletghoul]

why?
because im not good at doing boring coursework and essays

[Bilan]

What exactly is "science based" history?

Not only is it the history of human societies, but it also deals with "the big bang" and that sort of thing. I'm just describing it the way it was described to me.

[MarxSchmarx]

do you really learn that much in liberal arts?????????????????????? i am being a goddamn egocentric here but a lot of the liberal arts hippies i have met didnt stand a chance againsrt my wittgensteinian/marxist attackKarl Marx had a doctorate in Greek philosophy. Evidently he learned something from the liberal arts.

Besides, you should try talking to some of the engineering hippies around me.

[Kyrite]

Sociology and Anthroplogy

I'm hoping I'll be able to travel around the world with that.

That is one of my hope with archaeology.

[Kyrite]

Liberal arts?

You're a bunch of condecending pricks. Go fuck yourself.

:confused:

[Jazzratt]

Liberal arts?

You're a bunch of condecending pricks. Go fuck yourself.

What's condescending? It's what they are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts).

[Killfacer]

yeah well fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RHIZOMES]

yeah well fuck you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Workerist alert

[9]

because im not good at doing boring coursework and essays
My predicament exactly. I kick ass on tests, but I don't do any of the boring pointless busywork which means I'm fucked. They're far more interested in obedience then in actual talent or knowledge.

[RHIZOMES]

My predicament exactly. I kick ass on tests, but I don't do any of the boring pointless busywork which means I'm fucked. They're far more interested in obedience then in actual talent or knowledge.

I prefer essays not because they're "easy" but because it exercises your brain in the subject they're teaching you a bit more than memorizing trivia for a multichoice. So at the end = more knowledge.

[scarletghoul]

Thats not true AB. most of the time in essays and stuff they just tell you what to write so it is really a test of you just saying what youve been told. With exams/tests (which are not usualy multiple choice), they can be a good test of how well you know the subject.
Really, coursework is a huge reason why so many inteligent people do badly at school. As Apikoros said, its more about obediance than talent or knowledge

[Klute77]

I went to Art School for my undergraduate degree where the need to at least try and think for yourself was encouraged even in academic work. After Art School I did a purely academic post graduate degree and I was shocked to learn that one was not allowed to include any original content in an essay or thesis at all. Everything that was said in the essay had to be backed up and a footnote included to say which critic or theorist the idea came from. It was explained to me that this is to teach / learn a very particular "academic" way of research and writing and that only at Phd level is a student allowed to submit original ideas in their thesis.

I can see why bright young minds find this frustrating and I suppose that ideally a university undergraduate degree would allow for some independent thought, especially in the Arts and Social Sciences however I can see the value in the traditional methods in that they teach students invaluable intellectual skills such as discipline, research and writing skills, critical thinking and so on. It's a tool kit that you can later apply to all your own ideas and thinking to help you know that they are able to hold water so to speak. Unfortunately quite often those who don't feel they need to study those who have gone before them end up at best reinventing the wheel and at worse embarrassing themselves with their poorly formed arguments besides it's pretty arrogant to think that you have nothing to learn from those who went before you.

The onus is on you to develop your own ability to think for yourself and to share it with others. So what if you can't express yourself in your essays you have so many other outlets; blogging, forums, zines, student newspapers etc or even just talking to your lecturers and fellow students for me that was half the fun of being at university!

Note: I guess it may depend where you study I was lucky and had some fantastic teachers and in many ways with my Art School & University study I had the best of both worlds. If your smart you can get the good from your education and filter out the bad.

[Bilan]

Thats not true AB. most of the time in essays and stuff they just tell you what to write so it is really a test of you just saying what youve been told. With exams/tests (which are not usualy multiple choice), they can be a good test of how well you know the subject.
Really, coursework is a huge reason why so many inteligent people do badly at school. As Apikoros said, its more about obediance than talent or knowledge

Essays at uni are different to ones in high school. In high school, the requirements are lower, and most of the stuff they expect you to say is within the text book (hence, not much knowledge, but instead structured regurgitation).
At uni, you're not given all the information you need, and the questions are usually vague or you get a number of different topics to choose from.
Sure, you're given information on the topics, but you need to research more and present a coherent and well sourced essay (most of the time with the latter, not always).

"

Exams = servility, social promotion, hierarchical society." :p

[deLarge]

Ultimately I'll major in computer science, with minors in physics and/or math. Though, anthropology interests me as well.

