Push for Graduate School Universities (1 Viewer)

[Benny1103]

once you are earning a whole bunch of money then you should pay at least some of your money back for society's investment in you..

By and large most student's places are funded by HECs. So by your line of reasoning if it wasn't for society then the student wouldn't even be able to get a job in the first place. So it follows that they should pay back 100% of their earnings to society.

Also, you do realise that you don't actually have something like around 80+% of recent graduates who are just raking it in right? You say it as if you are guaranteed to receive a lot of money just because you have been through university. If that is the case then yes, students do owe something to society. However, the reality is that students earn their apparent high paying jobs, they are not handed out on a silver platter. So no, I do not feel that students owe much to society - at least not to the extent that you are implying.

But university shouldn't just be about getting a vocational education.

This is irrelevant, your point is more suited to a debate on whether or not Arts degrees should be dropped. Anyway, yes, university isn't just about gaining qualifications. That is why many people take combined degrees. However the important point is that people who are taking combined degrees are doing what they like, not what they are forced to.

Generalist degrees are not only irrelevant to many people's career aspirations but they are also of no interest to many people. Like I said before and I will ask you, NTB, this time. Would you like to be forced to do four years of physics before you are allowed to commence your law degree? I mean as you say, university isn't just about getting a vocation right?

 

[phrred]

bring back free tertiary education like the 70s! stupid liberal government

im sure thered be something people would like in either arts or science faculties
i mean courses in politics in arts is just like public law and a lawyer should know about their local politics

 

[Not-That-Bright]

By and large most student's places are funded by HECs. So by your line of reasoning if it wasn't for society then the student wouldn't even be able to get a job in the first place. So it follows that they should pay back 100% of their earnings to society.

Well we want to encourage students to get high paying jobs etc, so its better not to punish them so severely... we also want more students.

Also, you do realise that you don't actually have something like around 80+% of recent graduates who are just raking it in right? You say it as if you are guaranteed to receive a lot of money just because you have been through university.

Well hecs is only charged once you start earning decent ammounts of money, whether this is due to your university degree or not is really irrelevant. The idea is that poor people can get an education and not be driven into debt, but if they manage to start earning decent money then they can pay it off.

If that is the case then yes, students do owe something to society. However, the reality is that students earn their apparent high paying jobs, they are not handed out on a silver platter.

Of course the student does have to work hard to achieve their degree / get their job... but if they decided to call on society to help to facilitate their learning/vocational experience then they should be made to pay (when they are able to) for such a privilidge.

So no, I do not feel that students owe much to society - at least not to the extent that you are implying.

I'm just implying that if you have gone to university at the expense of wider society, if you then go on to earn decent ammounts of money you should then begin to pay off your debt to society.

Generalist degrees are not only irrelevant to many people's career aspirations but they are also of no interest to many people. Like I said before and I will ask you, NTB, this time. Would you like to be forced to do four years of physics before you are allowed to commence your law degree? I mean as you say, university isn't just about getting a vocation right?

Personally I wish more lawyers had a more generalist educational background... It would be a great asset to everyone to understand philosophy, history, and politics before beginning legal studies. I believe an attempt was made to address this through the option of double degree's, but it seems that many people have chosen to take up (for financial reasons) a degree in business or commerce instead of arts.

I see university as an institution for further education, this is what it has always been, not simply for vocational training. I believe some degrees do not belong in university (unless they are taught at the research level)...

I think our country has become obsessed with university.

 

[christ_ine]

Turning into the US, super. What's the point in spending thousands of dollars doing a generalist degree when they're going to make you study more? It's completely pointless.

 

[Generator]

This is irrelevant, your point is more suited to a debate on whether or not Arts degrees should be dropped. Anyway, yes, university isn't just about gaining qualifications. That is why many people take combined degrees. However the important point is that people who are taking combined degrees are doing what they like, not what they are forced to.

