Rant about college students who...

[PrinceofWands]

are traditional students under 24, especially the running start ones who are 16 or 17. I have no problem with you being in school to further your education and experience but please PARTICIPATE! You have the greatest computational device ever conceived between your ears if only you'd use it when the professor speaks rather than assuming they know it all and treating education like a one-way process. Not only does it make you look dumb to see you sit there like a rock not answering or taking part, but you are competing for grades against people who are likely smarter and definitely have more life experience.

I've had those 18 year old 'new adults' in my classes who are 'too cool' to take part. The only time they open their mouth is to spout sports statistics, set up a WoW raid, or brag about who they banged at last night's kegger. They're totally uninvolved in their own education and are essentially wasting years of their life and thousands of dollars in exchange for a piece of paper with no value underwriting it. They actually sound and act like 13 year old pubescents now that I think about it.

We'd be having a discussion about core theories of society and politics and they won't say anything. They don't even ask questions even though they're probably voting for the first time in their lives and may be missing knowledge vital to fulfilling their civic duty. Meanwhile everyone else in class is looking at them with hope and pity as to why they won't just trust and value themselves enough to be hears.

Moral of the story is, if you're going to expend the resources to attend college, grow up and act your age. Losers.

That is all.


Post Script: I'm also incensed by college students who get on a public forum to rant about their superior ability and positions, but can't conjugate their way out of a paper sack. They say 'college students who Is a non-traditional student', or 'every time the professor speak'. Then they show that they can't use conjunctions or form compound sentences with 'Holy shit that's annoying, not only it makes you look dumb', and 'able to see through clothing, he was literally yelling'. Don't even get me started on tense failures such as 'actually sounded like a 16 year old kid the more he talks now that I think about it', or the verbal abortion which is 'I got this mid 40 year old guy'. Seriously, if you can't even write in proper English as a college student given an infinite amount of time and resources you have no business telling others how dumb THEY look.

 

[trigun500]

I feel like I'm on reddit

 

[The_Dude8]

weak parody.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The op is one of those liberal arts idealists that believes philosophy and history classes are vital to the intellectual development of a person of any major. 0/10.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The op is one of those liberal arts idealists that believes philosophy and history classes are vital to the intellectual development of a person of any major. 0/10.

Yes, damn me for thinking school should be about education. How dare I.

 

[gaidensensei]

Damn, I could have done a better parody. These two threads shows we need more parody education on ATOT.

 

[GotIssues]

If you are truly older and wiser, you'd have known that those same kids you mock seem to think they are God's gift to 1) women 2) academia 3) these forums, thus, they cannot be wrong in any way. They will all graduate with $80k/year jobs and be CEO in 8 years or less.

Frankly, I say let them look and act stupid. When they collide with the real world, they'll figure it out.

 

[Newbian]

Damn, I could have done a better parody. These two threads shows we need more parody education on ATOT.

But the question is will we only teach the kids about it or will we let the old folks be taught also at the same time?

You know one side is just going to annoy the other...

 

[Perknose]

The op is one of those liberal arts idealists that believes philosophy and history classes are vital to the intellectual development of a person of any major. 0/10.

They are inherently contributory to the development of any person's erudition and logical skills. You'e never had their benefit, and it shows.

You literally don't know what you are nevertheless opining about, and so exhibit the laughably smug self-assuredness of the confident ignoramus.

A decade or so from now, if your personal intellectual growth does not remain so sorrowfully stunted, you will look back and be embarrassed by what you just posted.

Mark Twain put it best; it may just take you a bit longer:

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, damn me for thinking school should be about education. How dare I.

History is useless education to an engineering major unless they find it interesting. I lucked out with a college that has a Constitution class mixed with the history of WWI-WW2 Germany and its inter-war constitution and happened to enjoy it, but I know that a lot of people had no use for it, and it was not a remotely challenging class so one can not argue that it taught me how to better comprehend large bodies of text or regurgitate historical facts in essay form.

