BF2S Forums College discussion thread

don't take arabic if you're not dedicated.

i would recommend french.

Macbeth wrote:

Just saw my advisor. I wanted to take a Spanish class so I could finally learn the language. But I can't take a beginner class since I did two years in high school. I can't take an intermediate class because I didn't learn shit those two years in high school. I am too dumb for a higher level class and technically over educated for a lower one.

What language should I try to learn? No one uses Italian, French, or Portuguese around here.

Your logic fails. If you didn't learn shit in high school Spanish, just take a beginner class. It's a very useful language to know in the Americas.

Macbeth wrote:

Why would I take Arabic? I deal enough with you people at school. I'm taking a class on Middle eastern politics and another on Islamic civilization next semester. The one before I took a class on Ottoman history.

I hope they leave out stoning women with styrofoam rubble.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Why would I take Arabic? I deal enough with you people at school. I'm taking a class on Middle eastern politics and another on Islamic civilization next semester. The one before I took a class on Ottoman history.

you wouldn't make the cut.

i'm going to learn spanish fluently and then talk shit in front of spanish-americans who don't know the language.

relevant to the thread: arabic cultural festival at my school on monday.

They had a middle eastern cultural festival at my school a few weeks ago. I would have loved to attend and get some free food and smoke some hookah and pick up a middle eastern girl but I missed too many of that stupid exploration class.

Columbus did nothing wrong.

you're in favor of enslavement yet hate the prison industrial complex?

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2013-05-01 17:40:33)

should i attend this event?

there is always something to do.

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I have a very relaxed view on Spanish colonization.

My fall 2013 schedule. No Latin languages fit my schedule.

Post yours (everyone)

That's a dumb sched lol, all spread out and shit.

two days a week motherfucker.

Arts3814 = Australian Foreign Policy
MGMT3101 = International Business Strategy
MGMT3102 = East Asian Business Strategy

Only day there is a spread is Thursday. Every other day I have one class after another.

ask for an over-tally or a replacement class. they usually give you one if you're graduating soon.

Macbeth wrote:

How do you miss courses like that? Seniors get to register a week and a half of juniors who get a week ahead of sophomores etc.

The ones I missed out on were 3rd year courses (final graduating year) that only 3rd year students can enroll. They're all seminars so only have 35 placements for 100 people.

Taiwan: yeah when my problem came up they pretty much told me theyre trying their best to get new courses up... which they didn't and that pounded me in the ass. Wouldn't let me over tally because "it's already over capacity, were really sorry."

fucking budget cuts aye.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

loads of small colleges in the US are ranked very highly, are very highly selective, and considered academically prestigious. liberal arts colleges, for a start, even though they produce literally no research/postgraduates. many of the small ivy institutions are 'colleges', for e.g. dartmouth college. it seems like a minor semantic point. i just don't know why you chase this line of argument so doggedly. everytime you try to one-up someone on this forum, as i said, literally every other member could just turn around and say "yeah but my education is far more prestigious than yours". macbeth at rutgers would whup your ass with his polisci degree. i think this basic fact is what makes you uncomfortable, and wanting to impress.

At a Bachelors level research output of a University is wholly meaningless, and irrelevant.

no it's not, because the research output is an indication of academic quality, and at any good university you will be put directly in contact/lectures/tuition by those conducting research at the top of their fields. it is these scholars that DRAW UP and DESIGN your education - the course you study itself: it's their content, their design, normally their research, and of course their personal teaching. generally the rankings on research correlate almost exactly with the teaching assessments and evaluations - except for a few special examples, as mentioned, like the private liberal arts colleges. the 'research institution' has been the model of a 'top university' since about 1940 now, so you are completely deluded to say that research assessments have nothing to do with teaching quality. it's very simple: top researchers and leaders in their fields + these people teach you what they know, first hand, what they are seriously enthusiastic about and what they are world-leading in = better experience for you. it's also much better for the networking side of things, and for making serious academic contacts and finding suitable 'supervisors', if you are serious about your work. i.e. people who will really point you in the right directions, and take you beyond mere enthusiasm/interest in the topics, and get you on your way to being 'professionalized' and acculturated to the 'real' academic environment.

of course most of the universities' prestige comes from its postgraduate research, anyway. undergraduate is only always seen as just that: under-graduate. universities get their prestige and their special international prizes - the nobels, the fields, and what have you - from research, not undergraduate teaching. the whole game of prestige is leaned towards assessing what the members of staff get up to in their research concerns. effectively the entry to top universities is super competitive and super selective, all because the staff working in the departments are doing good 'world leading' research in their own work. that's the primary incentive and evaluation method used. it's just the way it works. the teaching assessments broadly agree, although it is much much harder to quantify and objectively 'rank' teaching standards, anyway.

only in america does the problem really come up when a prestigious 'research' university actually has bad teaching. this is because of the structure of the academic system there - basically all the low-end seminars and undergraduate teaching is palmed-off to workhorse PhD students, who are barely competent themselves. this happens in a few leading UK research universities (notably bristol and manchester), and they get pilloried in the rankings as a result. generally speaking, a university with a prestigious research profile is a university that attracts the most knowledgeable and expert academics. being taught by them is extremely valuable. i made some contacts in my very first year of university that are still keeping me in good-stead and have helped me with the oxford gig today. if i went to a college that was specialized in teaching only and had no research involvement, i would never have been able to cultivate those contacts, or be instructed in the 'professional-formal' sides of academic research. research is the name of the game, and top research scholars lead to top institutions. it's that simple. the god-tier of universities, the ones that can combine world-leading research scholars with a teaching environment that has personal, 2-5 person 'tutorial systems', are self-evident. oxbridge and ucl, for e.g. they combine the postgraduate strengths of world-leading scholars with a teaching environment that effectively gives you one-on-one tutoring with the very best. for all the rest, just being able to have regular contact and the services of 'the talent' is good enough.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-02 19:24:24)