Consider this -- Is all you need a degree? (2 Viewers)

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Why?

Theoretically, you had a USyd grad, UOW grad, both maintained a 60 average, both did the same subjects.

So all things being equal, only the uni is different.

For an engineering job, I'd pick the USyd over the UOW simply because I know the facilities are better, and thus he/she would have more knowledge and/or experience than the UOWer.

Why would you pick the UOWer, is there some hidden bonus I don't see?

if they both maintained a 60 avg then i would choose neither of the applicants.....even if the only variable is the uni.
my reason is, i would go for someone else with a higher GPA avg

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by hipsta_jess
i honestly dont know, i cant explain it...just...i dunno...i think theres more of a community spirit at the 'regional' unis, and the larger ones, the students i know are like 'ok, i have to get 100% on everything i do and nothing else matters'...i just think people from smaller unis have a better balance, are more well rounded.
but thats just my opinion.

yea i agree, if keypad really wants me to choose a graduate from one of these unis i would still choose UOW coz of the above reason...the balance in life is much more important

 

[KeypadSDM]

Good I'm glad to see you're as biased as I am.

You want someone to talk to at the job. I want someone who'll get the work done.

Then again, you're misguided for thinking everyone at Sydney uni is trying. Or you're misguided because you don't want someone who works hard.

I'm not paying someone because they had a "well rounded education". I'm paying someone to complete a task for me. It's all well and good having friends who are well rounded, but having a slacker working for you is silly when you can get someone better for the job, with more experience/knowledge on the subject.

That said, basing someones "community spirit" their "balance" or their "well roundedness" on a uni is completely and utterly moronic. Basing the level of education they recieved, however, is justified.

 

[SoCal]

I would still choose a UNSW/USyd graduate over a regional University graduate (I am betraying my University here ) if marks were comparable, because they have graduated with students with have a good worth ethic and have studied in a competitive, hard working environment (kind of mirroring the real world) throughout their degree.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Merethrond
I would still choose a UNSW/USyd graduate over a regional University graduate (I am betraying my University here ) if marks were comparable, because they have graduated with students with have a good worth ethic and have studied in a competitive, hard working environment (kind of mirroring the real world) throughout their degree.

but we are only basing it on a 60 average....with only the uni being the variable.?

 

[SoCal]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
I'm not paying someone because they had a "well rounded education". I'm paying someone to complete a task for me. It's all well and good having friends who are well rounded, but having a slacker working for you is silly when you can get someone better for the job, with more experience/knowledge on the subject.

You can't say that they got the same marks and then say that they have more "knowledge" on the subject.

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
That said, basing someones "community spirit" their "balance" or their "well roundedness" on a uni is completely and utterly moronic. Basing the level of education they recieved, however, is justified.

I agree with you here to a certain extent. To an extent, the graduate must have good communication skills and be able to apply the theory learnt in their degree to their job in the practical work environment.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Good I'm glad to see you're as biased as I am.

You want someone to talk to at the job. I want someone who'll get the work done.

Then again, you're misguided for thinking everyone at Sydney uni is trying. Or you're misguided because you don't want someone who works hard.

I'm not paying someone because they had a "well rounded education". I'm paying someone to complete a task for me. It's all well and good having friends who are well rounded, but having a slacker working for you is silly when you can get someone better for the job, with more experience/knowledge on the subject.

That said, basing someones "community spirit" their "balance" or their "well roundedness" on a uni is completely and utterly moronic. Basing the level of education they recieved, however, is justified.

yes, u are right to an extent. with the course ur doing, u can work individually and produce ur work in a profecient manne without having a well rounded education.
But because australia is moving towards becomming more of a service industry, liasing with business partners and customers is vital for the entity, hence the importance of a 'well rounded education'. business partners will reject u if u send out only profecient worker wioth no communication skillz at all or is unenjoyable to talk with.
due to globalisation, business partners will not only be of domestic entities, but also transnational corporations and i know for a fact that japanese business people like to 'get to know the person they are doing business with', before any business transactions or preliminary talks are initiated.
if the only thing u know is 'work' then i dont believe u will get very far.

 

[SoCal]

Originally posted by santaslayer
but we are only basing it on a 60 average....with only the uni being the variable.?

Yes, and what other variable am I basing my decision on?

 

[santaslayer]

that being said, u might not be a very sociable person, hence the notion of only 'work'.....Lolz......Mr 99.75 B eng/Bscience (ad maths)

 

[SoCal]

Originally posted by santaslayer
that being said, u might not be a very sociable person, hence the notion of only 'work'.....Lolz......Mr 99.75 B eng/Bscience (ad maths)

Is that supposed to answer my question? If it is, it doesn't do a very good job.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by santaslayer
that being said, u might not be a very sociable person, hence the notion of only 'work'.....Lolz......Mr 99.75 B eng/Bscience (ad maths)

Plus there's also stupid bias like this ...

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by santaslayer
yes, u are right to an extent. with the course ur doing, u can work individually and produce ur work in a profecient manne without having a well rounded education.
But because australia is moving towards becomming more of a service industry, liasing with business partners and customers is vital for the entity, hence the importance of a 'well rounded education'. business partners will reject u if u send out only profecient worker wioth no communication skillz at all or is unenjoyable to talk with.
due to globalisation, business partners will not only be of domestic entities, but also transnational corporations and i know for a fact that japanese business people like to 'get to know the person they are doing business with', before any business transactions or preliminary talks are initiated.
if the only thing u know is 'work' then i dont believe u will get very far.