Generalist degrees are not only irrelevant to many people's career aspirations but they are also of no interest to many people. Like I said before and I will ask you, NTB, this time. Would you like to be forced to do four years of physics before you are allowed to commence your law degree? I mean as you say, university isn't just about getting a vocation right?

It isn't irrelevant, as the fact that there is an apparent push towards generalist degrees followed by graduate courses more than illustrates.

Students will do whatever is required to achieve their goals. If the system requires a generalist degree prior to a graduate course in the relevant discipline, then that is the requirement. This isn't as about what students want (no matter your use of text in bold), it's about the value of a degree and the framework within which they are offered. Funnily enough, we have next to no say in the matter, and in some cases students are already required to take a generalist degree as a part of a double programme in order to study their preferred degree (*blah*/law is the key example).

 

[braindrainedAsh]

This would suck for many people. Many people go to uni to get what many regard as "vocational" education in fields like health science etc.... but it's also one of those "more information needed" cases at the moment when it comes to this debate.

I have friends currently studying Occupational Therapy, Pharmacy, Nursing, Paramedics, Business, Speech Pathology etc at regional areas. Would these types of degrees be affected by the changes? Would people need to study Liberal Arts before studying Occupational Therapy? This would turn a lot of people away from tertiary study all together, especially if it meant they couldn't study these specialized courses in regional areas and would have to move to the city. Or will these sorts of courses be turned in to tafe like ones? Not only would you have the costs of your undergrad degree, but also the postgrad degree you would have to do in order to follow your chosen path, making uni even more expensive. Goody! It seems we really are following the American path, by making uni more and more expensive.

What I don't understand is that we have a similar system to university in the UK, why is our current system such a problem? Why does it matter if more people are going to university? Why does it matter if universities aren't filling up courses because they want to maintain some sort of academic standard on entry? If someone is capable of doing a pharmacy degree with a UAI of 80 and there are places available then what is the problem with this? The UAI doesn't dictate how well someone will do at university or in their future career- Nelson doesn't seem to understand how the UAI/ENTER works, he seems to think it is a percentage score rather than a rank, and he makes this mistake quite frequently. The answer to these questions may well be that we want to encourage elitism at university in this country. Why should someone have to go to USyd/UNSW to get a law degree? It's implying that some universities are much much better than others... and part of this grading seems to be based on sandstone and location. Yet another example of "downward envy" perhaps?

I think the current system is good because it gives you choice. Some people want to do a vocational degree straight up, others want to do a broader degree and then do postgrad study. I don't see a problem with people being able to do degrees if they get what some consider as a low UAI. If they are capable of learning the material and doing well at uni they will succeed... if they are not, it doesn't really impact on anyone else but themselves- and people getting more education benefits the common good anyway.

I strongly dislike the American university system- probably because I have worked with and lived with some of the idiots it produces. Yes I am aware that this in itself is not an argument and jumping to stereotypes or whatever, but allow me to vent for a moment. All of the American exchange students I have lived with don't know how to write critical and analytical essays- and this includes people studying towards grad law. From what I have seen, the American education system is the one that is lacking in quality. In the "Butler Bull", a magazine they send out to students on the Butler exchange program, it actually had an article about how hard Aussie universities mark. It had helpful advice like "At Aussie universities, they really expect you to think- you need to understand things and form your own arguments in response to essay questions. Rewriting a study guide won't cut it in this country! You can't just retell what happened, you need to analyze." My (Aussie) flatmate and I laughed so hard when reading this article about passing Aussie assignments and tests- my Yank flatmate simply looked at us blankly until he got a very low mark on an assignment he thought he had aced. Then he understood why we were chuckling so hard at the article I think.

 

[kartman]

31 August 2005Professor Glyn Davis,Vice-ChancellorUniversity of MelbourneDear Professor Davis,Re: Growing Esteem: comments from Professor David Macmillan

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Growing Esteem. I have limited myself to two questions that I consider to be central to the success of The University of Melbourne.