[{GR}Raine]

Here's a new one: Wildlife Rehab.
But I've got my Wildland Firefighter training, so that'll probably be what I do as a career until I get older, then jump back with full time wildlife rescue.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I'm aiming to do English literature or a combined degree with literature and another subject. I love essays. :blushing:

[More Fire for the People]

Most engineers at my Uni jerk it to Ayn Rand at night.

[black magick hustla]

A lot of engineers are pretty dumb tbh. But then again, a lot of art majors are just illiterate barbarians who base their politics around dumb intuitions than anything else and think everything is goddamn discourse and are white as hell. A lot of political science majors are a bunch of power-tripping douchebags who think they are the political panacea of the world. Physics people have crippling autism and just care about math and video games, etc etc etc

[fiddlesticks]

visual communications and game design!

[Mujer Libre]

Most engineers at my Uni jerk it to Ayn Rand at night.
Urgh I know. I made the mistake of going to an Eng Soc function with my friend. (her then boyfriend was an eng student- nuff said)

What a mistake. 95% guys. Mostly drunken, sexist troglodytes from rich families who went to "those" Melbourne schools...

[More Fire for the People]

The only group more appalling than engineers is business majors.

[black magick hustla]

Urgh I know. I made the mistake of going to an Eng Soc function with my friend. (her then boyfriend was an eng student- nuff said)

What a mistake. 95% guys. Mostly drunken, sexist troglodytes from rich families who went to "those" Melbourne schools...

I dont know where you come from but a lot of "engineers" are from working class families. For example, there is a ton of black folks in engineering compared to math or physics because engineering is shown as some sort of stepping stone. It is true its hella male oriented, but that is because all technical and mathematical fields are dominated by males for some reason I have not still fathomed. But "rich people"? Why the hell would someone rich study engineering anyway. There are easier ways to get a degree (Buisness). One of the reasons you don't see many minorities in the arts, for example, is that its not seen as a way to "step up).

[Invariance]

From experience, in physics its around 65% male, 35% female with a similar make-up in mathematics. Biology sciences are far more equal. Economics would be around 70% male, 30% female, commerce or finance or accounting would be much more equal. Female representation tends to grow as a percentage in terms of honours, however. As I understand it, its worse in engineering, of around 85% versus 15%. Law tends to be slightly-overrepresented by females, maybe 55-60% female, 45%-40% male (which, however, doesn't do much to over-ride the structural inequality facing female lawyers). I'm glad I picked what I picked; I never want to write another 7,000 word essay again (and bye-bye group presentations).

[which doctor]

Biology majors are a pretty boring bunch too, mostly just people who aren't even that interested in science, but watch shows like grey's anatomy and house and think they want to be doctors too

[black magick hustla]

premeds in general are boring. they dont give a shit about the material, and i think very few genuinely care about medical science

[Killfacer]

i hate people who study English. They're all homophobes and racists. Such boring people. All of them at all times are always drunk.

:rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

there are two type of english majors

the cool chainsomoking ones who dropout the second year to slave off in shitty jobs to write poetry in a shit slum

or

the boring ones that are liberals and read harry potter

[More Fire for the People]

I dont know where you come from but a lot of "engineers" are from working class families. For example, there is a ton of black folks in engineering compared to math or physics because engineering is shown as some sort of stepping stone. It is true its hella male oriented, but that is because all technical and mathematical fields are dominated by males for some reason I have not still fathomed. But "rich people"? Why the hell would someone rich study engineering anyway. There are easier ways to get a degree (Buisness). One of the reasons you don't see many minorities in the arts, for example, is that its not seen as a way to "step up).
A lot of Black folk get into business, engineering, and medicine as some part of a Booker T. Washington petty-bourgeois race-lifting scheme.

But most white engineers I know are frat boys or those looking to get rich. I would say engineers are 70% douche bags and 30% decent folk whereas business majors are 98% douche bags.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

there are two type of english majors

the cool chainsomoking ones who dropout the second year to slave off in shitty jobs to write poetry in a shit slum

or

the boring ones that are liberals and read harry potter

I'm not a chainsmoker and I don't plan on dropping out. I don't read Harry Potter. Does that mean I'll never be an English major?! :blink:

[black magick hustla]

But most white engineers I know are frat boys or those looking to get rich. I would say engineers are 70% douche bags and 30% decent folk whereas business majors are 98% douche bags.

