Tertiary and Continuing Which degrees are useless/useful?

[jinny1]

Which typical humanities course creates paracetamol and handles human cadavers?

I didn't know we were restricting the discussion to only humanities courses :/

At my uni, Arts students have to do breadth subjects anyway so they might enrol into science subjects.

 

[pokerspiv]

I dont think you can ever compare youtube/internet as a direct substitute for university. It definitely supplements it but people claiming that it is a substitute probably haven't been to a proper university...

Also you won't get any practical experience going solo. I still remember the day when we created paracetamol in lab and when we handled real human cadavers etc.

Sounds like you were doing a real degree. Obviously degrees that require lab work are not what we are talking about here.

Humanities degrees mostly consist of sitting around in lectures. You can do that on the internet.

 

[Max zero]

I didn't know we were restricting the discussion to only humanities courses :/

At my uni, Arts students have to do breadth subjects anyway so they might enrol into science subjects.

No one is questioning the value of science degrees so no point discussing them.

 

[NTRabbit]

Humanities degrees mostly consist of sitting around in lectures. You can do that on the internet.

Humanities degrees involve lots of group discussion, writing and peer review. You sound like you've never seen a humanities degree before.

For the record, I am doing a humanities degree - online, via OUA at Griffith. Freehanding youtube videos and library articles and talking about them on random internet forums does not remotely approach actual study.

 

[Max zero]

Humanities degrees involve lots of group discussion, writing and peer review. You sound like you've never seen a humanities degree before.

For the record, I am doing a humanities degree - online, via OUA at Griffith. Freehanding youtube videos and library articles and talking about them on random internet forums does not remotely approach actual study.

Nothing personal but from your description it sounds like they actually are pretty comparable.

Can you explain how its different?

 

[NTRabbit]

Nothing personal but from your description it sounds like they actually are pretty comparable.

Can you explain how its different?

If you can't tell the difference between peer review of essays or other assignment types by scholars and academics, and "works" reviewed by people who just read about it on the internet then I can't help you.

My brother is a Civil Engineer, and he tells me everything he's done is available on the internet too - should reading and watching it on the internet qualify him as an engineer?

 

[Max zero]

If you can't tell the difference between peer review of essays or other assignment types by scholars and academics, and "works" reviewed by people who just read about it on the internet then I can't help you.

My brother is a Civil Engineer, and he tells me everything he's done is available on the internet too - should reading and watching it on the internet qualify him as an engineer?

Can't peer review be done online?

Why do you keep trying to conflate science degrees with humanities?

 

[NTRabbit]

Can't peer review be done online?

Why do you keep trying to conflate science degrees with humanities?

Why do you keep trying to create an artificial distinction between University schools? All you're doing is reinforcing the notion that you're a degree elitist and see humanities degrees as being necessarily lesser than any other for no genuine reason, like every Engineering, Comp Sci, Law and Science student and graduate that I have ever met. They always offer the same foolish suggestions and ignorant notions as you are now, because obviously a humanities degree is so much easier and simpler, but ask around and none of them have seen a humanities subject since their first year 'compulsory free choice' subjects.

There's no difference between humanities needing peer review from academics in the field, and Engineers, Scientists or Lawyers needing likewise. "The Internet" is no learning substitute for any degree.

 

[Max zero]

Why do you keep trying to create an artificial distinction between University schools? All you're doing is reinforcing the notion that you're a degree elitist and see humanities degrees as being necessarily lesser than any other for no genuine reason, like every Engineering, Comp Sci, Law and Science student and graduate that I have ever met. They always offer the same foolish suggestions and ignorant notions as you are now, because obviously a humanities degree is so much easier and simpler, but ask around and none of them have seen a humanities subject since their first year 'compulsory free choice' subjects.

There's no difference between humanities needing peer review from academics in the field, and Engineers, Scientists or Lawyers needing likewise. "The Internet" is no learning substitute for any degree.

Actually clearly there is.

Sciences often need lab work and hands on physical experiments. As a Civil Engineer ask your brother if he had to make scale models.

Its very hard (impossible?) to find a credible online only engineering degree. Finding online only humanities is not that hard hence why you are in one yourself.

Humanities are simpler and easier. That's why the TERs are lower and have fewer prereqs. They are easier courses to get into.

Its pretty obvious not sure why people find this so controversial.

 

[NTRabbit]

Humanities are simpler and easier. That's why the TERs are lower and have fewer prereqs. They are easier courses to get into.

TER is dictated by demand, not difficulty.