1. The Melbourne Experience Among Australian Universities, the University of Melbourne has important characteristics that are shared only by The University of Sydney: its antiquity and its proximity to large city amenities. One might call this the “left bank” factor and,in my opinion, its value cannot be overestimated both nationally and in South East Asia. In my view, we will only benefit fully from this factor if we join with other Victorian institutions, particularly Monash, to promote Melbourne as the educational and cultural capital of Australia. In my view, we should be promoting Melbourne as Australia’s Boston to Sydney’s New York. To do this, we need to have closer cooperative links with Monash. We would not have to merge the identities to achieve this but a more explicit Monash-Melbourne nexus would easily out-compete the rest of Australia, ANU included, and both institutions would benefit. Monash and Melbourne do not offer the same experience or even the same range of courses and opportunities but “The Melbourne Universities”(“University City”, “Education Melbourne”) would offer a choice more like that available to students entering Berkeley or UCLA. If Monash and Melbourne agreed to run this program, the next step would be to extend it to other Victorian institutions to extend the range of choice even further. This leads to my other point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Growing Esteeem 2 of 22. Building and elite undergraduate cohort The Australian multi-tiered education structure pre-Dawkins lacked one vital ingredient. It was difficult to move vertically through the system up or down. If Melbourne University is to attract the best students we must make it easier forstudents to move in and out of our institution. Since we are near the top of the heap, most students would be trying to move in and we should put in place structures to make that very simple if they have good records. In the US it ispossible to start in a Community College and end up at Harvard or MIT. If we want to build an elite undergraduate cohort, we must make it easy for the best students from other Universities, Victorian or other states, to move into Melbourne.We require a practical mechanism for “Move up to Melbourne” without the negative marketing program. A stronger relationship with Monash would assist this process. Both universities would benefit from having a large pool of students able to move between the two institutions with relative ease.

I wish you well in your deliberations and support the consultative approach of Growing Esteem.

Sincerely,David Macmillan Head of Department

Doesn't sound good for you NSW'ers

 

[Benny1103]

Well we want to encourage students to get high paying jobs etc, so its better not to punish them so severely... we also want more students.

Yeah ok so we want to encourage students to get high paying jobs...

Well hecs is only charged once you start earning decent ammounts of money, whether this is due to your university degree or not is really irrelevant. The idea is that poor people can get an education and not be driven into debt, but if they manage to start earning decent money then they can pay it off.

Under this scheme it wouldn't matter how much the HECs increases are now would it? You start by saying that HECs shouldn't be increased by a ridiculous amount (eg. 500%) so that students are not punished so severely. Then you go on to say that people can start paying back their loan once they start earning a decent amount. But then you can easily say that regardless of the HECs increases, no one will be 'punished too severely' because they don't have to start paying it back until they earn a decent amount. So what is it? Should HECs be allowed to increase rapidly?

I see university as an institution for further education, this is what it has always been, not simply for vocational training. I believe some degrees do not belong in university (unless they are taught at the research level)...

You still haven't answered my question. You are currently studying law right? Would you like to be forced to do four years of physics before you are permitted to commence your studies in law?

It isn't irrelevant, as the fact that there is an apparent push towards generalist degrees followed by graduate courses more than illustrates.

One single proposal isn't a push towards something. Give examples of what you are claiming from the last few years.

Students will do whatever is required to achieve their goals. If the system requires a generalist degree prior to a graduate course in the relevant discipline, then that is the requirement.

So you would like more and more restrictions to gradually be imposed upon your course? I mean like you say, students will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. So why not make it compulsory for all students to spend a year studying foreign languages, followed up by three years of work on a farm, before finishing with four years volunteer work in a nursing home. Then allow them to commence their desired course.

This isn't as about what students want (no matter your use of text in bold), it's about the value of a degree and the framework within which they are offered. Funnily enough, we have next to no say in the matter, and in some cases students are already required to take a generalist degree as a part of a double programme in order to study their preferred degree (*blah*/law is the key example).

