we have separate software for that, usually course dependent
ive had a couple tests on it, quizzes too.
with both ive had them lose connection and require my professor to reset the test so i can retry . .
with both ive had them lose connection and require my professor to reset the test so i can retry . .
I've heard people complain about it, but never knew some people had to take tests on it. For me, it was mostly getting powerpoints of lectures or links to articles to read.
Yeah I had multiple choice quizzes on blackboard.DesertFox- wrote:
I've heard people complain about it, but never knew some people had to take tests on it. For me, it was mostly getting powerpoints of lectures or links to articles to read.
blackboard is even worst when a teacher dumps every file on there without having subfolders.
Never had to use blackboard. We use sakai, our own in house system. Middle Screen.
It is an open source platform created by MIT, Standford, and a few other schools. Never had any issue with it other than the mobile version being a pain to download stuff with.
It is an open source platform created by MIT, Standford, and a few other schools. Never had any issue with it other than the mobile version being a pain to download stuff with.
I'd mercifully forgotten about blackboard until you knuckleheads decided to bring it up.
I'm sure your measly ~2 years of college experience on top of mine has given you a much more clear perspective on how the academic world works, yup. I wonder how many essays of fellow postgraduate students you've looked into and used for your own research. My bet is none, as few actually get published and most contain pages upon pages of stuff you already know. Sure, at the postgraduate level you're finally given the time to do some proper research but it's nevertheless the academic equivalent of baby steps.uzi wrote:
shocking i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. speak for yourself please. it is perfectly possible for people at postgraduate level to produce original work. work that is encouraged for publishing precisely because it contributes something new. perhaps not a 'new idea' on the scale of a grand theory like hegel's, but certainly a new and fresh contribution. i am one of them. i am far from unique. please tell me more about how you understand the academic world though, from your vantage as a bottom-feeding undergraduate. i'm sure you have it all figured out.
I don't see how writing on hegel would be much different, really.uzi wrote:
i think at root you are making the (pretty grave) mistake of assuming all academic disciplines are like history-- or even like military history, which is (in)famous for being the stuffiest and most orthodox of all history. the thing is with the way 'work' and research is done in history, is that you have strict professional taboos around hermeneutics. interpretation and creativity are shunned when you do historical work - it is (rightfully) seen as irresponsible, and haphazard - and so thus all that is left for the junior student is re-presentation of existing historical fact and argument. it's very hard to have a truly original and legitimate idea in the early stages of a history career, true. there's a lot of historiographical orthodoxy and rule to get over. in other humanities, and even in 'core' research for science/maths, originality of approach and 'creative thinking' is encouraged. this is the huge error you are making. i've been encouraged by a (literally) world-leading joseph conrad scholar - someone in the world top 10 when it comes to eminent scholars - to publish undergraduate work i did on conrad. that's original work performed on an author whose works and thought are all 100+ years old. so please don't tell me it will take "20 years" to produce something 'publishable' or 'worth reading'. you look like a fucking idiot. especially with your self-assured undergraduate tone.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-24 07:38:36)
inane little opines
postgraduate study is an entirely different affair to undergraduate. it is not directed in any way, and you are expected to communicate and cooperate with your peers as professionals, rather than students. the entire set-up and atmosphere is changed. you are no longer a subordinate student, reporting to an academic superior, you are a peer, engaging in research and busying yourself (mostly) with the task of becoming 'professionalized' to the discipline - i.e. in formal writing/work, research methodologies, side-tasks such as conference/seminar/lecture organization, etc. postgraduate 'study' is more like academia as a job, rather than another "measly 2 years of college experience". plus, i have actually been asked and pushed to publish things from my 3rd year finalist studies, so i quite demonstrably am years ahead of you - if only figuratively, rather than literally. sorry.