It's why - at least they were back when I was there - an Engineering course at Uni Adelaide needed a TER of 80 something, while the TER to get into Engineering at Uni SA was in the low 60s. That TER is set according to the number of places a given institution has versus the number of expected applicants, and has nothing to do with difficulty. Difficult courses have extra conditions applied to their entry, notably - again at the time, this was a few years ago - Law at Uni Adelaide, where entry into the course was based on the results you obtained studying a different degree in your first year as well as your high school results. Aside from a shortcut for the straight 20s students who could get a guaranteed place if they applied, anyway.

 

[Max zero]

TER is dictated by demand, not difficulty.

It's why - at least they were back when I was there - an Engineering course at Uni Adelaide needed a TER of 80 something, while the TER to get into Engineering at Uni SA was in the low 60s. That TER is set according to the number of places a given institution has versus the number of expected applicants, and has nothing to do with difficulty. Difficult courses have extra conditions applied to their entry, notably - again at the time, this was a few years ago - Law at Uni Adelaide, where entry into the course was based on the results you obtained studying a different degree in your first year as well as your high school results. Aside from a shortcut for the straight 20s students who could get a guaranteed place if they applied, anyway.

So why would they want to limit those going into certain degrees yet care less about other courses? Why would they only want the most talented of students in some courses and not others?

If TER was purely based on demand why not pick which applicants were accepted based on chance? Why the need to rank them at all?

The TER is a filtering and ranking system whether you like it or not.

Admit it there is a strong correlation between higher TER and higher course difficulty.

 

[NTRabbit]

So why would they want to limit those going into certain degrees yet care less about other courses? Why would they only want the most talented of students in some courses and not others?

If TER was purely based on demand why not pick which applicants were accepted based on chance? Why the need to rank them at all?

The TER is a filtering and ranking system whether you like it or not.

Admit it there is a strong correlation between higher TER and higher course difficulty.

No, ATAR as it's now called is a way to take every high school student and rank them against each other so that they can select courses in order; courses are limited in number by the amount of funding they have and the availability of instructors. This is why some popular but less difficult courses such as Business ones have a higher ATAR requirement than less popular but much more difficult ones like pure mathematics, and why ATAR ranks differ from Uni to Uni - less popular Unis that need to up their student numbers have lower ranks to encourage uptake, such as UniSA trying very hard to establish credibility for Engineering studies back around 2000.

The correlation between your perception of difficult and high ATAR cutoff does not extend far beyond the sandstones, who balance exclusivity against funds per student, especially non full fee paying. Even then the two most intense degrees have requirements external to ATAR - Law as I've mentioned, and Medicine students need to pass the GAMSAT or UMAT.

None of this changes the fact that it's perfectly valid to study at University for the sake of learning, rather than job training, and just generally using the internet to read is in no way a substitute for University studies in any school, no matter how many entirely baseless opinions you have. The internet is an excellent tool to use in support of your university studies, not a substitute for them.

 

[Max zero]

No, ATAR as it's now called is a way to take every high school student and rank them against each other so that they can select courses in order; courses are limited in number by the amount of funding they have and the availability of instructors. This is why some popular but less difficult courses such as Business ones have a higher ATAR requirement than less popular but much more difficult ones like pure mathematics, and why ATAR ranks differ from Uni to Uni - less popular Unis that need to up their student numbers have lower ranks to encourage uptake, such as UniSA trying very hard to establish credibility for Engineering studies back around 2000.

The correlation between your perception of difficult and high ATAR cutoff does not extend far beyond the sandstones, who balance exclusivity against funds per student, especially non full fee paying. Even then the two most intense degrees have requirements external to ATAR - Law as I've mentioned, and Medicine students need to pass the GAMSAT or UMAT.

None of this changes the fact that it's perfectly valid to study at University for the sake of learning, rather than job training, and just generally using the internet to read is in no way a substitute for University studies in any school, no matter how many entirely baseless opinions you have. The internet is an excellent tool to use in support of your university studies, not a substitute for them.

If you are going to to university purely for the sake of learning and not job training then perhaps you should do it out of your own pocket?

You say the Internet isn't a substitute yet you are doing an online only course yourself.

I wonder which major you are doing. I wonder if I could find online sources that could match what you are doing? I suspect for a lot of humanities degrees that this would be the case.

 

[camsmith]

Reading is not the only thing you can do on the internet. You can also watch videos of lectures, and even participate in online courses via Skype. Want to discuss what you have read? There are online forums for that.

There isn't a single thing taught in the typical humanities degree that isn't available on the internet for free.

Group presentations, discussions/debates in tutes. The social interaction and public speaking aspect isn't available online. Since Humanities in general deals very much with communication, social skills and the like, I think it's important to physically attend classes.