My use of the bold was to illustrate the difference between being forced to do irrelevant subjects which you hate, and doing subjects out of interest which are not ncessarily related to your course. Please enlighten me, how does doing a subject which I have no interest in and is completely irrelevant to my course, add value to my degree. More specifically, oh wise one, please tell me how a Liberal arts course would add value to my Engineering degree. Please give valid reasons, keeping in mind that many stupid reasons can be reversed and used on whatever course you are doing.

 

[Generator]

One single proposal isn't a push towards something. Give examples of what you are claiming from the last few years.

An apparent push, mind. However, beyond the *blah*/law combination that I mentioned at the end of my previous post (not quite what is being proposed, but it's one that requires students to study something else in addition to their preferred degree), there's also degrees like Liberal Studies at USyd, the Bachelor of Science and Arts at USyd, etc. that are in effect broad programmes from which students are encouraged to carry on with their studies.

So you would like more and more restrictions to gradually be imposed upon your course? I mean like you say, students will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. So why not make it compulsory for all students to spend a year studying foreign languages, followed up by three years of work on a farm, before finishing with four years volunteer work in a nursing home. Then allow them to commence their desired course.

Keep it credible, please. Besides, what would be so wrong with another year or two of Liberal Arts study?

My use of the bold was to illustrate the difference between being forced to do irrelevant subjects which you hate, and doing subjects out of interest which are not ncessarily related to your course. Please enlighten me, how does doing a subject which I have no interest in and is completely irrelevant to my course, add value to my degree. More specifically, oh wise one, please tell me how a Liberal arts course would add value to my Engineering degree. Please give valid reasons, keeping in mind that many stupid reasons can be reversed and used on whatever course you are doing.

I would have thought a broader education would be of value to all, but it's clear that not all are of this opinion.


Personally, I think that a year or two of generalist studies (much like UTS's International studies add-on degree) rather than an out and out generalist degree followed by a graduate course would be the best way forward in terms of creating a system within which students are required to study beyond their field. Still, I think that the American system would be fine, provided that the great majority of graduate places are government subsidised.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Keep it credible, please. Besides, what would be so wrong with another year or two of Liberal Arts study?

waste of 1-2yrs of my life... im having trouble doing my 18 cr pts worth of outside course based work as its not interesting.. I get good marks.. but i do it for the sake of doing it not cos i enjoy it.. the only subject that I have enjoyed and helped me was a 3rd yr science subject..

Personally, I think that a year or two of generalist studies (much like UTS's International studies add-on degree) rather than an out and out generalist degree followed by a graduate course would be the best way forward in terms of creating a system within which students are required to study beyond their field. Still, I think that the American system would be fine, provided that the great majority of graduate places are government subsidised.

the Govt would do this I see it as a "how-to-keep-ppl-off-the-unemployment-figures" method.. much like stressing that everyone has a yr 12... now a Bachelor degree is almost worthless.. so many ppl have them

Honestly i think its just goin to be a waste of money and time

i don't see the benefit..
IMO studying "beyond your field" is not synoymous to "further education"

 

[Benny1103]

The main difference between what you and I have been saying is that I simply do not believe that people should be forced to do something which is of no relevance to their course. On the other hand, you have been endorsing a system where people are forced to do something which they do not wish to do. There are already enough restrictions in place for pretty much every course. Do you wish to push it even further so that University becomes primary school?

Keep it credible, please. Besides, what would be so wrong with another year or two of Liberal Arts study?

The point is that you are advocating the gradual imposition of more and more 'rules' which restrict what people can and cannot do. So my example is not ridiculous, it's just a follow up to what you've suggested. So what's so bad about a few years of doing irrelevant activities such as farming and volunteer work in a nursing home? It's still in accoordance with your idea that completely unrelated activities only serves to benefit the student. What's so bad about two years of Liberal Arts study even if it's irrelevant to a student's career aspirations? Let me ask you if you'd be thrilled if you were made to study a few years of Chinese before you were permitted to commence whatever course you are doing.