and no, it is not "baby steps". you are expected to publish work at the same quality as full-time career academics. there are very few "baby journals" or "creche scholarship" centres for early-career academics. the journals you submit to are peer-reviewed by heavy-hitters, and you will be published in pages alongside academics of all stature and seniority. they don't look at your work and say "d'aww, look, he's in his first few years of a PhD thesis, what a youngster! let's stick him in the front". either you meet the formal/professional standards (fairly international standards in the west, too), or you don't. you either get accepted for submitting or you don't. "baby steps" in your own personal learning, maybe. maybe you're still taking time to read new ideas and still explore areas of the discipline you hadn't previously encountered. but 40 year old academics still do this. if you had to literally familiarize yourself with everything and 'bring yourself up to the level' (whatever 'the level' is...) before becoming a 'fully-fledged' academic, you'd be 100 years old. there is fucking centuries of material to learn and read. you never stop acquiring new knowledge, or research interests. the point is that postgraduate researchers are able to conduct research, read/analyse/assess, and contribute NEW thought and NEW material for publication. that's their 'process'. not "baby steps catching up". you misunderstand it, terribly. so my "measly 2 years" evidently show a far greater understanding... again.
oh and i have used many other people's PhD theses towards my own work, in consideration, and in reading. lots of postgraduate work. it's probably telling that the MHRA style guide especially has a section on how to reference others' theses, i.e. non-journal work. most university libraries will keep an archive/repository of their own institutions PhD's, you know. it's a done-thing. get. a. clue.
and no, it is not "baby steps". you are expected to publish work at the same quality as full-time career academics. there are very few "baby journals" or "creche scholarship" centres for early-career academics. the journals you submit to are peer-reviewed by heavy-hitters, and you will be published in pages alongside academics of all stature and seniority. they don't look at your work and say "d'aww, look, he's in his first few years of a PhD thesis, what a youngster! let's stick him in the front". either you meet the formal/professional standards (fairly international standards in the west, too), or you don't. you either get accepted for submitting or you don't. "baby steps" in your own personal learning, maybe. maybe you're still taking time to read new ideas and still explore areas of the discipline you hadn't previously encountered. but 40 year old academics still do this. if you had to literally familiarize yourself with everything and 'bring yourself up to the level' (whatever 'the level' is...) before becoming a 'fully-fledged' academic, you'd be 100 years old. there is fucking centuries of material to learn and read. you never stop acquiring new knowledge, or research interests. the point is that postgraduate researchers are able to conduct research, read/analyse/assess, and contribute NEW thought and NEW material for publication. that's their 'process'. not "baby steps catching up". you misunderstand it, terribly. so my "measly 2 years" evidently show a far greater understanding... again.
oh and i have used many other people's PhD theses towards my own work, in consideration, and in reading. lots of postgraduate work. it's probably telling that the MHRA style guide especially has a section on how to reference others' theses, i.e. non-journal work. most university libraries will keep an archive/repository of their own institutions PhD's, you know. it's a done-thing. get. a. clue.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-24 07:47:37)
well then you are clueless. post/neo-hegelian research has always been a huge area of philosophy research. the hegelian dialectic method can be applied to a myriad number of things. but no, you're right, scholars/academics cannot ever contribute anything new, and spend 30-40 years just repeating the previous thinker. just like how marx and engels built a whole system of thought off hegel, eh? just like how the entire frankfurt school in the 1940's and 1950's revised hegelian dialectics. just like how neo-hegelianism is blooming in germany today. nope. people just infinitely repeating the old stuff.Shocking wrote:
I don't see how writing on hegel would be much different, really.
please get a clue. you're supposed to be at a good college.
I don't know the details of hegelian philosophy and your field and won't pretend to. I assumed hegel is to philosophy much like what clausewitz is to military theory (whose thoughts and writings are also still very much relevant and alive today)
There's meeting the quality standard and there's development on a personal level - as you stated, 40-50 year old academics still learn new things and revise their old work every day. I doubt many of them are still very satisfied and proud with stuff they've written 20-30 years back. Admittedly, my experience with postgraduate work comes mostly from fields which are rather orthodox and 'stuffy' in approach, leading me to conclude that it's very hard to finally 'get into the field' and put out some original thought or even ideas. (I'm the youngest in a family where 3 have already gotten postgraduate degrees (one history/international relations, the other law, third neuropsychology)).
There's meeting the quality standard and there's development on a personal level - as you stated, 40-50 year old academics still learn new things and revise their old work every day. I doubt many of them are still very satisfied and proud with stuff they've written 20-30 years back. Admittedly, my experience with postgraduate work comes mostly from fields which are rather orthodox and 'stuffy' in approach, leading me to conclude that it's very hard to finally 'get into the field' and put out some original thought or even ideas. (I'm the youngest in a family where 3 have already gotten postgraduate degrees (one history/international relations, the other law, third neuropsychology)).
Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-24 08:10:14)
inane little opines
you started out in that other thread saying you didn't want to brag about your marks, now you're telling us how qualified the rest of your family are? ok dude. no one cares. it is not hard to publish original new material on hegel. his thought and method is huge, and can be applied to just about anything. i am working on a paper right now that considers the dialectic of Modernism and modernity through a post-marxist reading of hegel, pace adorno et al, discussing the aesthetic autonomy of art stipulated by idealists such as hegel/kant and its relation to commodity values and the market. but no, nothing original can be said about hegel (even though the whole reason i am revising my current paper is because it is original enough to be published).
here's a hint, when it comes to rhetoric and debate: don't start making huge dismissive pronouncements, but then hedge your next post with "i don't know the details and won't pretend to". like i said, at roots it's a methodological difference: in history, new interpretations and original/creative thinking is sort of shunned, or at least approached with timidity and reserve. in philosophy, and especially literature - as well as in high-level science and maths - originality and 'lateral' thinking about problems/concepts has rich reward. you can't really have an original view on a war that occurred 700 years ago and only has a finite number of historical sources/documents. the whole point of a (great) novel or work of philosophy is to have interest and applicability far outside of its time-frame. the best novels are novels that transcend their period or context, and still have things to say to us, today, and in the future. thus there is room for original thinking, and 'new' work. like i said in my first post, don't dismiss all of postgraduate research because of your own singular experience. especially when you demonstrate such a pitiable lack of understanding/experience in other disciplines, or inter-disciplinary work. how you can even say you "assume" a thinker like hegel is like a military theorist is absolutely laughable. do you have any idea what hegel's thought is? how many topics it entailed? hegel proposed an entirely new conception of intellectual thought. he posed an entirely new model of history. not quite a stuffy military theorist.
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
here's a hint, when it comes to rhetoric and debate: don't start making huge dismissive pronouncements, but then hedge your next post with "i don't know the details and won't pretend to". like i said, at roots it's a methodological difference: in history, new interpretations and original/creative thinking is sort of shunned, or at least approached with timidity and reserve. in philosophy, and especially literature - as well as in high-level science and maths - originality and 'lateral' thinking about problems/concepts has rich reward. you can't really have an original view on a war that occurred 700 years ago and only has a finite number of historical sources/documents. the whole point of a (great) novel or work of philosophy is to have interest and applicability far outside of its time-frame. the best novels are novels that transcend their period or context, and still have things to say to us, today, and in the future. thus there is room for original thinking, and 'new' work. like i said in my first post, don't dismiss all of postgraduate research because of your own singular experience. especially when you demonstrate such a pitiable lack of understanding/experience in other disciplines, or inter-disciplinary work. how you can even say you "assume" a thinker like hegel is like a military theorist is absolutely laughable. do you have any idea what hegel's thought is? how many topics it entailed? hegel proposed an entirely new conception of intellectual thought. he posed an entirely new model of history. not quite a stuffy military theorist.
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-24 08:14:26)
I was agreeing with you and stated why, my family was relevant to the point. Will read the rest later.
inane little opines
Top lel.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
Fuck Israel
i was including myself in that list. although i wasn't nearly as cocky as he was about postgraduate research, claiming to be able to speak for other disciplines and the whole life-career. i've also never said anything cocky or arrogant to put down science/stem/engineering/academic research in other fields. so i'm not exactly seeing the "top lel". but then again you'll claim my comments about accountancy degrees are "cocky and presumptuous", just to be a contrarian, because you know damn well yourself you think they are lightweight bullshit, too.Dilbert_X wrote:
Top lel.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
I made 'dismissive pronouncements' on postgraduate degrees. I didn't attack hegel (or you, on hegel) and I'll overlook your assesment of clausewitz as 'some stuffy military theorist' because I'm really not into dragging people with no knowledge of him into a discussion about him to then berate them for not knowing much about his work. I know you're fond of that sort of thing when it comes to philosophy uzi but you might as well walk into a playground and beat up a toddler. Yes, I'm aware who hegel is and of his influence in various fields but that's as far as my knowledge on him extends.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you started out in that other thread saying you didn't want to brag about your marks, now you're telling us how qualified the rest of your family are? ok dude. no one cares. it is not hard to publish original new material on hegel. his thought and method is huge, and can be applied to just about anything. i am working on a paper right now that considers the dialectic of Modernism and modernity through a post-marxist reading of hegel, pace adorno et al, discussing the aesthetic autonomy of art stipulated by idealists such as hegel/kant and its relation to commodity values and the market. but no, nothing original can be said about hegel (even though the whole reason i am revising my current paper is because it is original enough to be published).