:shrugs: people go to college to get money. is that bad? i mean some of us study phyiscs, lit, whatever but i find the whole patronizing article of white illiterate art students against people who just want to get "money" so goddamn silly. and yeah a lot of college people are douchebags but thats everywhere dude. The reason why you think engineers and buisness majors are "douchebags" is because they are more "normal" and thus reflect better society. progressive "anti-sexists" or whatever arent abundant. the world is fucked up - doesnt mean that insulating yourself in little "liberal" circles is healthy.

[politics student]

Essays at uni are different to ones in high school. In high school, the requirements are lower, and most of the stuff they expect you to say is within the text book (hence, not much knowledge, but instead structured regurgitation).
At uni, you're not given all the information you need, and the questions are usually vague or you get a number of different topics to choose from.
Sure, you're given information on the topics, but you need to research more and present a coherent and well sourced essay (most of the time with the latter, not always).

"

Exams = servility, social promotion, hierarchical society." :p



Very true.

Lectures give a brief overview, signposting the directions you should focus your individual learning. Essays require a lot of work and research. I just completed my first year of international relations and politics. Very good course, marxism is a major direction I go with my essays in most cases.

One of my most enjoyable pieces of course work scored 62 (2.1), considering I am a first year, I am proud of that mark considering it was ment to be one of the closet to level 2 work standard. 2000 word report on the NHS service funding by Labour and Conservative Governments from 1948 to 2006. Prob lost marks for the insane time scale but the data and content was solid with good use of primary source material.

Got to say that multi choice exams are a blast at Uni, only had two but both scored extremely high (76 - worth 80% unit mark and 70- worth 100% unit mark). The real exams I struggle with writing style so keep hitting the high 2.2, low 2.1.

Still it was the first year so still have plenty of time to iron out problems and hopefully reach a 1st by the end of the degree.
Coursework before uni, I would call total rubbish. Exams to be fair are not much better.

Best tip to give any people starting in september/october, get the study skills sorted early. Find your weaknesses and sort them out.

[9]

I went to Art School for my undergraduate degree where the need to at least try and think for yourself was encouraged even in academic work. After Art School I did a purely academic post graduate degree and I was shocked to learn that one was not allowed to include any original content in an essay or thesis at all. Everything that was said in the essay had to be backed up and a footnote included to say which critic or theorist the idea came from. It was explained to me that this is to teach / learn a very particular "academic" way of research and writing and that only at Phd level is a student allowed to submit original ideas in their thesis.

I can see why bright young minds find this frustrating and I suppose that ideally a university undergraduate degree would allow for some independent thought, especially in the Arts and Social Sciences however I can see the value in the traditional methods in that they teach students invaluable intellectual skills such as discipline, research and writing skills, critical thinking and so on. It's a tool kit that you can later apply to all your own ideas and thinking to help you know that they are able to hold water so to speak. Unfortunately quite often those who don't feel they need to study those who have gone before them end up at best reinventing the wheel and at worse embarrassing themselves with their poorly formed arguments besides it's pretty arrogant to think that you have nothing to learn from those who went before you.

The onus is on you to develop your own ability to think for yourself and to share it with others. So what if you can't express yourself in your essays you have so many other outlets; blogging, forums, zines, student newspapers etc or even just talking to your lecturers and fellow students for me that was half the fun of being at university!

Note: I guess it may depend where you study I was lucky and had some fantastic teachers and in many ways with my Art School & University study I had the best of both worlds. If your smart you can get the good from your education and filter out the bad.

There are a lot of contradictions in the case you've just made, aside from what appears to be a flat refusal to see anything wrong with “traditional higher education” or to acknowledge that the majority of the student populations at such institutions are reflective of the culture of obedience which the bourgeois “professional class”/academic elite obviously seeks to preserve and enhance.
I am not complaining about researching a topic and demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic through a piece of writing; writing has always been one of my strong suits and I actually very much enjoy it so long as there is some modicum of freedom allowed in the process, structure, and organization of the writing. However, this is - in my experience with 'higher education' - almost never the case.
It is worth mentioning that my mind is, in all likelihood, simply wired differently then the 'average' student. I have been diagnosed with ADD and "sensory integration disorder" from a young age, though I reject both diagnoses because I am of the opinion that the characteristics which comprise these so-called "disorders" are merely natural variations in personality and cognitive functioning which are construed as psychiatric conditions so that (aside from the obvious monetary incentive of the pharmaceutical industry) educational institutions (along with broader society) is not expected to 1) acknowledge the fact that there is naturally a great variation in styles of learning/thinking and methods of obtaining information, and 2) structure its curriculum in a manner that allows students with diverse learning styles to succeed, which would mean relying far less on obedience and far more on the ultimate goal of acquiring knowledge, skills/processes such as critical thinking/application, and the ability to effectively demonstrate that such knowledge and skills have been acquired. If one can do these things effectively - even adroitly - I see no reason why he/she should be penalized or rejected based on trivial technicalities or the fact that his/her thought processes are different from those which educational institutions and pharmaceutical companies have deemed "normal".
It is easy to see the “value of traditional methods” when “traditional methods” compliment one’s own style of learning. However, aside from the rigidity and creative poverty of “traditional methods”, it is quite easy for many (this includes students as well as professional educators) to observe the fact that “traditional methods” are becoming increasingly more reliant upon obedience and steadily less concerned with aptitude and substantive knowledge, in order to sidestep any risks and solidify the process of raising new generations of bourgeois authorities, apologists, intellectuals, and white-collar workers. If you think this goal is not firmly implanted in the curriculum and (more importantly) admissions processes of institutions of ‘higher education’, you are quite mistaken.

