The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[worm]

Thank you for detailing that things are not as worm has claimed.

[worm]

No you don't really. Maths degrees are essentially 100% taught degrees. Its almost all done from lectures and there is very little reading involved, except maybe when you are trying to have a go at some example questions you might turn to a text book. You certainly never look at research journals in the degree, apart from maybe a tiny bit in a final year project. But still then its unlikely. Research doesn't really appear until masters level.

[Ed209]

Right, so you are given the research in class. It's still based upon a number of philosophical principles, it's just that you're applying it in class.

So what sort of classes did you take? What sort of uni was it?

[eFestivals]

Erm, he's reinforced what I've said about Master degrees not requiring a Bachelor degree of the same subject.

And he's said you're wrong about other parts of what you've said.

The part you're claiming "right" for is actually something first said in this thread by me.

[eFestivals]

Right, so you are given the research in class. It's still based upon a number of philosophical principles, it's just that you're applying it in class.

One day you'll get to realise that not all degrees are the same.

He's telling you that you're wrong. Given that he's experienced it and you haven't, why do you think you're right?

You're doing nothing different with him as you were saying with my chemical engineering example, believing that the actual subject matter of a degree is of no relevance to what is taught by that degree. It is.

If it was as you're pretending there would only be one degree, in JUST how to research.

[worm]

treating every child as if they are all the same, and only giving one option - A levels, then universtiy - is the problem

[diddly-dee]

The maths example is a good one. A lecturer telling/teaching an undergraduate what other mathematicians/physicians have arrived at through their musings and deliberations (research) and the undergraduate understanding it and being able to apply it to similar mathematical problems isn't the undergraduate doing research themselves (as otherwise being able to do long division sums could be termed 'research' which, in a way, of course it is - but not in the sense I believe we're conceptualising it as being a philosophical discourse here).

Naturally, there surely an element of 'research' (academic philosophising) within undergraduate maths when the undergraduate is presented with, say, two or three different approaches to working out a problem (apologies for my lack of knowledge of the complexities of maths) and then them evaluating the relative merits of one over the other as part of their being educated in maths. This would be the undergraduate doing very basic level 'research'/academic philosophising (although certainly not basic level maths of course). However, if it's 'simply' (and i don't mean 'simply' as a reflection of the obvious manifold complexities evident in mathematical theorem) the undergraduate being taught/informed how to work out a problem (for example, the processes of doing long division - i know that maths is MUCH more complicated at degree level than long division!) then there's no research there. The application of a mathematical theory to process an equation/problem isn't research. Such knowledge can be a 'research tool' - but that depends on how it is subsequwntly applied - the straightforward 'learning' of it isn't research.

[worm]

The part you're claiming "right" for is actually something first said in this thread by me.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

The maths example is a good one. A lecturer telling/teaching an undergraduate what other mathematicians/physicians have arrived at through their musings and deliberations (research) and the undergraduate understanding it and being able to apply it to similar mathematical problems isn't the undergraduate doing research themselves (as otherwise being able to do long division sums could be termed 'research' which, in a way, of course it is - but not in the sense I believe we're conceptualising it as being a philosophical discourse here).

Naturally, there surely an element of 'research' (academic philosophising) within undergraduate maths when the undergraduate is presented with, say, two or three different approaches to working out a problem (apologies for my lack of knowledge of the complexities of maths) and then them evaluating the relative merits of one over the other as part of their being educated in maths. This would be the undergraduate doing very basic level 'research'/academic philosophising (although certainly not basic level maths of course). However, if it's 'simply' (and i don't mean 'simply' as a reflection of the obvious manifold complexities evident in mathematical theorem) the undergraduate being taught/informed how to work out a problem (for example, the processes of doing long division - i know that maths is MUCH more complicated at degree level than long division!) then there's no research there. The application of a mathematical theory to process an equation/problem isn't research. Such knowledge can be a 'research tool' - but that depends on how it is subsequwntly applied - the straightforward 'learning' of it isn't research.

