David Looser wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is set at
Master's
degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such knowledge and
understanding without formal training?
Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking about
technical people here. They know how to find and use resources -
probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.

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.

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.

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.


And the reason they can't acquire it "on the job" is that without
qualifications nobody is going to give them a job!


Yes, I think people know that that's generally what happens. Doesn't
make it *right* though!

Rob

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

I am surprised. In my experience the world of academia is even more
keen on formal qualifications than industry is. Senior academics
usually have doctorates. But not all disciplines are equal and I
don't know which discipline you are talking about.


I'd have thought in natural sciences you're right. I work in applied
social science in a new university. Maybe a quarter have PhDs. None of
our academic professors have a PhD. I have my own opinion about this
that I suspect is scarily close to your own :-;

FWIW In my experience it has become quite rare in the UK for a permanent
employed Uni academic in Physics or Engineering to not have a PhD. I have
worked with one or two exceptions, though. Indeed, when I was first
employed as a fixed-term 'postdoc' at Uni I didn't have a PhD so got that
later on. So people are sometimes employed in such roles on the basis of
relevant experience and aptitude judged in some other ways. :-)


If anything I think having a PhD might have been a hindrance at the
interview for my current job. None of the panel were strong academics,
and I spent a fair amount of time explaining how I could 'do' admin,
marketing and so forth. So yes, I think you could be right - I can
operate a photocopier like no other :-) which makes me a rather overpaid
and overqualified copier person - not unlike Stuart Pinkerton :-)


Mind you, the Prof who ran that group is both an outstanding
scientist/engineer and a real gentleman.


A rare set of qualities there. Makes all the difference.

Rob

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:56:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?

Most of these 'meja studies' type degrees are relatively new in the scheme
of things. Didn't exist in the UK when I started out.

You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.

It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject. It could study all the media in
the same way as an English degree studies just one.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:49:12 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"For CEng registration, this knowledge and understanding is
set at Master's
degree level". I wonder how one is going to acquire such
knowledge and
understanding without formal training?

Why couldn't you acquire it "on the job"? We're talking
about
technical people here. They know how to find and use
resources -
probably the same resources they'd study on a formal course.

The PE exams in USA are open book. Take as many in as you can
wheel or carry. You still get only 8 hours to answer 8 of the
24 questions you chose. 63% of the first time takers pass.
They all qualified with 4 year accredited degrees and have
years of real experience endorsed by many other PE's. Must be
an easy test huh?

peace
dawg pe

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:56:57 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?

Most of these 'meja studies' type degrees are relatively new in the scheme
of things. Didn't exist in the UK when I started out.

You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.

Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject.

Sadly many of the colleges in the UK seem to turn out technicians who want
to run before they can walk. Which can be extremely frustrating for the
individuals.

It could study all the media in
the same way as an English degree studies just one.

I doubt any one individual has a comprehensive knowledge of all the media.
Although plenty *think* they have.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:16:16 -0400, "Wecan do it"
wrote:

The PE exams in USA are open book. Take as many in as you can
wheel or carry. You still get only 8 hours to answer 8 of the
24 questions you chose. 63% of the first time takers pass.
They all qualified with 4 year accredited degrees and have
years of real experience endorsed by many other PE's. Must be
an easy test huh?

Or a badly aimed one. No way to tell from the data you've given.

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:42:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

You can argue about the utility of courses such as Full Sail offers.
But they aren't "Media Studies". If you're not clear what that term
means, Wikipedia describes it quite well.

Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

Nice wriggle! I suppose it's also OK to "use" reverb to mean echo
(no, hold on, they're too close), blue to mean green (that's better!)
......

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Arkansan Raider
wrote:
Wecan do it wrote:

ps: There is no PE for a sound guy.



LOL

Roger that.

So is someone who gradgimicates from Full Sail or Berklee with a
recording arts degree considered an operator or tech? Or just an intern?

I've always wanted to spend the time and money for a degree so I can
pour someone's coffee... ;^)

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.

Depends what you want to hear, I suppose.

Rob

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.

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.

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.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Laurence Payne
wrote:


Oh I know. I was using 'meja studies' to cover anything to do with
broadcasting and recording etc - as I said they are relatively new.

It doesn't HAVE to be a joke subject.

Sadly many of the colleges in the UK seem to turn out technicians who
want to run before they can walk. Which can be extremely frustrating for
the individuals.

I recall being shouted at by an aged professor of physics because the basic
'electronics' course I was giving physical science undergrads included
teaching them to solder and to build their own simple circuits. He was
furious that I was 'wasting their time', and that 'soldering was for
technicians, not graduates'. Fine for them to have lectures on
semiconductors and devices, but not to actually solder or make anything.

He was quite angry. And I was quite shocked by his reactions.

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.

Similarly, I feel that even theoreticians find it useful to appreciate how
the kit that gathers their data actually works. Helps them to avoid 'over
interpretation' of the data, and to see what improvements might be sensibly
asked for.

Alas, his view wasn't unique. I have come across one or two 'EE' grads who
can't solder, and Mech ones who can't tell brass from aluminimum when given
two lumps of metal and asked which is which. Again, this does seem weird to
me. I guess they just get lectures and computer simulations. Who needs to
solder when they have spice, etc? :-)

Mind you, I admit to being old-fashioned. Took decades to wean me off
FORTRAN onto 'C' and I still dislike people modelling with Mathcad,
Spreadsheets, etc. 8-]

Still... after 25 years, the labwork I put into the course is still there.
:-)

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