here's a hint, when it comes to rhetoric and debate: don't start making huge dismissive pronouncements, but then hedge your next post with "i don't know the details and won't pretend to". like i said, at roots it's a methodological difference: in history, new interpretations and original/creative thinking is sort of shunned, or at least approached with timidity and reserve. in philosophy, and especially literature - as well as in high-level science and maths - originality and 'lateral' thinking about problems/concepts has rich reward. you can't really have an original view on a war that occurred 700 years ago and only has a finite number of historical sources/documents. the whole point of a (great) novel or work of philosophy is to have interest and applicability far outside of its time-frame. the best novels are novels that transcend their period or context, and still have things to say to us, today, and in the future. thus there is room for original thinking, and 'new' work. like i said in my first post, don't dismiss all of postgraduate research because of your own singular experience. especially when you demonstrate such a pitiable lack of understanding/experience in other disciplines, or inter-disciplinary work. how you can even say you "assume" a thinker like hegel is like a military theorist is absolutely laughable. do you have any idea what hegel's thought is? how many topics it entailed? hegel proposed an entirely new conception of intellectual thought. he posed an entirely new model of history. not quite a stuffy military theorist.
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-25 14:47:49)
inane little opines
that's not "knowledge" then is it. so why are you saying:
'dismissive' pronouncements on postgraduate degrees? why? again it seems like you're extending your experience with military/war history (or even the marking/assessment of work at your institution) to cover all postgraduate degrees. a little bit dumb, no?
when your only knowledge of his thought is that 'it's important and influential'? how tokenistic. "i heard somewhere he was big, but i don't see how postgraduates writing on him could be original, 'cause, well... uuh, i don't know anything about him. it's just a hunch". okay. great argument.I don't see how writing on hegel would be much different, really.
'dismissive' pronouncements on postgraduate degrees? why? again it seems like you're extending your experience with military/war history (or even the marking/assessment of work at your institution) to cover all postgraduate degrees. a little bit dumb, no?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-25 15:06:18)
I read "Principles of War". It wasn't anything special. Essentially it boiled down to 'be quicker with your movements than your enemy, and be able to concentrate your forces rapidly". Didn't need the Austro-Prussian war to figure that one out, it's how Napoleon won his battles, and Wellington after him, and every great leader since time immemorial. He's an ok prose writer as military theorists go, but he's not the be-all, end-all.Shocking wrote:
I made 'dismissive pronouncements' on postgraduate degrees. I didn't attack hegel (or you, on hegel) and I'll overlook your assesment of clausewitz as 'some stuffy military theorist' because I'm really not into dragging people with no knowledge of him into a discussion about him to then berate them for not knowing much about his work. I know you're fond of that sort of thing when it comes to philosophy uzi but you might as well walk into a playground and beat up a toddler. Yes, I'm aware who hegel is and of his influence in various fields but that's as far as my knowledge on him extends.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
you started out in that other thread saying you didn't want to brag about your marks, now you're telling us how qualified the rest of your family are? ok dude. no one cares. it is not hard to publish original new material on hegel. his thought and method is huge, and can be applied to just about anything. i am working on a paper right now that considers the dialectic of Modernism and modernity through a post-marxist reading of hegel, pace adorno et al, discussing the aesthetic autonomy of art stipulated by idealists such as hegel/kant and its relation to commodity values and the market. but no, nothing original can be said about hegel (even though the whole reason i am revising my current paper is because it is original enough to be published).