[worm]

The maths example is a good one. A lecturer telling/teaching an undergraduate what other mathematicians/physicians have arrived at through their musings and deliberations (research) and the undergraduate understanding it and being able to apply it to similar mathematical problems isn't the undergraduate doing research themselves (as otherwise being able to do long division sums could be termed 'research' which, in a way, of course it is - but not in the sense I believe we're conceptualising it as being a philosophical discourse here).

Naturally, there surely an element of 'research' (academic philosophising) within undergraduate maths when the undergraduate is presented with, say, two or three different approaches to working out a problem (apologies for my lack of knowledge of the complexities of maths) and then them evaluating the relative merits of one over the other as part of their being educated in maths. This would be the undergraduate doing very basic level 'research'/academic philosophising (although certainly not basic level maths of course). However, if it's 'simply' (and i don't mean 'simply' as a reflection of the obvious manifold complexities evident in mathematical theorem) the undergraduate being taught/informed how to work out a problem (for example, the processes of doing long division - i know that maths is MUCH more complicated at degree level than long division!) then there's no research there. The application of a mathematical theory to process an equation/problem isn't research. Such knowledge can be a 'research tool' - but that depends on how it is subsequwntly applied - the straightforward 'learning' of it isn't research.

[eFestivals]

I concede that I've overstated the case by not looking at some of the nuances required in each disipline,

What you actually mean is that you're fundamentally wrong.

Not all degrees are the same. You have been stating that they are, because of your gross ignorance of the subject you're talking about.

[diddly-dee]

Does it equip you with any cross sectional skills to do a Masters degree in an unrelated field?

[diddly-dee]

With all due respect to maths (which is a fantastic subject and i do appreciate that mathematics is the 'template of the universe' in many ways), beyond developing the (self)disciplines of, for instance, handing in work on time, attending lectures, listening to what someone more knowledgeable was telling you etc. then the analytical skills gathered are no more or less complex than those you might gather, say, going to work in an office or hospital or factory. I suppose you would perhaps be made more conspicuously aware that there was "more than one way to skin a cat" and that you should always endeavour to be aware of that when doing a Master's but plenty of manual and non-manual jobs would give you that set of skills i'd imagine.

[worm]

With all due respect to maths (which is a fantastic subject and i do appreciate that mathematics is the 'template of the universe' in many ways), beyond developing the (self)disciplines of, for instance, handing in work on time, attending lectures, listening to what someone more knowledgeable was telling you etc.

[Ed209]

With all due respect to maths (which is a fantastic subject and i do appreciate that mathematics is the 'template of the universe' in many ways), beyond developing the (self)disciplines of, for instance, handing in work on time, attending lectures, listening to what someone more knowledgeable was telling you etc. then the analytical skills gathered are no more or less complex than those you might gather, say, going to work in an office or hospital or factory. I suppose you would perhaps be made more conspicuously aware that there was "more than one way to skin a cat" and that you should always endeavour to be aware of that when doing a Master's but plenty of manual and non-manual jobs would give you that set of skills i'd imagine.

[worm]

how does taking away options equate to giving them more choice?

[diddly-dee]

So the subject pertaining to your background is not necessary for the skills required in a Master's degree?

[worm]

What you actually mean is that you're fundamentally wrong.

Edited February 14, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Those are the kind of things I'm on about. That's what you get with a Bachelor's degree of all kinds.

that's what you get from being a fully formed adult, degree or not.

