Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[McLaren]

First topic message reminder :

Navy

And what super has also missed is that the statues and TV shows are not really the main focus of the protests. They are easy news bites to bring up but the meat of the protesters argument is about equality for black people.

I also don't think super is correct that just because you support BLM you don't also worry about atrocities committed in other spheres of life. It is just that currently the focus is on racism towards black people.

As much as he hates America, Super would really fit into their libertarian ways.

[superflyweight]

No doubt super thinks the exam results were handled superbly by the Tories?

I couldn't care less, but an enforced year off might make certain students think twice about doing pointless courses like Art History, Performing Arts, Psychology or Music.

I'm actually sick of hearing about "how tough" things are for young people. They need to toughen up a bit. Far too flakey and eager to act persecuted.

Non-vocational learning can help to develop empathy. You should consider it.

[Soul Requiem]

No doubt super thinks the exam results were handled superbly by the Tories?

Not handled well but the teachers and schools deliberately over estimating their predictions seems to be getting ignored.

[super_realist]

No doubt super thinks the exam results were handled superbly by the Tories?

I couldn't care less, but an enforced year off might make certain students think twice about doing pointless courses like Art History, Performing Arts, Psychology or Music.

I'm actually sick of hearing about "how tough" things are for young people. They need to toughen up a bit. Far too flakey and eager to act persecuted.

Non-vocational learning can help to develop empathy.  You should consider it.  

Empathy doesn't pay the mortgage.

[JuliusHMarx]

Being a professional psychologist does.

[super_realist]

Being a professional psychologist does.

Graduates in Psychology are one of the least employable people in the job market and virtually none of them without getting to PhD level actually end up doing anything with psychology.

[JuliusHMarx]

So you agree that some people should do A level psychology and that for them it's not a waste of time. Personally I wasted my time doing Physics and Chemistry. The Maths was reasonably useful in the end.

[McLaren]

Super

I don't get what you have against psychology. As long as the students have to read and understand scientific papers it is more useful than any non science/maths subject. I seem to remember that friends in uni who did psychology had to do a bit of statistics, that makes them more useful than any history, law, business etc type graduate.

[super_realist]

More contradictions from you Mac as you're on record as saying that Psychology is pseudo-science and worthless.
I'm not saying that Psychology isn't an important subject, but it ranks very low in regards to graduate employment.

How does doing "a bit of statistics" give your degree more worth than a Law degree? That's an incredibly laughable claim to make. The employment rate for a law degree is massively higher than a Psychology degree.

[super_realist]

So you agree that some people should do A level psychology and that for them it's not a waste of time. Personally I wasted my time doing Physics and Chemistry. The Maths was reasonably useful in the end.

I didn't mention A levels, no one cares about what your A levels are in apart from whether they are in demand for University entrance. When was the last time you ever referred to what your A Levels are in, I can barely remember myself they are so irrelevant.

[McLaren]

If you can't understand and analyse the results section of a scientific paper you are useless to society. You need to understand at least some statistics to do that.

As for psychology being pseudo science, I never said that. I pointed out that it is now known to have a massive replication problem. But at least it has the honesty to admit that. I am sure most disciplines would find the same issue if they were honest.

[McLaren]

So you agree that some people should do A level psychology and that for them it's not a waste of time. Personally I wasted my time doing Physics and Chemistry. The Maths was reasonably useful in the end.

I didn't mention A levels, no one cares about what your A levels are in apart from whether they are in demand for University entrance. When was the last time you ever referred to what your A Levels are in, I can barely remember myself they are so irrelevant.

To be fair I was going to respond with what subjects my Highers/advanced highers were, and realised I couldn't remember what I took and when.

[super_realist]

That might be true to some degree Mac, but it doesn't make a Psychology degree better than a Law degree.

[JuliusHMarx]

So you agree that some people should do A level psychology and that for them it's not a waste of time. Personally I wasted my time doing Physics and Chemistry. The Maths was reasonably useful in the end.

I didn't mention A levels, no one cares about what your A levels are in apart from whether they are in demand for University entrance. When was the last time you ever referred to what your A Levels are in, I can barely remember myself they are so irrelevant.

Apologies, you were referring to degree courses.
I take it that you don't think the courses themselves are pointless, just that they are pointless for the majority of people who take them, who then don't pursue a career in that subject - is that correct?

[super_realist]

It would appear that certain degree subjects, Psychology included do not give the student skills, experience and knowledge sought by employers.

Therefore if you want to get anywhere in the world don't take a degree in something considered worthless like Art History, Music or Psychology.

[JuliusHMarx]

Unless you want to be an art historian, a musician or a psychologist - then presumably they would be quite useful.
Or unless your definition of getting anywhere in the world is spending three years enjoying studying something that interests you before spending the rest of your days in a career you're not really interested in, just to pay the bills.

[super_realist]

If you can find a degree you are interested in and which pays the bills and leads to a career then great, but why pick a degree which is going to put you at a competitive disadvantage in the employment market?