They are inherently contributory to the development of any person's erudition and logical skills. You'e never had their benefit, and it shows.

You literally don't know what you are nevertheless opining about, and so exhibit the laughably smug self-assuredness of the confident ignoramus.

A decade or so from now, if your personal intellectual growth does not remain so sorrowfully stunted, you will look back and be embarrassed by what you just posted.

Mark Twain put it best; it may just take you a bit longer:

There is no content in this post to refute with anything more than a simple "no u". So no u.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Hmmm... bit too vitriolic and soap-boxy for a parody. 2/10

And liberal arts classes are about teaching you HOW to think. The problem is at a lot of CCs and crappier colleges they're just BS fluff that fills time and you're not actually learning how to think. Go over to P&N and look at all the people who can't manage to form a well thought out and written argument. That's all the proof you need.

 

[PrinceofWands]

History is useless education to an engineering major unless they find it interesting. I lucked out with a college that has a Constitution class mixed with the history of WWI-WW2 Germany and its inter-war constitution and happened to enjoy it, but I know that a lot of people had no use for it, and it was not a remotely challenging class so one can not argue that it taught me how to better comprehend large bodies of text or regurgitate historical facts in essay form.

Well golly huck-finn, your one experience certainly defines all reality for the entire world and everyone in it. Thanks for sharing and saving everyone the trouble.

There is no such thing as useless education, only useless people education is wasted on. Getting a work credential is NOT education. The two are wholly unrelated. But then I wouldn't expect someone like you to even vaguely comprehend that.

 

[RampantAndroid]

snip

People go to college to smoke weed and booze and major in communications...college is mostly a joke these days. Ignore the other people there, get YOUR education and time in, learn what you can/want to and call it good.

Until the US system clamps down and stops allowing everyone in (move to something more like Germany's system) college will remain a joke in the US.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Hmmm... bit too vitriolic and soap-boxy for a parody. 2/10

Only partially a parody really. Mostly it was pointing out the subjectivity of the original thread owner's perceptions, and illustrating the irony of his labeling someone else as 'dumb' given his inability to master rudimentary grammar.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Only partially a parody really. Mostly it was pointing out the subjectivity of the original thread owner's perceptions, and illustrating the irony of his labeling someone else as 'dumb' given his inability to master rudimentary grammar.

oooooo a grammar attack, how original. Doesn't really change the fact that he is right. Of course, you're right too. I guess the rest of us left in the middle are left to navigate the turbulent waters of college classmate douchery. At least the lackadaisical young ones are easy enough to maneuver around and let discussion continue as normal for the people who give a shit. The old know-it-all blowhards on the other hand are just disruptive. Professors really just need to step up and shut the retards down.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Well golly huck-finn, your one experience certainly defines all reality for the entire world and everyone in it. Thanks for sharing and saving everyone the trouble.

There is no such thing as useless education, only useless people education is wasted on. Getting a work credential is NOT education. The two are wholly unrelated. But then I wouldn't expect someone like you to even vaguely comprehend that.

One technically *could* learn chemistry or physics or engineering all on their own, but generally the "work credential" system is set up to ensure that they do.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'm not generally TOO much of a grammar nazi. I mean, yeah I have peeves, but so does most everyone. When you're making an entire post about being in college where other people are dumb, however, you should at LEAST be writing at the 8th grade level. That post would receive an F in any school English class (or if it didn't would indicate the school system is entirely defunct).

A good number of professors are fairly appreciative of students who at least try and participate, or make an argument. Older students have a leg up in this, being more experienced and less shy in most cases. They're also often more genuinely invested in the education experience, meaning they're more likely to explore all the options. Yes, there are the totally over the top ones like Kroze mentioned, but they're few and far between. Far better to go too far and have to be reined in than not discuss at all and utterly waste the opportunity. Only a small portion of education comes from a single professors lecture. Remember, the unchallenged belief (fact) is no belief (or fact) worth having.