I assume that most people would know that even now, not all of the subjects they do (even in single degrees) are relevant to their courses. Not to mention that some of them are also of no interest to people. So there are already subjects in there which broaden the scope of many courses.

There is no need for us to be told what we must do. We are no longer 5 year olds.

BTW, while you have repeatedly mentioned that you think people should study irrelevant subjects, you still have not explained how it can benefit people. Before you say something like 'it forces students to study irrelevant subjects which do not actually add value to their degree', refer to things which are commonly known as extra curricular activities.

 

[CrazyMystic]

Hmm...

This thread bring to mind 2 certain unis, which may or may not be useful as a guide...

First its ANU, an uni that traditionally used its resources to emphasise research and post graduate stuff rather than undergraduate teaching. This is most evident in the establishment of the Institute of Advanced Studies, which is basically the one of the largest most well funded research place dedicated to research in Australia and the fact they have one of the lowest intakes of undergrads for a uni. (Around 8000-9000? I remeber its less than 10k from what I read in the Good uni's guide) as well as thier high placing in most uni rankings (usually 1 or 2 along with Uni Melb, which from the article in the thread creator is going along the same path), many of which have thier main criterias based on research output.

In contrast to this is UOW, an uni whose rep is based its innovative and quality teaching of undergrads, rather than the research it produces. It doesn't even get listed on any of the main research based uni rankings mentioned earlier, but as many here know... it came first in the DEST distribution/rankings when the emphasis as based on teaching and student expericence rather than reaserch. UOW's teaching's is also very praised by the Good Uni's guide, argueably better then some of the "elite" unis, which is aimed at mainly yr12 deciding to go to uni.

Anyways the main point of the thread is not to praise ANU or UOW, but to show the benefits of a focused approach...

ANU is more or less accepted by most to be one of the best places for research in Australia and Asia, and holds its own agaisnt the world. (The rankings reflect this I believe).

UOW's undergradute programs's as result of thier Uni's attentuion towards it, punches well above its weight, and this can be seen at how ppl look at it favourably, if not at the same "prestigous" level as you place Usyd/UNSW, then somewhere around the level same was UTS or Mac, which is very good considering most of its courses have lower entry requirements. (I know UAI is not a good "course quality" but it is a good indictator of "prestige" and UOW's courses's prestige is value for mone err marks ).

Anyways I'm rambling, but in considering these the success more or less brought to these two particular uni's that most in a way adopted this...maybe it ain't so bad if all uni's just emphasied on one aspect rather than trying to do everything at once.

 

[poloktim]

I thought the idea of university study was to gain a deeper education in your chosen field, not a broad education in everything. Also, people who do Arts degrees must major in something, so they still get a deeper education with regards to their major(s). If I was to study Politics and History, I'd leave university with a broader knowledge in politics and history only. Not English Literature, not languages, sociology etc. The assumption being made in this thread is that Arts degrees are general by definition. My Arts degree is far from it, in fact it's pretty much all consumed by my major.

I don't have a problem with forcing some degrees to have another degree to be done concurrently, but there should be enough freedom available to try to accomodate for all students, so that their second degree is also one of interest. Also, that would be solely up to the university to implement, not the government to dictate. I don't like the idea of forcing people to do a bachelor degree in something that they find boring, then a graduate degree in their chosen field, it wastes money, and when everybody starts doing it (provided they have money) it'll devalue the graduate and postgraduate sector.

Also, by having the government dictate which universities will be the research universities (G8, anybody?), as well as undergraduates flooding the rural/regional/suburban universities for their undergraduate degree, the latter universities will have no chance to research and so will begin to lose respect in their specialist field. Academics who chose to work at the university would decide to leave, since their hands will be full with undergraduate work, and not their research, and possibly move overseas if they can't get into a research university.