 

[Max zero]

Group presentations, discussions/debates in tutes. The social interaction and public speaking aspect isn't available online. Since Humanities in general deals very much with communication, social skills and the like, I think it's important to physically attend classes.

So you wouldn't put much stock in an online only humanities course?

 

[camsmith]

So you wouldn't put much stock in an online only humanities course?

For me, no. It wouldn't help me at all on a personal development level, amongst other things. I guess for others it depends what they want out of an Arts degree and what subjects they take. I'm doing IR and politics so I think the need to speak publicly is important. And also interacting with others in group assignments and in general, which you can't really do on Skype.

 

[Engimal]

Going to do a BICT next year. Hope it's worth it.

 

[Mofra]

Group presentations, discussions/debates in tutes. The social interaction and public speaking aspect isn't available online. Since Humanities in general deals very much with communication, social skills and the like, I think it's important to physically attend classes.

I'm just about to finish a Masters in Public Policy, I definitely agree that online learning would be a very poor substitute for face to face time in most of my subjects.

 

[Small Moves]

Group presentations, discussions/debates in tutes. The social interaction and public speaking aspect isn't available online. Since Humanities in general deals very much with communication, social skills and the like, I think it's important to physically attend classes.

Depends what you're studying. I'm doing Computer Science and studying online is a piece of cake. All of our tutorials consist of activities from a worksheet and the lectures are all recorded. The on-campus students are encouraged to make use of the discussion boards within the Blackboard system to provide some interaction for the off campus students.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I'm just about to finish a Masters in Public Policy, I definitely agree that online learning would be a very poor substitute for face to face time in most of my subjects.

Yeah I double majored in Pol Sci/Public Policy too. I learned a lot more and formulated and sharpened my views in tutorial debates and discussions rather than lectures. Online is not the same.

 

[J_Moore]

If TER was purely based on demand why not pick which applicants were accepted based on chance? Why the need to rank them at all?

aside from a few courses that set minimums, entrance cut-offs are purely demand driven. The "cut-off mark" is just the ATAR of the lowest-ranked student to get in.

Regarding humanities degrees: yes, a lot of it could be done independently. They're essentially reading courses. But most people won't do anywhere near the breadth or depth of reading required outside of the structure of an academic course . Pottering around the internet looking at articles you find kind of interesting is not really the same thing.

Ideally, you'd want to be doing regular writing, and getting personalised and regular feedback on your work, but in my experience that doesn't really happen even at more prestigious Australian universities, largely due to class sizes and demands on teachers.

I'm kind of surprised by people saying they find tutorials valuable, though. My experience with them was it was basically 10-20 idiots talking about readings they clearly hadn't bothered reading all the way through, and didn't really have a grasp on the full context in which to understand them (and I include myself in this). Usually, discussion was facilitated by a tutor who was a graduate student of some description with little by the way of actual teaching skills. If you got lucky, the tutor was the lecturer, but even then there was no guarantee they're a great teacher. The books were where the actual learning happened, and the 2-3 assignments you had to complete.

Humanities and social sciences are definitely a prime candidate for more online delivery, particularly at the undergraduate level. Same with big parts of commerce, law, public health, etc programs, I imagine. Anything where you don't need labs or workshops. Discussion can happen online, and the fact you're forced to write your thoughts down rather than just rambling some s**t off I think is probably a good thing. It's not really an indictment on the value of what one learns in the course, though.

 

[The Coup]

Online delivery is better for mature age students or young people who have already been out in the workforce and are really focused on their subjects imo. Everyone is more topic focused and there's no real social aspect to it other than discussing topics online and maybe working on a group project remotely. Wouldn't be great if you were doing sciences though cause you'd have lab work and that sort of thing. But nobody will hold your hand or be super friendly or anything, you'll have to actually contribute if you want people to share notes etc.

Of course, they can't function as a research university and could probably be more accurately labelled as online tafe (along with most of our universities)

 

[J_Moore]

Undergrad degrees aren't research degrees, though (except for an honours year). Personally, I think there's a bit of merit to splitting teaching and research universities (or at least campuses). I have to say, my experience with studying an arts degree at a G8 university was pretty underwhelming in terms of the quality and organisation of the teaching.

 

[The Coup]

Fair enough, with arts subjects though its really all about the reading content imo. The teacher just tells you to keep asking "why" of everything, but the important part is just to read the content.

 

[mgov]

Given that the degrees vary by institution, i think that its not so much the degree that matters, but the major. Pursuing Law or Psychology within Arts is useful in terms of job prospects, however, other areas (i.e. Gender studies) may not yield as many jobs in the field and may be limited to academic jobs (i.e lecturer) where they become available.