Anonymou5 said:
z0mg my parents didn't give me the genes to become a multimillion dollar athelete. I have zee passion, its just that I don't have the body of an athelete. So bring on those endorsements kthx bye.
Seriously they musn't teach you comprehension in medicine. As I mentioned previously, this is not a case of "interview or bust" but rather another factor to consider. The fact that someone else may have missed out by 2-3 UAI points out of a law/med/psych degree and can demonstrate that they have a much better grasp of understanding and passion for the course than someone who didn't get into medicine but has now picked a BALLB because they dont want to 'waste' their UAI is the point I'm trying to make.
My comment about med students was in reference to your comment about how you can supposedly obtain HDs without attending classes or studying. The point was that while being a slack cunt suffices for your course (Bachelor of wasting taxpayers' money), you can't apply your situation to others (such as a med course) as a means of justifying your fallacious claim that face to face teaching is 'out dated' so that it's unfair to assess uni applicants on their UAI. So again, learn to read and interpret moron.
Your whole argument is "oh yours doesn't count because it goes against the things I see in my degree". Thats exactly what I've been trying to point out. Your degree, where you may have to slave over, isn't exactly applicable to something with a more value-skills based objective/outcome. You cannot apply 'equations' or 'essays' to what is inherently a design course, or one which relies on industry experience more than the theoretical background of a student/graduate. Our courses are no less 'wasteful' than yours, but apparently you have a problem that not everyone is paying out of their asses and slaving away at readings 24/7.
Oh and here's a tip. Proper or even decent arguments are based on substance. Verbose circular ramblings which don't strike at the heart of the issue, such as what you've produced repeatedly, don't cut it. Perhaps you missed out on that knowledge because you, being the evidently lazy stupid person that you are, didn't bother turning up to classes. Actually, that does explain a lot. You (self admittedly) don't even turn up to classes and yet you make the ludicrous claim that face to face teaching is 'outdated'? I mean it's like, how would you even know? You're stupid.
Stop pulling this verbose argument out, if you can't understand the words I'm using then say so. We can sit here all day saying shit about substance, but you as well as I have no statistics to back up the majority of our claims. There hasn't been an extensive research done in this field in Australia yet. And if you want qualifications, I've worked on the frontlines with first years, year 12s and other parties (parents, etc) as an official representative of the Macquarie University, and the questions that have arisen are of 'wasting uai' what courses 'entail' and their 'difficulty'. Place upon that what you want, most likely you'll dismiss it as something from 'an inferior' source, but I have dealt with a decent sample size of students to have confidence in my views and claims.
And no, the transmission model has nothing to do with face-to-face interaction, it has more to do with the teachers and their expectations of students to simply regurgitate information. The not-turning-up may have been a bad example, but were to serve as an example of the different learning styles of people, not everyone NEEDS to study in the traditional sense, in most cases, that is probably not the most effective way to utilise this. In fact very few people actually learn using the traditional model of study, ie, listen, write, repeat.
Edit: BTW most of your arguments are fundamentally flawed in that you fail to recognise the dynamic nature of the discussion. This is demonstrated by your selective quoting in which you bring back something from a completely different context and clumsily try to shuve it back into your current argument so as to make it look like I've said or implied something that I haven't.
Rofl, now don't try pulling this. You can't make a claim previously, which seems to underpin a certain aspect of your argument and then turn around and say "this isn't admissable". I have in most cases placed it in its full quoting, and even chronologically aligned them with Season's quotes. You are far to dismissive for an argument.