Also remember, a jack of all trades is a master of none.

Anyways I'm rambling, but in considering these the success more or less brought to these two particular uni's that most in a way adopted this...maybe it ain't so bad if all uni's just emphasied on one aspect rather than trying to do everything at once.

But UOW still researches, and has some decent research institutes. Flooding it with more students than it can handle (since we know that the prestigious universities in Sydney have a much larger number of undergraduate students than UOW does) will result in less time being used by academics in research. Many academics want to research as well as teach, and if they can't here, they'll go elsewhere.

 

[Frigid]

So what's so bad about a few years of doing irrelevant activities such as farming

bahahahaha.

anyway gengen, this is coming from the same man who said it does not behove everyone to get a university degree ("I think that [university education is] a privilege. Having a university education is not something that any of us should take for granted, and one of our failings as a country is we’ve created this culture in which young people feel that if they don’t get a university education that in some way they’re not as good as someone who does", Brendan Nelson, ABC 4 Corners, June 2005) - why would he care whether we get a broad education or otherwise?

 

[gerhard]

I agree with Generator, I think 1 to 2 years of liberal arts would be a good idea.

Benny1103, I think maybe you should do study philosophy 1001 - it might give your arguments a bit of coherance. Right now they are just kind of embarrassing.

 

[Benny1103]

gerhard, until they pass this ridiculous notion of forcing people to do pointless and irrelevant subjects which they have no interest in, I won't be taking any philospophy subjects.

I agree with Generator, I think 1 to 2 years of liberal arts would be a good idea.

How so? As an example, please explain to me how one to two years of liberal arts will benefit my engineering/science degree in which I use a lot of mathematics and do countless mechanics problems. Don't try to dodge the question this time. I ask this of you because so far as I see it, that is precisely the only thing which your Arts 'education' has taught you to do.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm going to be honest benny, I cannot respond to your incoherant ramblings.

For example;

Under this scheme it wouldn't matter how much the HECs increases are now would it? You start by saying that HECs shouldn't be increased by a ridiculous amount (eg. 500%) so that students are not punished so severely. Then you go on to say that people can start paying back their loan once they start earning a decent amount. But then you can easily say that regardless of the HECs increases, no one will be 'punished too severely' because they don't have to start paying it back until they earn a decent amount. So what is it? Should HECs be allowed to increase rapidly?

I have no idea what you're talking about, and you never answer any questions... just throw more back at me. People don't answer every one of your questions directly because they feel they've already addressed them, you keep asking me if I would like to do physics as a part of law and I say no, not 3 years of physics (although I do think some science training would be good, perhaps including some physics).

The main difference between what you and I have been saying is that I simply do not believe that people should be forced to do something which is of no relevance to their course. On the other hand, you have been endorsing a system where people are forced to do something which they do not wish to do. There are already enough restrictions in place for pretty much every course. Do you wish to push it even further so that University becomes primary school?

As for the argument of people doing things they consider 'irrelevant', I think you'll find alot of people feel different units they undertake are irrelevant... but they are forced to do them anyway.

As an example, please explain to me how one to two years of liberal arts will benefit my engineering/science degree in which I use a lot of mathematics and do countless mechanics problems.

Mathematics/Science has a strong connection with philosophy and the social sciences. Your knowledge of Mathematics/Science can be used in a more 'real world' setting, for instance when dealing with arguments.

 

[Benny1103]

you keep asking me if I would like to do physics as a part of law and I say no, not 3 years of physics (although I do think some science training would be good, perhaps including some physics).

This is the first time that you have produced anything close to an answer to my question. Anyway, are suggesting that it's alright for you to tell someone else to do liberal arts whereas no one has a right to force you to take a few of years of physics?

As for the argument of people doing things they consider 'irrelevant', I think you'll find alot of people feel different units they undertake are irrelevant... but they are forced to do them anyway.

