Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:

An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
those things.

That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
education, and sometimes an excellent one.

Indeed. Apprenticeships were an excellent system, and it's a crying
shame that they are so few and far between these days.

I am also very annoyed by the way the old 'CASE' studentships were ruined
by the powers-that-be a decade or so ago.

For many years they allowed any academic and any company to co-operate and
have a postgrad doing R&D on a topic of their choice. They were easy to
get, and really superb for the students as well as the company.

Then the way they were organised was 'improved' (i.e. fouled up) by
requiring big companies to have 'quotas' for them. In effect blocking any
small companies or individuals who wanted to use them. Insane decision that
lost the UK many good student opportunities with practical and technical
relevance. But it suited the men from the ministry as it meant they were in
control and could announce 'big deals' with 'big companies' to make their
ministers look good.

Bit like large dam projects in the third world instead of allowing people
to install village wells and power systems. Looks good for the big chiefs,
but poorer value for those on the ground.

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I was/am used to the idea that experimentalists should be able to design,
built, and test their own kit. Not just buy it all from the HP and
Minicircuits catalogue without having a clue how it worked. But so far as
he was concerned a 'graduate' would simply get someone else to do all that
and just step in to take down the results and publish them. Weird.

This is all a very fine idea.... but where do those other people come from?

That's part of the problem, that there are very few actual technicians
being trained today. It's worse in the mechanical world... I think the
average age of the precision machinists at work is about sixty.
--scott

In the [not quite] real world where I worked it was fun to watch
the newly hired PhD's being given a lab space and equipment budget
but NO tech support for the first year. They had a heck of a lot of
catching up to do. Sort of the PhD equivalent of freshman washout
classes. G


Later...

Ron Capik
--

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:
How are they going to know how to find and use resources? Are you
suggesting that "technical people" are born with this innate ability?, or
do they absorb it with their Mother's milk?

It's not innate. People do read, watch, listen and learn you know.

Read what?, watch what?, and listen to what?

An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of those
things.

If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.

Some of my more awkward teaching moments arise with councillors. Two
spring to mind in the last couple of years - barely an O level between
them but with technical skill and ability well beyond mine - and that's
level 7 in this particular field. My role is relegated to trying to make
them fit within the constraints of a curriculum - one of the few times I
have to answer the question 'Why?' with 'Because I say so'. If they want
the qualification they're going to have to do as I advise. Not big or
clever, I know.


I really didn't understand much of that. By "councillors" do you mean people
who are members of county and district councils? Why would they be expected
to have technical skills? You say they have "technical skill and ability
well beyond mine". What skills? The word "technical" covers a multitude of
different things. In the world of audio, for example, there are "technical"
skills, such as using a soldering iron, that don't require higher education,
and skills such as those shown by Jim that, except for the rare geniuses of
this world, do. And I have no idea of what "level 7" means, nor what "field"
you are refering to.

Qualifications are sometimes categorised - L4 1st yr undergrad, to L7
postgrad. My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean
anything - and I have daily reminders.


Interestingly and at last research is starting to come out relating to the
myth of working class 'ignorance' - I saw something by Chris Allen at
Salford recently.

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


Could be ;-)

Rob

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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

FWIW The UK govenment claim that having a 'degree' boosts lifetime
earnings for UK residents by the order of a couple of hundred thousand
pounds [1] relative to other with the same school results but no
degree. However a BBC Radio 4 program ('More or Less') that looks at
the use of statistics investigated this.

It found what you might expect. That when you take
depeciation/inflation into account and analyse by subject then...

Computer science and physical science/eng/maths grads tend to do
rather better than the generalised average.

...but on average 'art' grads earn over a lifetime *less* if they went
to Uni for a degree.

Moral there somewhere, I guess. :-)


Well, perhaps one moral might be to look at the remit and design of the
research :-)

Earnings can also be related to gender, ethnicity, class and age for
example. Simply correlating degree type and earnings doesn't tell you a
great deal about anything.

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. 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.

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.

Depends what you want to hear, I suppose.

Well, if you are in the UK you can hear it for yourself. :-) The program
was broadcast on Friday, so should still be on the BBC iPlayer 'listen
again', etc. They explained in detail how they had examined the figures. If
you find a flaw in their approach, let us know. Indeed, you can also email
them as they actively encourage that from listeners. I know from previous
programs that they do sometime correct what they said and acknowledge that
an email pointed out their error. So now's your chance. :-)

The point of the program is to re-examine the 'statistics' the government
and other issue to see if they actually mean what the issuers claim. I find
it an excellent program as it often uncovers ways in which dubious
conclusions are drawn from misuse of 'statistics'.

The R4 'Media Program' is also worth a listen IMO. They recently discussed
'media studies' and gave quite a range of views as the speakers on the
program included people involved with teaching and assessing such topics.


Yes, thanks for that, will do.

Rob

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

David Looser wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
those
things.
That is the purpose of an apprenticeship. And an apprenticeship IS an
education, and sometimes an excellent one.

Indeed. Apprenticeships were an excellent system, and it's a crying shame
that they are so few and far between these days.

IMHO, it's because the education industry wants a cut and thus
has lobbied for documentation of just about everything.

It doesn't come with a certificate
at the end, though.

No? Those that I know anything about did. And if it's for anything more than
a purely physical skill it will include class-room tuition at a level
appropriate to the job for which the apprentice is being trained, up to and
including university level.

David.

Bureaucrats need documentation. For them job performance doesn't
seem to matter if the proper credentials aren't there. Again,
class-room/tuition ...education industry mindset. [Damn, I'm
starting to sound like I'm anti education, I'm not, but much
of the mindless certification gets to me at times.]

If I hire a contractor to work on my house I'd care a lot more
about his previous work(s) than his degrees or certificates.



Later...

Ron Capik
--

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:

An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
those things.

If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.

Since education leads to qualifications (except for those who fail to
benefit from it) I'm not sure I follow your point.


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?

My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean anything - and I
have daily reminders.

Hmm... It seems to me that you are totally cynical about your own job. Not a
very good advert for your own skills are you?


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.

David.

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
David Looser wrote:
An uneducated person is unlikely to have the opportunity to do any of
those things.
If by undeducated you mean without many qualifications, nonsense.

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.

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. 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 ;-)

My point is that qualifications don't necessarily mean anything - and I
have daily reminders.

Hmm... It seems to me that you are totally cynical about your own job. Not a
very good advert for your own skills are you?

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. Neither is it in
spite - the *process* of education can be illuminating as well.

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.


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

Rob

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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.


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.

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.

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."

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.

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

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.


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'?

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

Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod
 

"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.

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?

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?

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?

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. 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.

David.