 

[Schfifty Five]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2175315

 

[PrinceofWands]

One technically *could* learn chemistry or physics or engineering all on their own, but generally the "work credential" system is set up to ensure that they do.

I realize that, and it's a personal peeve of mine. We DESPERATELY need to separate higher education from apprenticeship/internship/work credentials in this country. The two are almost entirely unrelated, and corrupt each other when forced together, making both inefficient and ineffective.

Someone wants to get a job as an engineer, let them apprentice/intern for it and get certified. That in no way qualifies them as holding a university degree. By the same token, getting a MEd (or even PhD) doesn't make you a teacher. Job and education, two entirely different things.

 

[JCH13]

I realize that, and it's a personal peeve of mine. We DESPERATELY need to separate higher education from apprenticeship/internship/work credentials in this country. The two are almost entirely unrelated, and corrupt each other when forced together, making both inefficient and ineffective.

Someone wants to get a job as an engineer, let them apprentice/intern for it and get certified. That in no way qualifies them as holding a university degree. By the same token, getting a MEd (or even PhD) doesn't make you a teacher. Job and education, two entirely different things.

Clearly you don't understand what an education in engineering is. Internships help, but higher learning is a majority of a complete engineering education. Few classes I have ever attended had as much student discussion and participation as my engineering classes. I find it a bit insulting that you think an internship and certification would equate to the amount of work I have done to earn a degree in engineering. I also graduated with enough liberal arts credits to earn a minor at a number of colleges, by requirement of a good education to make me a good engineer.

I do, however, support trade schools, apprentice ships, and the like. I am also a graduate of a trades school.

Maybe this is all semantics and you meant to say "technician"

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

0/10.

Stop whining. The author of the original thread was arguing and complaining over 40-year-old know-it-alls, not all 40-year-olds. And again, being old doesn't make you wise nor knowledgeable. As a matter of fact, you're very ignorant if you actually think that someone being old makes him so.

We don't need old people who think they're the greatest thing on Earth and they know everything to take up 15 minutes of class to tell us some stupid experience they had which many times goes from being somewhat relevant to something not having to do with class at all.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Clearly you don't understand what an education in engineering is. Internships help, but higher learning is a majority of a complete engineering education. Few classes I have ever attended had as much student discussion and participation as my engineering classes. I find it a bit insulting that you think an internship and certification would equate to the amount of work I have done to earn a degree in engineering. I also graduated with enough liberal arts credits to earn a minor at a number of colleges, by requirement of a good education to make me a good engineer.

I do, however, support trade schools, apprentice ships, and the like. I am also a graduate of a trades school.

Maybe this is all semantics and you meant to say "technician"

Yeah, I got into a hurry and into a huff. That was badly said on my part.

I realize engineering has a vast amount of actual education attached, and personally I'm all for making them professional degrees akin to law, medicine, theology, etc, but that's not how it's currently laid out. Right now they're some mutant hybrid of job credential and general university degree. They require more work, and in generally harder classes than most 'job' degrees, so it's not really fair to anybody.

HOWEVER, if you want them considered a 'professional degree' then you need to embrace the same philosophy as all the others, which includes undergrad studies including general ed material. If you look back throughout history the idea was that a 'professional' was a better caliber of person than a general worker, and so was expected to be broadly educated. That, and the challenges faced by most professionals are simply more intricate than those faced by 'average' workers, and so require the ability to draw from multiple disciplines...both for their success and societies continuation.

In truth, that's what ALL university degrees need to be. That's the ENTIRE point and purpose of post-secondary education along this track. Anyone wanting ONLY education and/or training in one specific field or duty needs to be in a trade/apprenticeship/internship/certification program designed to turn out workers in that field alone (who are therefore potentially, though not necessarily, incompetent in every other way). Nothing else is logically possible.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Clearly you don't understand what an education in engineering is. Internships help, but higher learning is a majority of a complete engineering education. Few classes I have ever attended had as much student discussion and participation as my engineering classes. I find it a bit insulting that you think an internship and certification would equate to the amount of work I have done to earn a degree in engineering. I also graduated with enough liberal arts credits to earn a minor at a number of colleges, by requirement of a good education to make me a good engineer.

