[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
- to know the context in which the figures are presented.


Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
had reasonably expected.

Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
the average.


No, I know. But it's why an individual attains below average that's of
importance. 'Average' is of limited use in this discussion, that's all
I'm saying.


Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.

I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
so can't say.


Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
when 'sexism engineering' is input.


The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.

Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
be dismissed. :-)

Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.

So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
with simply getting to work.


It will be of use in some cases, granted.

Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
'some' it will not.


There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an already
OT subject.


Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.

But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
status, etc.

My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
work can be worth a lot more than money."


Precisely so, couldn't agree more. As the subjects i teach have very
little to do with commercial gain I don't see much money motivation.

But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.


I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
about 'vast bulk' though.

I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message


Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class. David.

Could be ;-)

Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have
bothered replying.


To return to this point for a moment - class is a perfectly reasonable
aspect of analysis.


If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)

Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is likely
to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain your
views, or just 'win an argument'?


It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama. I wouldn't for one moment
assume David is uncritically accepting of a 'qualified person' in all
circumstances. Just more than healthy.

Rob

[Rob[_12_]]

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:
Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.
'Education' is a broad term. You don't need a qualification to know and be
good at things.

No, but they do help demonstrate to others that you are "good at things".
And *if* you are "good at things" then it's no great effort to acquire the
qualification that will allow you to do that.


But why should you bother? To get the job, status, pay, professional
accountability etc - not necessarily to do the job any better.

Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
postgrad.
And the answers to my other questions? So are you saying that these
"councillors" (whoever they may be) who haven't an O level between them
have far better skills than you do *in your own field* even though your
skills are to postgrad level?

Councillors are elected local politicians.

Ah, at last you are giving an answer to one of the question that I asked a
couple of posts back. But you still haven't answered the question as to
*what* are these "technical skills" that they are so good at, or indeed what
"field" you are in. And what is the relevance of the fact that these people
are councillors?


Relevance - none. Actual skills. The particular field I have in mind is
social housing finance and the maintenance of local authority accounts.
There's a heap of CIPFA guidance/protocols I know very little about -
they seemed to know it pretty well.

My field is social policy. My specialism is social housing, and then
within that housing finance.

In the examples I gave they had more current technical detail knowledge
than me (although more than that required for the module) - and I write
and teach nationally to PG level. They're not quite so hot on the
evaluation though ;-)

Again, what "current technical detail knowledge" are we talking about? And
what are you teaching them?, indeed why are you teaching them?

I think they were doing the course because they were interested - I
couldn't see any career reasons. Why teach them - because they wanted to
learn. The courses are made up of several modules - law, social policy,
finance, practice and so on.

Not at all - depends what you mean, however. My skills are what they are,
and it just so happens I'm good at exams and so forth. If I'm good at what
I *do* it's not *because* of my qualifications.

So what do you do?


Teacher/researcher. And I'd say my teaching qualification was not the
most enlightening thing I've ever done. Unless something subliminal went
on, it taught me nothing.

And of course you aren't good at what you do *because* of your
qualifications - what an absurd thing to say. You are qualified in what you
do because you are good at it, not the other way about.

Ah!, is this what this is all about? It's all about class.

Could be ;-)

Then I wish you'd said so at the beginning and I wouldn't have bothered
replying.

If you choose to wander aimless through life dazzled by a string of
degrees and titles, indeed yes, don't bother ;-)


If that's what you think I have been arguing all this time then you haven't
read my posts.

It was slightly tongue in cheek.

My point about "not bothering" is that, unlike you
apparently, I do not see a connection between being "unqualified" and being
"working class". If you want to indulge in inverted class snobbery be my
guest, but I'm not interested.


Not sure where you got that link from. Anything in the social world
could be about class - plenty of theories knocking about stating thus.
You asked - I just said 'could be'.

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:



Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a
black woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you
know who they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the
wild - although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find
out.

I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in
physical science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or
other reasons there may be a bias in student preferences at the
outset. Don't have data so can't say.


Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
when 'sexism engineering' is input.

Not doubt. Given fields with numbers of examples in the millions I assume
you could find examples of almost anything. I can't say I've noticed it.
But then I guess my only contact will have been because some of the people
I have hired/supervised/worked with have been from what might seem 'ethinic
minorities' (or whatever the nice phrase may be) in a UK context. So far as
I could tell, their mix of abilities, etc, showed no signs of being
different to others. But I don't doubt you can find examples of bias that
would pass me by. So I guess I am not well placed to comment in general.


So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic
might be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing
that with simply getting to work.


It will be of use in some cases, granted.

Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show
they are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the
averages they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that
situation. But for 'some' it will not.


There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things.