These days you leave University with 50k+ of debt, why accrue that for a degree that isn't worth wiping your arse on? You don't need a degree to study things you are interested in, it's called reading.

[JuliusHMarx]

Logically, unless you pick the degree course which tops the list of employability, then you are then putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage in the employment market. At what point do we stop sneering at those that choose different subjects - if they are in the top 5, the top 10?

Perhaps some people simply have different ideas on what is important to them in life, and what makes them happy, and we shouldn't try to force them to follow paths that we would adhere to.

[super_realist]

Well at least we have some discussion going for a change.

[superflyweight]

As someone who studied Law at University and who is now a lawyer, I really wish I'd done a degree in almost anything else.

[super_realist]

As someone who studied Law at University and who is now a lawyer, I really wish I'd done a degree in almost anything else.  

Perhaps, but it's still a valuable degree whether you like the job or not.

[pedro]

Well for most parts it only brings value to one self, not the society.

With regards to psychology, it seems a lot of people study it to find out what’s wrong with themselves.

As far as I’m concerned people can study what they want as long as they don’t put a burden on society or moan about being unemployed afterwards.

[McLaren]

As someone who studied Law at University and who is now a lawyer, I really wish I'd done a degree in almost anything else.  

Perhaps, but it's still a valuable degree whether you like the job or not.

I am partly joking here but I can't shake the feeling that non science degrees are just not as worthy as science degrees.

[super_realist]

Mac. I am from a science background but the value of a degree in law or accountancy can't be really be ignored.

[McLaren]

Super

They might be vocationally useful but they are not as intellectually rigorous to study.

[super_realist]

Super

They might be vocationally useful but they are not as intellectually rigorous to study.

How the hell would you know Mac?  Have you got a Law or Accountancy degree?
One of my flatmates at Uni was studying Dentistry and he said it was incredibly easy because you don't have to think, you just have to recall. I've heard Doctors say the same thing. Those are Science based degrees.

I can imagine that the intricacies of law or accounting based on a number of complicating circumstances could be very challenging.

I don't think simply because something is based on science and the scientific method that it  necessarily makes it more difficult or more intellectually rigorous than a degree that isn't. You've proven yourself you don't have to be very bright to get an MSc.

[McLaren]

Super

Way I remember it the kids that got like 2 B's and maybe an A in stuff like English and History applied for law and those taking the meaty subjects like Maths, Physics, chemistry applied for science subjects.

[super_realist]

Mac, are you really that one dimensional? Your exam grades do not mean you are an intelligent person. You have to know straight  A people who are basically idiots whilst you must know people who weren't academic but are extremely intelligent?

One of the thickest people I knew at Uni is now a doctor. It's actually quite frightening that someone like that can be responsible for a life.

Are you trying to tell me you got straight A's because you went down the science route?

[Soul Requiem]

Mac strikes me as a D, E, A, D student with the A being in something like Media Studies.

[JuliusHMarx]

Equally, being intelligent does not mean you are a worthwhile human being. There are posters on this very thread who are proof of that.

[super_realist]

Depends on who you are claiming is intelligent doesn't it?

[JuliusHMarx]

I think I'd prefer an honest but dumb art historian to a corrupt but intelligent accountant.
Empathy may not pay the mortgage, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't prevent the mortgage being paid.

[super_realist]

I think I'd prefer an honest but dumb art historian to a corrupt but intelligent accountant.
Empathy may not pay the mortgage, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't prevent the mortgage being paid.

Being an art historian doesn't make you an honest person.

[JuliusHMarx]

I think I'd prefer an honest but dumb art historian to a corrupt but intelligent accountant.
Empathy may not pay the mortgage, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't prevent the mortgage being paid.

Being an art historian doesn't make you an honest person.

Obviously.
No-one said that.
But does studying Art History make someone less worthwhile a person than someone who studies Accountancy? Your sneering dismissal of those who choose Art History indicates that you think that.

[super_realist]

I didnt say that at all. I said it was a degree that is considered one of the weakest degrees when it comes to employability and this is a factual statement.
I didn't say anything about the person doing the degree at all.

[JuliusHMarx]

Possibly the dismissal was of the course itself - you referred to several courses as 'pointless', without caveating that in any way. There is an inference in that, that the people who take them are, at the very least, not good judges of what course would suit them best. Hence your statement that it might make 'certain students think twice'.

But what if the point is that they simply enjoy studying one of those subjects to degree level, and are not overly concerned about employability, especially in areas that they don't want to be employed in, and possibly aren't particularly money-driven in their ambitions.

[super_realist]

There isn't an inference at all. It's a fact that employers don't value them very highly. I have clarified my point if you'd bothered to read twice now.

You're being a pedant for the sake of it.

[JuliusHMarx]

So what if employers don't value them? Why does that make them 'pointless'?
Or are you saying that your clarification is actually a retraction of your first, rather sweeping statement?

[super_realist]

So what if employers don't value them? Why does that make them 'pointless'?
Or are you saying that your clarification is actually a retraction of your first, rather, sweeping statement?

