The Bitching Thread

[Xelbair]

Honestly, some college profs are just bitter.

I think on some level, every professor understand that a significant portions of their students do not care.

You can't exactly blames the students either, since some Universities just add random classes that barely relates to the field.

My university does the that a bit too much - last semester(and partially in this one) i had more subjects relating to civil engineering(parts of civ eng that have NO relation to my course(Surveying) to clarify) than to Surveying...

I'm an accounting major and i can't tell you the number of times i've heard marketing majors complain about taking accounting classes. I can tell you with certainly that 99% of those people will never use this knowledge again in their professional life. It does not relate to what they're doing and someone in marketing will never have to deal with the financials.

Learning for the sake of learning is stupid and your education should accurately reflect your professional aim. There are simply too many damn college students who aimlessly go through college, learning a significant amount of useless information that does not benefit them in anyway and most of those ends up with a huge debt while being unemployed/at a shitty job.

"Earning your grades" is another stupid concept for teachers. Unless a person interest relate to the subject, there's a really damn good chance that they don't care about it as much as you do. The whole point of core classes to teach students a certain amount of basic knowledge about math/science/history that will let them function in a professional environment. The other skill you learn is how to properly follow instructions, every good teacher realizes this and will usually give a step-by-step process to solving problems. Making it harder for the students to "earn their grades" will do absolutely nothing but makes them despise the subject they already have no interest in.

I've met few different kinds of profs(that teach subjects not related to the course)
-One wants you to get interested in the subject, despite it being mildly related to your major, balancing on the tight line between being too lax and too strict.(my Mechanics prof and 90% of field related ones)

-Another one is really strict and thinks that it is the most important subject ever(despite it being a really niche one), and forces you to do shitload of stuff(that doesn't even teach anything - its just repetitive and tiring) 5% of field related ones, 25% of non-related ones

-Yet another one is too lax about everything and doesn't care at all. 5% of field related ones, 25% of non related

- and the last kind sees no difference between someone majoring in the field and someone unrelated to it, assumes(or doesn't even care) that you have all information required(which obviously is only in the specific course) and just gives you the same workload. 49% of non-related


Most ppl teaching the surveying-related stuff assume that you are interested in it, don't give that much workload and try to make the subject interesting.

[Dark Dragon]

Honestly, some college profs are just bitter.

I think on some level, every professor understand that a significant portions of their students do not care.

You can't exactly blames the students either, since some Universities just add random classes that barely relates to the field.

I'm an accounting major and i can't tell you the number of times i've heard marketing majors complain about taking accounting classes. I can tell you with certainly that 99% of those people will never use this knowledge again in their professional life. It does not relate to what they're doing and someone in marketing will never have to deal with the financials.

Learning for the sake of learning is stupid and your education should accurately reflect your professional aim. There are simply too many damn college students who aimlessly go through college, learning a significant amount of useless information that does not benefit them in anyway and most of those ends up with a huge debt while being unemployed/at a shitty job.

"Earning your grades" is another stupid concept for teachers. Unless a person interest relate to the subject, there's a really damn good chance that they don't care about it as much as you do. The whole point of core classes to teach students a certain amount of basic knowledge about math/science/history that will let them function in a professional environment. The other skill you learn is how to properly follow instructions, every good teacher realizes this and will usually give a step-by-step process to solving problems. Making it harder for the students to "earn their grades" will do absolutely nothing but makes them despise the subject they already have no interest in.

[Buffalobiian]

All of you seem to have so many unnecessary classes. In both my degrees every course was relevant. Some were more "industry specific" than others, but there was never anything out of the left field. On the other hand, my degrees allowed no room for personalisation of courses. Everybody does the same subject in the specified timetables set out by the school. Honours/non-Honour programs* are the only difference half-way during the year.


*In my health degrees, Honours are awarded to those who (are selected to) perform some form of research as part of their degree (in the second half). There are other degrees that award Honours based on academic proficiency.

[Animeniax]

I think a set degree plan with no room for personalization is just as bad as one that forces you to take some random courses that don't pertain to your field, though I liked my degree plan where you have electives that must satisfy fine arts (if you're a science major) and science classes (if you're a fine arts major).