As you say, people are already forced to take subjects which they think are irrelevant. So why should people be forced to take even more irrelevant subjects which they have no interest in?

Mathematics/Science has a strong connection with philosophy and the social sciences. Your knowledge of Mathematics/Science can be used in a more 'real world' setting, for instance when dealing with arguments.

I asked how liberal arts can add value to my engineering/science degree. Supporting ridiculous ideas which force people to do things they have no interest in does not add value to my degree.

You continually make vague statements about how certain things add value to my degree. Yet you never actually give a valid example. In fact, the example you provided is not valid.

I would like to advise you to at least look up some background information about mathematics before making general statements as you have. Engineering is about applying mathematics, among other things. The 'connection' between mathematics and philosophy that you speak of is related to the way people think about abstract mathematical concepts when developing ideas about it. Philosophy has little to no relevance to the way mathematics is applied in Engineering.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This is the first time that you have produced anything close to an answer to my question. Anyway, are suggesting that it's alright for you to tell someone else to do liberal arts whereas no one has a right to force you to take a few of years of physics?

I am arguing that a wider education, where you have alot more choice in what general knowledge you would like to learn i.e. if someone wishes to take up science type units, they can take them.... All I am saying is that it would be good to allow people to get a more general background to their particular field (i.e. some science, some arts etc) I am not saying force people to take philosophy...

As for your first point...

Personally I wish more lawyers had a more generalist educational background... It would be a great asset to everyone to understand philosophy, history, and politics before beginning legal studies. I believe an attempt was made to address this through the option of double degree's, but it seems that many people have chosen to take up (for financial reasons) a degree in business or commerce instead of arts.

I see university as an institution for further education, this is what it has always been, not simply for vocational training. I believe some degrees do not belong in university (unless they are taught at the research level)...

I think our country has become obsessed with university.

As you say, people are already forced to take subjects which they think are irrelevant. So why should people be forced to take even more irrelevant subjects which they have no interest in?

How would making people take some sort of generalist degree lead to people taking subjects they have no interest in? Are people really automation machines who are only interested in their particular degree?

I asked how liberal arts can add value to my engineering/science degree. Supporting ridiculous ideas which force people to do things they have no interest in does not add value to my degree.

Why would you assume that liberal arts is the only generalist degree? I believe in the US they offer general undergraduate science courses... perhaps they would be of use to you?

You continually make vague statements about how certain things add value to my degree. Yet you never actually give a valid example. In fact, the example you provided is not valid.

Well I wasn't exactly sure what sort of an example you were after... So I just attempted to show a connection between what you would consider an arts subject (philosophy) and the course you mentioned. The only reason it was invalid is because the question I thought I was answering has now been re-defined.

The 'connection' between mathematics and philosophy that you speak of is related to the way people think about abstract mathematical concepts when developing ideas about it.

No. What I was talking about was how mathematics is used to represent philosophical ideas, logical arguments.

Philosophy has little to no relevance to the way mathematics is applied in Engineering.

As I said, I'm sure there would be science for you to take up.

OK first and foremost let's get something out of the way. If we wish to copy the american system by doing a generalist degree let me tell you clowns about what this generalist degree involves. For the general education, usually you must take 2 english courses. You also must take a 2 history classes, 2 science or maths classes, 4 other arts courses and 2 social science courses. Now ok that does sound ok in theory. But do you realise what these courses are comprised of. Most of these courses are HIGH SCHOOL COURSES.

Is our system going to be like this necessarily? The system myself and I imagine others are in favour of is a university level generalist education... in the area of arts or science or whatever... followed by graduate training in a more specific area.

 

[gerhard]

otay, the belief that our graduates are not good enough is pushing this idea.

obviously it is implied that in this liberal arts degree, you will do the current liberal arts subjects available at universities, not simply repeating year 12 courses, because this would not improve the quality of our graduates.