[Patchd]

Uni is shit, I do History and Philosophy.

[politics student]

There are a lot of contradictions in the case you've just made, aside from what appears to be a flat refusal to see anything wrong with “traditional higher education” or to acknowledge that the majority of the student populations at such institutions are reflective of the culture of obedience which the bourgeois “professional class”/academic elite obviously seeks to preserve and enhance.

Of course some do. Then again if you are pay £21k, pissing around or trying political activism that could get you thrown out is not worth taking. When the costs of jst being there means I will have a debt following me for years to come.


I am not complaining about researching a topic and demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic through a piece of writing; writing has always been one of my strong suits and I actually very much enjoy it so long as there is some modicum of freedom allowed in the process, structure, and organization of the writing. However, this is - in my experience with 'higher education' - almost never the case.
Strange my experience is far different. At the start freedom is very restricted but then by the 2nd semester you have choices in essays and even have to produce essay questions yourself. This means you can study what you want as long as it is relevent to your course/unit.


It is worth mentioning that my mind is, in all likelihood, simply wired differently then the 'average' student. I have been diagnosed with ADD and "sensory integration disorder" from a young age, though I reject both diagnoses because I am of the opinion that the characteristics which comprise these so-called "disorders" are merely natural variations in personality and cognitive functioning which are construed as psychiatric conditions so that (aside from the obvious monetary incentive of the pharmaceutical industry) educational institutions (along with broader society) is not expected to 1) acknowledge the fact that there is naturally a great variation in styles of learning/thinking and methods of obtaining information, and 2) structure its curriculum in a manner that allows students with diverse learning styles to succeed, which would mean relying far less on obedience and far more on the ultimate goal of acquiring knowledge, skills/processes such as critical thinking/application, and the ability to effectively demonstrate that such knowledge and skills have been acquired. If one can do these things effectively - even adroitly - I see no reason why he/she should be penalized or rejected based on trivial technicalities or the fact that his/her thought processes are different from those which educational institutions and pharmaceutical companies have deemed "normal".

Well as a dyslexic.....

Ok Highschool and college, I got no help. Nothing....
However at Uni, I got a free laptop, free equipment and academic support 1 to 1 sessions.

I have experienced the fact I have been penalized before, however, uni is different. It is much more knowledge based. In the UK any way you get marked on 4 main things.
1: Content (Basically use of academic materal to a high standard.
2: Structure (A logical clear flowing arguement
3: Referencing (This can lose you 10 marks if you screw up on a bit of work in my uni department)
4. Writing (This is where I fall down. My grammar and spelling are far from perfect. The awful english classes have caused me to attempt to improve this vastly.)

It is easy to see the “value of traditional methods” when “traditional methods” compliment one’s own style of learning. However, aside from the rigidity and creative poverty of “traditional methods”, it is quite easy for many (this includes students as well as professional educators) to observe the fact that “traditional methods” are becoming increasingly more reliant upon obedience and steadily less concerned with aptitude and substantive knowledge, in order to sidestep any risks and solidify the process of raising new generations of bourgeois authorities, apologists, intellectuals, and white-collar workers. If you think this goal is not firmly implanted in the curriculum and (more importantly) admissions processes of institutions of ‘higher education’, you are quite mistaken.

No I fully agree. However, a slight area to disagree is that uni is knowledge driven. In the UK anyway universities are still independant in terms of content marking with other universities selected for second marking.

You wont lose marks for writing a strong marxist essay than you would writing an plurist essay. Knowledge itself can not be marked solely. Academic skills need to be improved so you can present that knowledge effectively.