I have to disagree with Dark Dragon in that I don't think they are a waste of time. Unless you know for sure what your future career will be, taking these other courses can open your mind to new ideas and career paths. Also, it's fun to meet people from other majors. I think it would suck to only be around engineering students if you're an engineering major, and equally if you are a liberal arts major who never gets to take classes with science majors. I think college should be more than just getting ready for your future job, but should focus mostly on that.

[Dark Dragon]

Basic level classes are fine, which gets people acquainted to the concepts.

What i'm talking about are mid to higher tier classes that people from other majors must take for some ridiculous reasons.

It's not to say that i think your degree should only focus on your major, but there's honestly too much padding in most degree plans i see nowadays.

[Ryllharu]

Just throwing this out there:

I use my university Minor (English) more than I use my Major (Mechanical Engineering) in the professional world. The technical class I use the most? An elective (fatigue and fracture mechanics). Everything else has been the, "Match What You're Looking at with the Appropriate Formula from Roark's," game.

A broad education helps more than you would expect.

[Animeniax]

At an entry level position you may be required to utilize your major's skills and expertise more, but as you progress you will most likely need more communication skills (like writing and psychology), such as when you're leading project groups or managing people. You don't want an entry level engineer/mathematician to send out group emails if you want them to be understood and not upsetting to everyone else in the office.

I was a liberal arts major but I utilize my compsci minor skills more now. Once I'm PD, that will reverse as I'll have to rely on my social psychology skills to deal with people as a rookie officer, but then I'll revert back to computer sciences as a cybercrime/forensics detective once I've progressed.

[Ryllharu]

You don't want an entry level engineer/mathematician to send out group emails if you want them to be understood and not upsetting to everyone else in the office.

You'd be amused at how often it is the other way around.

Some people just can't write or communicate no matter what experience level or age.

The junior employee writes it so it can be understood and conveyed intelligently. The experienced employee or manager proofreads it to make sure nothing incorrect was said, and is thrown on cc to make sure it isn't ignored by the recipients.

[Animeniax]

You'd be amused at how often it is the other way around.

Some people just can't write or communicate no matter what experience level or age.

The junior employee writes it so it can be understood and conveyed intelligently. The experienced employee or manager proofreads it to make sure nothing incorrect was said, and is thrown on cc to make sure it isn't ignored by the recipients.

I imagine it depends on what field we're talking about. I've worked in IT for a while and messages sent for company-wide purposes or to external groups are usually vetted/cleaned up by a PR group within the company. At my last job, there was an entire department titled "Strategic Communications." Basically anything the tech staff wanted to put out to the userbase had to go through SC before it could be distributed.

The junior employee writes it so it can be understood and conveyed intelligently.

Again it depends on the field I guess. Technical employees write messages that other technically minded people can understand, but not your average secretary or even manager can decipher.

[Ryllharu]

Again it depends on the field I guess. Technical employees write messages that other technically minded people can understand, but not your average secretary or even manager can decipher.

I realize it isn't what you meant, but that is a ridiculously snobby and elitist way to put it.

Which is kinda the point I was making when I said some just don't know how to communicate.

There's a different way to put a lot of things. An email might get forwarded to a executive depending on what it is on, so you don't want to get too into the weeds of technical lingo, nor do you want it misinterpreted, or ultimately come off as an arse.

"Executive-Level write up" means "high level" which in reality means a summary that is easy to understand without getting too much into technical details. At the same time, sometimes you really have to make it simple for other technically minded people, because otherwise they won't understand and will just end up calling you a dozen times anyway.

[Animeniax]

Yeah it sounds snobbish but it's how it is. Technical jargon or not dumbing something down can turn a simple message about an email server maintenance outage and 5 minutes of downtime into a huge mess when your average non-IT person reads it and thinks all systems will be down and they won't be able to do their important work. I've been in IT 14 years and it hasn't changed.

[Ryllharu]

You don't need to include technical jargon in a statement that says:

"The print server will be down for maintenance at 4:45pm today.
This outage only affects the ability to print, and is expected to last for 15 minutes. Please plan accordingly. "

It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.