Most people consider the point of university as a means to get a foot up on the career ladder.
The idea that most people just go to university because it's something they are interested in ludicrous.
Therefore for the majority of people studying something which employers consider less worthy than another degree is to put themselves at a disadvantage for no reason other than self gratification.

[JuliusHMarx]

I would imagine that most people who choose, say, Art History, do so because they are interested in the subject, moreso than people who choose accountancy, which is seen more as a path to earning more money during one's lifetime, even if one doesn't particularly enjoy it.

So yes, they probably do choose Art History because they are interested in it. And yes that may well be self gratification, but certainly no more so than the pursuit of money.

[super_realist]

Well it's certainly not because there's a lot of jobs in it and unfortunately by default means it is a degree which is not considered to be one where the student learns a lot of skills in demand by employers.

Since when did anyone need to go to university though to learn about something they are interested in?

I get that not everyone is interested in a career, but why go to Uni to do something which you can learn in your own time without putting yourself into 50k of debt?

[JuliusHMarx]

I guess you'd have to ask the people who do it. Presumably there are a wide variety of reasons. I found this, which is interesting and may explain it for some of those people -  https://targetcareers.co.uk/parents-and-teachers/60-the-top-five-myths-about-university-degrees-and-employment-prospects

Edit - for employability, don't do Computer Science

[beninho]

I didnt go the University, I'll drop that in first. But, why would you take a 3/4/5 plus year course on something you don't find interesting? That sounds mental. My wife did History at Nottingham! She's now involved in financial services research.

[I'm never wrong]

At the bare minimum getting a degree proves that you can apply yourself to a subject and produce evidence that you have understood it to a greater depth than "the man on the Clapham Omnibus". So it is "evidence" that you can do it. Just reading about a subject does not prove to anyone else that you are knowledgeable about a subject. (A bad analogy - you can learn the theory and practice of knowing how to drive - but passing the test and having a driving licence "prove" to others you are fit to drive, without explanations - or an extended interview). The proof of your ability to study and accomplish a degree in itself might be useful to some employers. But I agree that to study a subject that would enable you to be more useful in a particular career, is obviously going to give you a better chance of being employed in that particular subject.

[incontinentia]

The agriculture minister here in Ireland has been caught doing a Dominic Cummings, and resigned. He attended a golf event in violation of covid 19 restrictions. There were other high ranking officials there too including a supreme court judge and an EU Commissioner. Their fate remains to be seen. How can these supposedly intelligent people act like such dumbasses?

[McLaren]

Mac, are you really that one dimensional? Your exam grades do not mean you are an intelligent person. You have to know straight  A people who are basically idiots whilst you must know people who weren't academic but are extremely intelligent?

One of the thickest people I knew at Uni is now a doctor. It's actually quite frightening that someone like that can be responsible for a life.

Are you trying to tell me you got straight A's because you went down the science route?

Super, I think the point I am making is that the the really smart kids, geeks or nerds if you must, do science. This is starting to sound like a description of "Mean Girls" but my advanced higher physics class didn't have any of the "popular" kids in it.

[super_realist]

You are right to some degree in that really smart people are generally thinking about how best to maximise their career but it doesn't mean a science degree is more challenging than something like Law which can be incredibly tricky to understand.

[super_realist]

I didnt go the University, I'll drop that in first. But, why would you take a 3/4/5 plus year course on something you don't find interesting? That sounds mental. My wife did History at Nottingham! She's now involved in financial services research.

Who has said anyone is studying something they don't find interesting?

[navyblueshorts]

As someone who studied Law at University and who is now a lawyer, I really wish I'd done a degree in almost anything else.  

[navyblueshorts]

So what if employers don't value them? Why does that make them 'pointless'?
Or are you saying that your clarification is actually a retraction of your first, rather, sweeping statement?

Most people consider the point of university as a means to get a foot up on the career ladder.
The idea that most people just go to university because it's something they are interested in ludicrous.
Therefore for the majority of people studying something which employers consider less worthy than another degree is to put themselves at a disadvantage for no reason other than self gratification.

I would recommend any budding university entrant to pick a course that actually interests them intellectually over one purely for what may be a lucrative career - still might not make it in that career even if you study a relevant Degree. It's at least 3 years of hard slog and if you aren't interested, that's a lot of debt to accrue and 09.00 lectures to get to when you aren't interested. If you're interested in a subject (presuming the ability), you're half way there.

Obviously, the exception is studying PPE (not the protective equipment), as then you stroll into politics, consultancies thereafter etc. Life's your oyster...

[super_realist]

What is wrong with the absolute scum in this country?
I've just come out of a Tesco and some obese lazy slob was sitting in her car, right next to the shop entrance (naturally in a disabled bay without a pass) and just threw her sweet and crisp packets out of the door.
I opened her door and threw it right back in and somehow I'm the one who gets the abuse for daring to suggest she's the one who has done something wrong.

We really wouldn't miss the untermensch like her if they just disappeared would we?

[Sponsored content]