The difficulty here is akin to your waryness about 'averages'. Yes, there
will be examples of what you say. My experience is that it isn't common in
engineering or physical science in the UK. But no doubt I may have simply
missed it. I am sure I an just as guilty of ignorance as anyone else who
hasn't been in the sharp end of being badly treated.

I do recall a case some decades ago when someone was being interviewed for
a job at Armstrong Audio. He was turned down and became annoyed. Started
claiming he was being discriminated against for reasons of colour, etc. So
the director took him around the factory and showed him the people already
happily working there on the line, offices, etc Since the staff came from
around and about the North/East London area it was a bit like the 'United
Nations'. :-)

That has reminded me of one if the photos I think is on the Armstrong
website. This shows one of our test/repair staff of the time. He was
someone with superb 'diagnostic' skills for finding out faults in equipment
and fixing them. If curious, it is the lower image on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/pandp/prod2.html

Interesting that some people do develop a particular talent for being able
to find faults. Yet some people who design kit find this hard when their
magnum opus won't behave.

Maybe it was different elsewhere. But the Armstrong employees were all
essentially like a 'family'. Including coach trips together, everyone
getting a chicken or alternative at Xmas, etc. I thoughly enjoyed my years
there and pleased to have worked with all of them.

The company was taken on after it ceased making consumer gear by Twaleb -
who was originally from Mauritius (is that how you spell it, I can't
recall!) He'd joined the company years before as a 'tester' and ended up
running the place and owning it.

I used to envy him as his wife was a stewardess on the Mauritius arline so
he kept being able to get free seats there and back. Closest I ever got to
that was when I worked for a few months at Aerospat in Tolouse. Since Air
France were part-funding the work I could fly home most weekends with my
laundry. If the standard seats were full they used to shove me into 1st.
:-)

But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

....or even to presume they will, or that differs from anywhere else.
Wouldn't do to discriminate against engineers and assume they are
abnormally bad in this respect, would it? :-)

In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an
already OT subject.

Yes. :-) However so far as physical science or EE in the UK goes, the
main problem in the past seemed to be at school level, with kids being
given the feeling that it 'wasn't for girls'.


But the problem here is that some students may have totally
unrealistic ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they
think they will be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But
the vast bulk will not, and may find that some other topics would have
suited them better *both* for getting a job, *and* for jobs they
eventually find they enjoy.


I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
about 'vast bulk' though.

The 'vast bulk' comment was wrt assuming they could become Paxman clones.
The problem here is that there are only a tiny number of jobs like that,
even if all the graduates in media studies were 'good enough' whatever that
might mean in the context.

I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Yes. But to bring us back to the root of the discussion: I have my doubts
that anyone needs to go to university to spot when the media are talking
spheriods of revolution. Although in audio, some idea of EE or physics
might help a bit! And in some cases the technobabble is quite
mind-numbingly fancy. Baloney Baffles Brains... :-)

But I agree this is all wildly OT so I'll stop here.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[David Looser]

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is
likely
to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain
your
views, or just 'win an argument'?


It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama.

Nope, it was a straw-man argument, pure and simple. You set up a strawman -
someone who is "dazzled" by qualifications (which is about as far removed
from my own POV as you can get) - simply so that you can knock it down.

I wouldn't for one moment assume David is uncritically accepting of a
'qualified person' in all circumstances. Just more than healthy.

Which again shows that you are reading what you want (or expect) to read
from my posts, rather than what I have written.

In no way am I "dazzled" by qualifications. I joined in this thread because
I do not believe that there are masses of unqualified (and thus untrained,
because training leads to qualifications) scientists and engineers out there
who can do science and engineering better than the people who have taken the
trouble to get a bit of education first. Which was more-or-less the original
claim.

In the field I now discover (at long last!) you have been talking about it
may very well be true that there are a lot of unqualified people who can do
the job better than the qualified. But this is an audio ng, and housing
policy seems rather off-topic.

David.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:08:35 GMT, Rob
wrote:

There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

But these days the discrimination is more likely in FAVOUR of the
lame-duck categories.

[news.zen.co.uk]

Evening all,

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:

1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker

It might have started as an April Fool's joke, but Green CD markers actually
work. I tried one on one of my CDs, and in a level matched, controlled DBT
all participants agreed that the edge of the CD is now green.

Regards,
Glenn.

[Keith G[_2_]]

"news.zen.co.uk" wrote in message
...
Evening all,

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...

Right. I'll add it to my 'to try' list:

1. Astrology
2. Magic healing crystals
3. Green CD marker

It might have started as an April Fool's joke, but Green CD markers
actually work. I tried one on one of my CDs, and in a level matched,
controlled DBT all participants agreed that the edge of the CD is now
green.

Regards,
Glenn.


Mystified....

If the test was 'blind' how could the participants see the 'green edge'...??