here's a hint, when it comes to rhetoric and debate: don't start making huge dismissive pronouncements, but then hedge your next post with "i don't know the details and won't pretend to". like i said, at roots it's a methodological difference: in history, new interpretations and original/creative thinking is sort of shunned, or at least approached with timidity and reserve. in philosophy, and especially literature - as well as in high-level science and maths - originality and 'lateral' thinking about problems/concepts has rich reward. you can't really have an original view on a war that occurred 700 years ago and only has a finite number of historical sources/documents. the whole point of a (great) novel or work of philosophy is to have interest and applicability far outside of its time-frame. the best novels are novels that transcend their period or context, and still have things to say to us, today, and in the future. thus there is room for original thinking, and 'new' work. like i said in my first post, don't dismiss all of postgraduate research because of your own singular experience. especially when you demonstrate such a pitiable lack of understanding/experience in other disciplines, or inter-disciplinary work. how you can even say you "assume" a thinker like hegel is like a military theorist is absolutely laughable. do you have any idea what hegel's thought is? how many topics it entailed? hegel proposed an entirely new conception of intellectual thought. he posed an entirely new model of history. not quite a stuffy military theorist.
you have the cocky tone of an undergrad who has nearly finished his finals, and thinks he knows shit. it's fine. everyone who has a degree has been there.
Last edited by Jay (2013-05-25 18:04:29)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
principles of war is not the magnum opus of clausewitz's work or why he is such a 'big deal'. It's just a somewhat irrelevant essay and nowhere near the quality of his later work. That would be his study of strategic thought and war as a phenomenon in On War. Clausewitzian thought on military affairs and the trinitarian model has since dominated military strategy and thinking from 1870 on and still does. It's pretty much the most important work on strategy, ever. On that much is a consensus whether people agree with his line of thinking or not - clausewitz is taught as a basis for any academic education in military affairs anywhere (and still revisited throughout).
Now I wouldn't go out and buy 'On War' and just read it as it's a mess of dialectic argumentation, a 'metaphysical fog' if you will, impossible to fully decipher or understand without either scholarly help or a firm academic basis to draw from (not to mention that it's pretty huge in its entirity). It would be a better idea to read martin van creveld's transformation of war as it features a comprehensive interpretation of some of the most important of clausewitz's ideas and analyses (which creveld argues against).
Now I wouldn't go out and buy 'On War' and just read it as it's a mess of dialectic argumentation, a 'metaphysical fog' if you will, impossible to fully decipher or understand without either scholarly help or a firm academic basis to draw from (not to mention that it's pretty huge in its entirity). It would be a better idea to read martin van creveld's transformation of war as it features a comprehensive interpretation of some of the most important of clausewitz's ideas and analyses (which creveld argues against).
Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-26 03:19:54)
inane little opines
i like how quickly this went from:
"listen i'm not gonna spend my time waving around my dick going on about specialist stuff on hegel that no one cares about, and talking about irrelevant academic marks. all postgrad education is a joke and nobody adds anything new, it's baby-steps, it's simple, stop talking about it..."
to:
"let me tell you all the qualifications my extended family has, and hold forth and give in-depth analysis and book recommendations about my own preferred scholar. oh and by the way i haven't had much experience with postgraduate education and i don't really know what i'm talking about".
were you having a bad day, honey?
"listen i'm not gonna spend my time waving around my dick going on about specialist stuff on hegel that no one cares about, and talking about irrelevant academic marks. all postgrad education is a joke and nobody adds anything new, it's baby-steps, it's simple, stop talking about it..."
to:
"let me tell you all the qualifications my extended family has, and hold forth and give in-depth analysis and book recommendations about my own preferred scholar. oh and by the way i haven't had much experience with postgraduate education and i don't really know what i'm talking about".
were you having a bad day, honey?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-26 04:53:52)
You can stop trying to flame bait me because I really don't care. You're not an idiot and I'm sure you understand why I wrote the things I did, if not, well, that's a bit disappointing coming from someone boasting about his mad skills in comprehending complex prose.
inane little opines
you are a child. directly contradict yourself when it suits you, then make some inane remark about "mad skills in comprehending prose". okay. so it's okay to post two paragraphs of abstruse stuff about clausewitz... right after you've waded into a discussion and told everyone that "no one gives a fuck" when they're talking about hegel. okay. maybe send a PM? seeing as you're so competent in identifying when the rest of the forum don't give a fuck about your preening.