However, you're still saying people who go to USyd are going to be comparatively worse at communication than people going to UOW. Which is a rash and unproven statement.

USyd isn't as eletist as you might think. It's actually much more social than purely educationally based.

USyd <> James Ruse

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

Plus with more people there, there's more people to get to know, and although it might mean a less tight knit group, it means you'll get an ability at quickly meeting someone and remembering who they are, a skill which is useful in a working environment.

Nevertheless, that's about as rash and unproven as your statement.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by Merethrond
You can't say that they got the same marks and then say that they have more "knowledge" on the subject

I'm saying they have more access to knowledge because of better facilities (my specific example being engineering). This gives the students a greater ability to learn more, and thus become more knowledgeable.

However, it's the students porogative to gain their onw knowledge, and as jess has stated all the students she know study 24/7.



Q.E.D.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
I'm saying they have more access to knowledge because of better facilities (my specific example being engineering). This gives the students a greater ability to learn more, and thus become more knowledgeable.

However, it's the students porogative to gain their onw knowledge, and as jess has stated all the students she know study 24/7.



Q.E.D.

but how do they learn morewith better facilities...i mean i do pretty boring, pen to paper work in my degree so im not sure what u are talking about. the facilities imo may be better or worse, but essentially the outcome is the same isnt it?

lets base this on a simple example......computers

USYD has more computers then UOW, thus they have better facilities, when it comes to a spreadsheet test, UOW students are disadvantaged because of the lack of time on the compurters for training.
the marks come out and USY appears to be the better uni in terms of overall marks......
but the point is that presuming all things being equal (except the uni), both applicants still acheive the same result.. that is, 60% so my question is, how are better facilities related to 'knowledge'?

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
However, you're still saying people who go to USyd are going to be comparatively worse at communication than people going to UOW. Which is a rash and unproven statement.

USyd isn't as eletist as you might think. It's actually much more social than purely educationally based.

USyd <> James Ruse

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

Plus with more people there, there's more people to get to know, and although it might mean a less tight knit group, it means you'll get an ability at quickly meeting someone and remembering who they are, a skill which is useful in a working environment.

Nevertheless, that's about as rash and unproven as your statement.

no, my statements u quoted ARE proven, plz do not compare my logical statements with ur unproven, made-up-on-the-spot arguments which constitutes to 56% of all mfalse statistics!

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by santaslayer
no, my statements u quoted ARE proven, plz do not compare my logical statements with ur unproven, made-up-on-the-spot arguments which constitutes to 56% of all mfalse statistics!

There are studies on how UAI >=99.75 ==> Non sociable?

There are studies on "sociability" of graduates or undergraduates at USyd and UOW?

Didn't think so.

I never said access to knowledge made you more knowledgeable, but with the example of engineering, the better the facilities, the better the education.

Imagine learning mechanics without a basketball and tennis ball, or without a newtons cradle. You've got the theory, but you don't understand it, and can't appreciate it in its full depth.

But if you have the facilities to entertain education, you will undoubtably produce more knowledgeable candidates than facilities which do not entertain education to as great an extent.

It isn't implied that there WILL be more knwledgeable candidates produced, but there is the possibilty of it occuring.

Of course you aren't really concerned with the candidate's ability, as long as they're sociable.

 

[SoCal]

Originally posted by santaslayer
but how do they learn morewith better facilities...i mean i do pretty boring, pen to paper work in my degree so im not sure what u are talking about. the facilities imo may be better or worse, but essentially the outcome is the same isnt it?

My point exactly. By the way what does Q.E.D. stand for?

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by Merethrond
My point exactly. By the way what does Q.E.D. stand for?

its something in latin- but it basically saying that the proof has been done/completed.

 

[SoCal]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
I never said access to knowledge made you more knowledgeable, but with the example of engineering, the better the facilities, the better the education.

Imagine learning mechanics without a basketball and tennis ball, or without a newtons cradle. You've got the theory, but you don't understand it, and can't appreciate it in its full depth.

But if you have the facilities to entertain education, you will undoubtably produce more knowledgeable candidates than facilities which do not entertain education to as great an extent.

It isn't implied that there WILL be more knwledgeable candidates produced, but there is the possibilty of it occuring.

The thing is, they get the same mark in an exam. Therefore, although they do not have access to the best facilities (I am quite sure that UOW would have good facilities, maybe USyd has ten of a particular instrument, whereas UOW has five?), they still have to sit an exam based on roughly the same course material.

I see where you are coming from though. There are two angles to the argument (as always).

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by Merethrond
The thing is, they get the same mark in an exam. Therefore, although they do not have access to the best facilities (I am quite sure that UOW would have good facilities, maybe USyd has ten of a particular instrument, whereas UOW has five?), they still have to sit an exam based on roughly the same course material.

I see where you are coming from though. There are two angles to the argument (as always).

Exam marks aren't always indicative of ability. So I'd go with the USyd grad knowing at least they had access to better facilities.