I do, however, support trade schools, apprentice ships, and the like. I am also a graduate of a trades school.

Maybe this is all semantics and you meant to say "technician"

I'm 100% for trade schools too.

Also, while I was a Comp Eng major, I found the writing composition, western history (well, I had AP credits there), non western history, government and such classes pretty superfluous and prohibitive. They often were super low level and geared for people who didn't give a damn in the first place...in gov't class you had to worry about offending the profs (some would give you bad marks if you came off as leaning to the right. No joke.) Writing composition was combined with an English class where the prof had us read various political views/read about how badly the poor have it (and I'm not saying I feel no sympathy for them, but rather that it doesn't fit into the class.) Another prof (which I avoided) apparently would do her best to push her idea that Holmes and Watson were gay and had you read stuff to that effect...

(Before I rant more)...my point is that the liberal arts requirements for my engineering degree proved to just be a complete waste of my time. I either just glided through the class because I was so disgusted I didn't care, or in some cases (Judaism history class) because I knew a fair amount of it already (I went to catholic grade/middle/high school.) I preferred to just finish my MAJOR requirements, not my liberal arts requirements. I would have preferred being told "take X credits in the liberal arts" with no further guidelines. I'd have gone and taken art history, composition and drawing classes in a heartbeat. I didn't get what I wanted, and I paid through the nose to not get what I wanted. And I know I'm not alone in feeling that way - perhaps ANOTHER reason why people just don't seem to care.

As for engineering degrees...sure, internships don't do it all...but how much of your degree do you use? I changed to Comp Sci, and took plenty of theory classes for programming...I don't use one bit of it. I took database classes (required) and don't use that either. I took compiler design - and while interesting, it's also useless to me at my current job. I never see assembly. Sure, I understand a CPU much better now, but that really doesn't add too much. On the flip side, I do a lot of problem solving, and college didn't teach my anything there. I do things by trial and error more often than not. I learn that way, but I'm learning on my own.

For you CE or EE majors - how often do you need to find the thevenin resistance of a resistor network? So much theory that is taught really doesn't matter unless you pursue a masters or PHD, or go into research.

 

[Bignate603]

Yeah, I got into a hurry and into a huff. That was badly said on my part.

I realize engineering has a vast amount of actual education attached, and personally I'm all for making them professional degrees akin to law, medicine, theology, etc, but that's not how it's currently laid out. Right now they're some mutant hybrid of job credential and general university degree. They require more work, and in generally harder classes than most 'job' degrees, so it's not really fair to anybody.

You seem to misunderstand how they do accreditation for engineering degrees. To get a degree that's worth the paper that its printed on you need to go to an accredited school, meaning that its program meets certain requirements given by a governing body. Each school's program is regularly reviewed to make sure that it meets those requirements.

To get a real engineering position you need to have a degree from an accredited school. Without proof you meet the minimum requirements no one is going to talk to you. While it's not enforced by law like it is for doctors and lawyers it still is effectively a rule.

HOWEVER, if you want them considered a 'professional degree' then you need to embrace the same philosophy as all the others, which includes undergrad studies including general ed material. If you look back throughout history the idea was that a 'professional' was a better caliber of person than a general worker, and so was expected to be broadly educated. That, and the challenges faced by most professionals are simply more intricate than those faced by 'average' workers, and so require the ability to draw from multiple disciplines...both for their success and societies continuation.

Yes, that is why engineering degrees include gen ed classes. I don't really see your point. To get an engineering degree the school also requires them to take other courses to become well rounded. Most schools will require classes in writing, history, possibly a foreign language or art. I majored in engineering but took classes in world religions, medieval history, ancient civilizations, and quite a few other humanities. I really enjoyed them, as did most of my other engineering classmates. It gave us a chance to take things outside of our major that we just wanted to learn, rather than stuff we had to learn to meet the requirements for the engineering portion of our degree.