some really robust arguments offered in response to my post about postgraduate education & originality, as well. "i'll reply to the rest later". what later is that, then? after you've climbed down off the soapbox from regurgitating your undergraduate dissertation to jay? okay. i'll be right here, waiting. i look forward to you following up that comprehensively authoritative tone you adopted in your first dismissive post with some actual fact and/or experience. so far i see an undergrad in a stuffy side-corridor of history - the dying discipline within history, in fact - making pronouncements that far exceed his intellectual scope and personal experience. i eagerly await your response xoxo.
some really robust arguments offered in response to my post about postgraduate education & originality, as well. "i'll reply to the rest later". what later is that, then? after you've climbed down off the soapbox from regurgitating your undergraduate dissertation to jay? okay. i'll be right here, waiting. i look forward to you following up that comprehensively authoritative tone you adopted in your first dismissive post with some actual fact and/or experience. so far i see an undergrad in a stuffy side-corridor of history - the dying discipline within history, in fact - making pronouncements that far exceed his intellectual scope and personal experience. i eagerly await your response xoxo.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-26 05:07:21)
I was responding to jay as he responded to me. I don't see the problem. You remember how this all started? Because you continouosly need to remind people how awesome you are. I'm beginning to think that you don't get the acknowledgement you so crave from your peers in the real world so you look for it on the internet.
Want my view on postgraduate work and how it already is up there with the rest of the academic world? That's a load of shit. If you meet the standard you are awarded a postgrad degree - which means your works have been universally acknowledged as being up to par. Sure, there's those moments someone might be pushed to publish something they've written while doing their postgrad degree or even undergrad. To my knowledge, postgrad theses are usually published by unis, though that is at the end of the degree. When you are given the qualification. When you meet the standard. While you're still following one, you're still in training, still being tutored and still subject to constraints (though definitely not as bad as in undergrad study, I had already admitted that more leeway and time is given in postgrad and that it is the first moment at which you are actually allowed to do some proper research).
Want my view on postgraduate work and how it already is up there with the rest of the academic world? That's a load of shit. If you meet the standard you are awarded a postgrad degree - which means your works have been universally acknowledged as being up to par. Sure, there's those moments someone might be pushed to publish something they've written while doing their postgrad degree or even undergrad. To my knowledge, postgrad theses are usually published by unis, though that is at the end of the degree. When you are given the qualification. When you meet the standard. While you're still following one, you're still in training, still being tutored and still subject to constraints (though definitely not as bad as in undergrad study, I had already admitted that more leeway and time is given in postgrad and that it is the first moment at which you are actually allowed to do some proper research).
Last edited by Shocking (2013-05-26 05:19:10)
inane little opines
yes, i don't get the acknowledgement i crave from my peers would you like to see my transcripts? oh baby.
and anyone could use that same excuse. "i was just responding to someone else". do YOU remember how it all started? jay talking shit about history teachers. sorry but don't think i want to bring up hegelian dialectics in a movies thread. i think you should do a little more research before you post, you little well-trained scholar, you.
and no, as i have already said, three times now, postgraduates are free to publish in full academic journals, if they wish/if they have an idea good enough and worthy of submitting. whether or not everyone who takes a postgraduate master's degree wants to become a fully-fledged academic and go through the effort/expense is quite another matter- but that doesn't say anything about the quality of 'postgraduate education'. master's degrees and PhD's are there to train people as researchers, to do research. the fact that a master's degree has just adopted a secondary function as a 'bonus qualification' in the real world workplace, i.e. the fact not everyone taking them is literally going to follow the research path it is intended for, is quite another matter. don't denigrate all of postgraduate education just because less than 100% of candidates actually want to be published. many do publish in journals that are not university-affiliated. my point about universities publishing PhD theses was in response to your "how many other postgrad's work have you read?" to which my answer was 'plenty'.
and anyone could use that same excuse. "i was just responding to someone else". do YOU remember how it all started? jay talking shit about history teachers. sorry but don't think i want to bring up hegelian dialectics in a movies thread. i think you should do a little more research before you post, you little well-trained scholar, you.