[Ed209]

Not in the slightest. Not in my experience anyway. I know a couple of people who have done Masters degrees without the possession of a BA/BSC/BDiv/BEcon and, apart from getting to grips with the conventions/'culture' of an university (ie. knowing that you may need to fill out form x when submitting work or where the journals can be found in the library etc.), then they had no difficulty with the intellectual rigours required by a Masters. Although, again maths being a very good example, i'd strongly suspect that a number of Masters degrees in particular subjects (maths, physics, any foreign language that you were unfamiliar with etc.) would require a certain level of knowledge in that subject - not necessarily the research techniques appropriate to that subject but a particular 'technical' knowledge to enable the student to understand and engage with the 'terms of reference' - for instance it would be no exceptionally difficult trying to do an MA by research in, say, Russian literature without any knowledge of Russian, or a masters in particulate physics without any knowledge of maths. No matter how skilled you were at research or conceptual analysis, without a basic knowledge of the subject matter which would be required to be able to analyse and understand the material you were researching, i think you'd be sunk.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Ed209

[worm]

Not in the slightest. Not in my experience anyway. I know a couple of people who have done Masters degrees without the possession of a BA/BSC/BDiv/BEcon and, apart from getting to grips with the conventions/'culture' of an university (ie. knowing that you may need to fill out form x when submitting work or where the journals can be found in the library etc.), then they had no difficulty with the intellectual rigours required by a Masters. Although, again maths being a very good example, i'd strongly suspect that a number of Masters degrees in particular subjects (maths, physics, any foreign language that you were unfamiliar with etc.) would require a certain level of knowledge in that subject - not necessarily the research techniques appropriate to that subject but a particular 'technical' knowledge to enable the student to understand and engage with the 'terms of reference' - for instance it would be no exceptionally difficult trying to do an MA by research in, say, Russian literature without any knowledge of Russian, or a masters in particulate physics without any knowledge of maths. No matter how skilled you were at research or conceptual analysis, without a basic knowledge of the subject matter which would be required to be able to analyse and understand the material you were researching, i think you'd be sunk.

[diddly-dee]

I get what you're saying. Mathematical knowledge aside, at the end of the day the transferable skills you gain are in no way super human and can to an extent be learnt by most people, but over 3 years a maths degree does train your brain to a particular way of thinking. When for three years you spend your time studying theorems, proofs, lemmas, corollaries, and then use them to tackle problems with water-tight logical arguments and extreme attention to detail, I think you're selling it a little short (but I would say that ).

The job market puts a high value of maths grads, even away from numeric disciplines because they acknowledge the skills they exit their degree with.

but then of course there's a whole different set of skills that mathematicians are utterly useless at, like reading, writing, communicating and common sense

[eFestivals]

The sciences I think are different from the arts. You HAVE to have a BSc in a related discipline to know what the hell is going on at masters level. You won't get accepted on the course without it.

eg. Maths Master will require a Maths Bsc, you could maybe get away with a Physics degree depending on the modules you studied at undergrad.

Physics masters you can do with only a physics BSc or applied maths orientated degree

Biology masters you'll need a degree heavily weighted towards biology or chemistry

... to name a few.

Engineering is a little different. Totally depends on the type of engineering you're going for but e.g Electronic and Electrical Engineering masters needs EEE undergrad but by the heavy mathematical nature of some branches is often pursued by mathematicians or physicists.

You're spot on.

For example, I'd love to see how I'm-the-best-read-person-in-the-world (so he claims ) worm gets on in my specialist area using just his research skills. Out of his depth would be a massive understatement.

[worm]

that's what you get from being a fully formed adult, degree or not.

[eFestivals]

Thank you. This is what I've been saying.

Would you agree with the idea that a Master's can't be that difficult as it doesn't require a background knowledge picked up at Bachelor degree level? Or would you, like I, say that there is a significant difference in intensity at Masters level that requires evidence of discipline and commitment rather than background knowledge?

PMSL.

Of course, the person who drags themselves out of bed each and every day to put in 8 hours hard labour in their job has no "evidence of discipline and commitment".

And of course they have a far lower "evidence of discipline and commitment" than a lazy-arsed student who may or may not bother to get out of bed to go to all of the lectures and seminars and tutorials that are scheduled as a part of their course.

And don't even start me off about reading lists.

Worm constantly proves he's no knowledge of the real world that most of us live in.