In truth, that's what ALL university degrees need to be. That's the ENTIRE point and purpose of post-secondary education along this track. Anyone wanting ONLY education and/or training in one specific field or duty needs to be in a trade/apprenticeship/internship/certification program designed to turn out workers in that field alone (who are therefore potentially, though not necessarily, incompetent in every other way).

That's what all university degrees (at least one from good universities) are. Every decent university has general ed requirements to give their students a breadth of knowledge, but then have them also go for depth in their major.

Nothing else is logically possible.

Obviously, because your logic is irrefutable.

What you described is pretty much what every good university practices. They require classes in all sorts of different fields. Some do it better than others, and some students chose their courses based on difficulty rather than broadening their mind, but in general almost every university gives you the tools to get a very broad knowledge of the world while getting your degree.

Of course, you're just going to argue against what I'm saying. Either you are going to say that what I just posted isn't true because it doesn't fit your preexisting view of the world or you are going to say that because people can chose not to take what you think is important the system as it stands now is broken. Either way, as you argue you'll end up turning more and more people against what you're claiming. Your long winded arguments have a tendency of turning people against your viewpoint.

 

[PrinceofWands]

You seem to misunderstand how they do accreditation for engineering degrees. To get a degree that's worth the paper that its printed on you need to go to an accredited school, meaning that its program meets certain requirements given by a governing body. Each school's program is regularly reviewed to make sure that it meets those requirements.

To get a real engineering position you need to have a degree from an accredited school. Without proof you meet the minimum requirements no one is going to talk to you. While it's not enforced by law like it is for doctors and lawyers it still is effectively a rule.

We're not talking about anything much more 'elite' than general post-secondary accreditation. Doing a search for schools that match your criteria gives a HUGE number of responses from any number of sources. In other words, most any school that becomes an accredited university in the first place is going to be able to put a program in place to get it for engineering from some body or another. And don't try that 'real' or 'worth the paper' bullshit, because that's purely subjective and has no basis of comparison outside the individual.

Moreover, I don't see anything I posted that would even get us on this subject.

Yes, that is why engineering degrees include gen ed classes. I don't really see your point. To get an engineering degree the school also requires them to take other courses to become well rounded. Most schools will require classes in writing, history, possibly a foreign language or art. I majored in engineering but took classes in world religions, medieval history, ancient civilizations, and quite a few other humanities. I really enjoyed them, as did most of my other engineering classmates. It gave us a chance to take things outside of our major that we just wanted to learn, rather than stuff we had to learn to meet the requirements for the engineering portion of our degree.

My point was wrapped in the people talking about how nothing but engineering classes were worth anything to engineers. I was educating them on the background of professional degrees.

That's what all university degrees (at least one from good universities) are. Every decent university has general ed requirements to give their students a breadth of knowledge, but then have them also go for depth in their major.

Yes, and more and more we get ignorant fucks complaining about 'I don't want to take basic arithmetic for my English degree', or the ever popular business major with another chorus of 'me dont' no y i has to learn english to rule a companies'. Again, I was supporting the basic purpose and methods of universities which are being argued against by OTHERS, not me.

Obviously, because your logic is irrefutable.

What you described is pretty much what every good university practices. They require classes in all sorts of different fields. Some do it better than others, and some students chose their courses based on difficulty rather than broadening their mind, but in general almost every university gives you the tools to get a very broad knowledge of the world while getting your degree.

Of course, you're just going to argue against what I'm saying. Either you are going to say that what I just posted isn't true because it doesn't fit your preexisting view of the world or you are going to say that because people can chose not to take what you think is important the system as it stands now is broken. Either way, as you argue you'll end up turning more and more people against what you're claiming. Your long winded arguments have a tendency of turning people against your viewpoint.

Why would I argue against what you're saying? You're supporting my points almost perfectly.

People get turned off because people are generally:

A) Ignorant

B) Egocentric

C) Lazy

D) All of the Above.


*hint - it's D*