and no, as i have already said, three times now, postgraduates are free to publish in full academic journals, if they wish/if they have an idea good enough and worthy of submitting. whether or not everyone who takes a postgraduate master's degree wants to become a fully-fledged academic and go through the effort/expense is quite another matter- but that doesn't say anything about the quality of 'postgraduate education'. master's degrees and PhD's are there to train people as researchers, to do research. the fact that a master's degree has just adopted a secondary function as a 'bonus qualification' in the real world workplace, i.e. the fact not everyone taking them is literally going to follow the research path it is intended for, is quite another matter. don't denigrate all of postgraduate education just because less than 100% of candidates actually want to be published. many do publish in journals that are not university-affiliated. my point about universities publishing PhD theses was in response to your "how many other postgrad's work have you read?" to which my answer was 'plenty'.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-26 05:29:05)
By the time the uni published the PhD thesis the author in question has already been awarded his postgrad qualification. He/she met the standard. You acted as though the moment someone starts a postgrad degree that person is already expected to meet the quality standard demanded by academic journals (or, more importantly, by the university at which that person is doing the postgrad). Not so.
inane little opines
of course it's not so. never did i say that. i said postgraduate work is expected to satisfy some sort of 'originality'. you don't pass with high marks if all you do is regurgitate someone else's work/opinion. you made out that the process of postgrad work is basically "summarize a few thinkers and add two-three paragraphs of your own". that is LAUGHABLE. absolutely risible. even ordinary candidates, far from the journal-publishing caliber, will be expected to do far more than that to pass with decent marks. if that is your estimation of postgraduate work, then all i can say is: a) you are ignorant, or b) you have been exposed to a pretty shoddy course/department, if it gives you that impression.
what i did say is that a postgrad degree is the start of being treated as an equal/peer/adult in your studies, rather than a subordinate student who must please his 'teachers'. at postgrad level you are expected to write and engage with the ideas at the same level of thought as your supervisors - only you now have your own research interests, your own specialisms, your own niches. my supervisor said to me in an email very early on during my MA course, before i had started my thesis, that he was "looking forward to what i could teach him about [the topic in question]". i think that's a very telling remark. postgrad degrees are entirely about originality and about you taking charge of your own studies to produce YOUR work. not pass off a few other people's opinions and submit it for a pass mark. that may work for average students during undergraduate, but the expectation is far higher for postgraduate. it is meant to train researchers, not be another bar for people to simply 'match'. i cannot stress this enough. postgrad is not just another hoop to jump through, only with the material being a little more difficult/advanced-- in fact, in humanities, you will find concepts of 'graded difficulty' quite absurd. it's not like there's another 'master's level' area of intellectual content that was previously not being taught to you, that you must now simply demonstrate aptitude in to then 'pass' on to the next 'level' (you can write on hegel in the first-year of a philosophy degree; it's not like there's a 'hegel+4' for when you get to master's level). no, the entire difference between under- and post-graduate is that at post-graduate you are post-graduation, literally. you are after the level of basic 'required' proficiency. the idea, then, is to produce your own work, and to really start making the subject your own.
what i did say is that a postgrad degree is the start of being treated as an equal/peer/adult in your studies, rather than a subordinate student who must please his 'teachers'. at postgrad level you are expected to write and engage with the ideas at the same level of thought as your supervisors - only you now have your own research interests, your own specialisms, your own niches. my supervisor said to me in an email very early on during my MA course, before i had started my thesis, that he was "looking forward to what i could teach him about [the topic in question]". i think that's a very telling remark. postgrad degrees are entirely about originality and about you taking charge of your own studies to produce YOUR work. not pass off a few other people's opinions and submit it for a pass mark. that may work for average students during undergraduate, but the expectation is far higher for postgraduate. it is meant to train researchers, not be another bar for people to simply 'match'. i cannot stress this enough. postgrad is not just another hoop to jump through, only with the material being a little more difficult/advanced-- in fact, in humanities, you will find concepts of 'graded difficulty' quite absurd. it's not like there's another 'master's level' area of intellectual content that was previously not being taught to you, that you must now simply demonstrate aptitude in to then 'pass' on to the next 'level' (you can write on hegel in the first-year of a philosophy degree; it's not like there's a 'hegel+4' for when you get to master's level). no, the entire difference between under- and post-graduate is that at post-graduate you are post-graduation, literally. you are after the level of basic 'required' proficiency. the idea, then, is to produce your own work, and to really start making the subject your own.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-26 05:50:09)