[Animeniax]

Yet we'll still get calls complaining about the downtime, asking if it will affect email, mainframe, or application access. It shouldn't be that hard, true, but somehow it is. I think you give other people too much credit because you're not a dimbulb yourself. Like I said, 14 years in IT and people still amaze me with their fear of computing and IT. Your message seems self-explanatory, but people will still ask does this mean printing from email only or from Word or from some mainframe app? (legitimate question since mainframe print queues are handled by a separate system). You have to be more specific with your email, but this is self-defeating because at that point people stop reading and just flood the phone queue to ask what you mean.

IT folks aren't that helpful in this because they often refuse to send email like the one you posted. Why explain that a print server outage means users won't be able to print? That seems obvious enough.

But back on topic, I feel a complete college experience requires students to take courses in areas where they are weak. At UT, there is a writing core requirement and an ethics requirement, among others. You can take classes that apply to your major, but they have an emphasis on writing and researching or on ethical issues in your field.

[shinta|hikari]

I agree that people can be unfathomably stupid. A coworker once complained that the word document I sent her was incomplete because it was missing data. I went over to her desk to take a look at it, and had to use all of my self control to not go berserk as I told her, "Please scroll down."

[Animeniax]

I agree that people can be unfathomably stupid. A coworker once complained that the word document I sent her was incomplete because it was missing data. I went over to her desk to take a look at it, and had to use all of my self control to not go berserk as I told her, "Please scroll down."

Weird, I had that happen to me once too, except it was with a buddy and I felt kind of bad having to explain to him that he needed to scroll down. He was cool about it though, bonking himself on the head for not figuring it out on his own.

[Abdula]

*claps hands* Nice Job Sapphire. Way to go team Sapphire.

@Ani

I can't believe I missed this entire discussion. I can't believe Dark Dragon said that learning for the sake of learning is stupid (-_-) I have issues with pretty much everything he said.

Anyway not why I am here. I am with Shinta, people can be unfathomably stupid. In my case I think people just need to be able to take somethings at face value without looking too much into it. Sometimes you just have to accept that the sky is blue and water is wet. I think I need to take up a relaxing hobby like wood carving again. I used to do it when I was younger and it was very therapeutic. Cut down a nice piece of mahogany(hack it to pieces), decide which piece you want to use and want for, strip it, sand it, carve it, varnish it and you just feel so much better. And since I was fond of making staffs, if that doesn't help any then at least you have a nice weighty blunt instrument to use.

[Animeniax]

I have issues

Newsflash right here.

[Dark Dragon]

I can't believe I missed this entire discussion. I can't believe Dark Dragon said that learning for the sake of learning is stupid (-_-) I have issues with pretty much everything he said.

I still read this thread, debate away.

[Animeniax]

I can't believe I missed this entire discussion. I can't believe Dark Dragon said that learning for the sake of learning is stupid (-_-) I have issues with pretty much everything he said.

I don't think that's quite what DD said. If the purpose of going to school is to prepare you for work in that field, then extraneous classes outside that field can be seen as a waste of time. I disagree of course, since I think any class you take can help you better at your primary job. Ie, if you are an accountant, you could still stand to learn some fine arts/speech/writing/drama/social sciences, which would make you a better employee and person.

[Buffalobiian]

I don't think that's quite what DD said. If the purpose of going to school is to prepare you for work in that field, then extraneous classes outside that field can be seen as a waste of time. I disagree of course, since I think any class you take can help you better at your primary job. Ie, if you are an accountant, you could still stand to learn some fine arts/speech/writing/drama/social sciences, which would make you a better employee and person.

While a diverse education may cultivate your mind for better performance, not everyone agrees that it's something you must learn and even be assessed on. I would say that's better for highschool level learning (general skills and preparing individuals for society). In university, you're paying to study for your field. More often than not, it's to receive qualifications to work.

Looking at it through this qualification lense, you're basically saying that I (the professor) can degrade your overall mark due to a compulsory, non-related subject.. thereby making you seem less qualified based on overall academic merit.

A "better" person compared to an "average" person is evaluated by other people through an interview, not by a High Distinction in visual arts.