New study shows college students lack common skills

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Wow, 100K. That's more than graduates of any of the degrees listed previously.

But the highest pay is in a town in Northern Alberta where there are very few women so there are trade-offs

[Asher]

Originally posted by Flubber
But the highest pay is in a town in Northern Alberta where there are very few women so there are trade-offs

So many benefits! Maybe I should head up north for a bit.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

The same idea is spread out across several paragraphs, some of which are only one sentence long. If you don't understand how to structure paragraphs by now, then it just becomes additional proof for the second statement you've quoted.

That's your problem. What counts as the "same" idea is a vague criterion.

So let's look..

You are missing the point.

One idea: the poster referred to is mistaken.

A great deal of what goes on in our society requires a simple set of skills. The ability to express oneself clearly and concisely in written language and in oral discussion. That's an extremely useful skill and one that graduates of science programs aren't taught (I should know: I get to mark their papers. Some of them are functional illiterates).

This is a new idea: that certain specific skills are useful.

And you missed the fact that I inserted a period instead of a colon, an actual mistake, which shows that your grammatical skills are lacking.

Have you ever sat down and looked at some of the business letters people write? Repetition, redundancies... ambiguities... the list goes on.

Again, a new idea. In essence: why don't you look at what people write....

That's what liberal arts educations are for if you aren't going in to academia.

A new paragraph here because it's a conclusion derived (tangentially) from the previous paragraphs (and not any particular one).

It's what high school is supposed to teach, but no longer does. So people like me have to pick up the slack while simultaneously trying to do right by the 10% of students who have some real interest and ability in the subject.

New idea here regarding the deficiencies of high school education and the results thereof.


Nice try...

[Asher]

I'm not biting, and your attempts to persuade me otherwise just highlight the ineptitude of your field of study.

A scientist can admit when he is wrong. Philosophers know such thing, since they make up the rules as they go along.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not biting, and your attempts to persuade me otherwise just highlight the ineptitude of your field of study.

A scientist can admit when he is wrong. Philosophers know such thing, since they make up the rules as they go along.

In other words: you lost, and you can't admit it. Ironic...

Oh.. and people and actions can be described as inept, not fields of study.

"History is inept" sounds rather strange. "Historians are inept" is correct.

[Asher]

You just did it again.

[Agathon]

uh no.. nice try though.

[Last Conformist]

Nice threadjacking.

[Fake Boris]

Asher, you're just wrong. You can get away with undergrad courses by reviewing the night before (not at the UdM though) and flip burgers, but if you want any shot at the higher ladder, there's a lot of work involved. IIRC the ratio of Ph. D/actual professors is about 20/1. Only the best get there. Competition begins right at the undergraduate level, and if you don't read whole books and commentaries, that's an extremely bad start for your Master.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Asher, you're just wrong. You can get away with undergrad courses by reviewing the night before (not at the UdM though) and flip burgers, but if you want any shot at the higher ladder, there's a lot of work involved. IIRC the ratio of Ph. D/actual professors is about 20/1. Only the best get there. Competition begins right at the undergraduate level, and if you don't read whole books and commentaries, that's an extremely bad start for your Master.

I don't care about graduate and post-graduate work. I'm talking about undergraduates, which is what this thread is about.

Graduates need to work more, but they clearly don't have to be very intelligent...

[Fake Boris]

Oh and take for instance my friend in French Literature. First year of studies, they have to read 100 novels, on top of the course work. Half of the students don't make it to the second year.

[Asher]

French Literature? Half the students don't make it to the second year because it's both extremely painful and extremely useless.

Doing lots of reading isn't exactly challenging work, it's what we call "busywork". Although it is necessary for such useless fields.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doing lots of reading isn't exactly challenging work, it's what we call "busywork".

Self-pwnage!

[Asher]

Reading is different than studying. Reading is reading literature, studying is reading and understanding textbooks.

[Japher]

Jon Miller is in college... case closed.