Uni Education - Makes you a better person? (1 Viewer)

[Vangineer]

Uni ppl see alot of ppl from all over the world. Communicate and work with alot of ppl from all over the globe, making them more friendly and acceptive of nations.

 

[Shuter]

I would appreciate it if you wouldent take my quotes out of context.
I said- I think that going to uni JUSt for the accrediatation is a waste of time and money. I am NOT against going to uni for a job, when its combined with learning and expereince.I'd appreciate if you read what I said.

So I am wrong for choosing whether I would go to uni or not purely on the basis that I need accreditation to get the jobs I want? Sure I'll enjoy the experiance and also have made alot of friends already, but these points played no part in my decision of if I would go to uni or not.

 

[Lainee]

Now i disagree with you. University is a training isnititon. Its not a unis job to manufacture people who are moral or what. Cause who can judge that. Just because that old lady hates smoking, doesnt make those teenagers doing it bad. (well it does in my opinion) but thats because its personal thing. If it was universities job, then everyone would have to conform to a certain set of values which is the opposite of what university is about.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say that university should teach values, I said that it should introduce an element of critical thinking that enables people to formulate their own system of values. To reiterate:

"Do you understand the issue in question?" "Have you seen all possible sides of the argument?" "Have you related this issue to previous decisions you have made?" "Is it possible for you to come to one conclusion?" "What do you think influenced you to form this opinion?" "Can you accept that other people have a different opinion from you?"

I don't consider university a training institution, at least not vocationally. University was traditionally, and I still believe it is today, an institution that offers further intellectual exploration and is for people to pursure more intellectual offerings. TAFE is a training institution, that is, it prepares you for the work environment. Further, I believe that because of it's role in catering to intellectuals it has a responsibility to insist that those questions I mentioned above be a fundamental part of every person's education. Because university students are often very intelligent, they have a gift that can be used in ways beneficial to society or detrimental to it - I believe it is socially responsible for universities to encourage a culture that perpetuates those questions.

It is up to the various cultures and sub cultures to develop there own sense of right and wrong and become better people

I completely agree with this, but I also think that educational institutions should focus more on teaching people a way of developing their own sense of right and wrong. That is, I think that educational institutions should not teach values but stress the importance of an individual development of values by providing a method through which one would do this.

I think Lainee sounds like a confused little person.

Would you mind pointing out where you think I'm wrong? Rather than just pointing and laughing.

Uni isnt an education thesedays either. It's just so you can get a job. If you wanted to do a degree that was liberal rather than vocational you would be doing B Jurisprudance or a BA in Philosophy and English.

We get this group of students that are just (Say like com law or com or whatever) that are simply robots.

You can go to uni and graduate and still know nothing about the world you live in. Sad. Thats why in the US you have to do liberal arts first.

In your opinion, law isn't a course that helps you understand more about the world you live in? I chose law because I wanted to understand these rules which people have set out to regulate society (ie. to be able to function as an active member of this society, I need to know how such a fundamental structure, such as the law, operates) - I chose commerce because I just enjoy economic concepts, I love how the economist's mind works (full of statistics, connections between concepts), I see myself in an entrepreneurial career and I want to learn more about the movement of money. And I don't expect to become a robot, because I always keep the big picture in mind.

I for one am not only going there to get a job, but for the knowledge in an area I am interested in.

I agree with you. Knowledge by itself is great (intellectual growth and whatnot) and I would be satisfied with just that if I didn't have to put food on the table. My argument is that it'll be better if it lends way to a good career and develops students whose decisions are firmly rooted in their foundation of values and can approach a life-problem with a critical element.

Incidentally, a lot of you guys engaging in this discussion and finding it stimulating to exchange points of view and debate in this forum go to uni. Doesn't that say something?

Repped. That was along the lines of what I was hoping someone would post at some time in this thread. YES, a higher education allows you to express your view point more eloquently and convincingly. But I suspect that most people who replied are naturally gifted with the ability for critical evaluation and are often self-reflective. Further, their decisions are rooted in their foundation of priorities and values. Saying that, many people are not that way - and I believe it is something that can be taught (again, my previous post about the 'questions').

 

[Lainee]

I think it would be good for more people to study logic and implications in mathematics. I think it has been recommended for lawyers too.

Is there a book I can get on that?

 

[Lainee]

You are not wrong. You seem confused. It seems odd that you have never had this dawn on you before. That somehow there are other values.

LOL, I think you must have me mistaken for somebody else because I never mentioned anything about not knowing that people have other values.

More often than not Com law people are robots. My experience.

There are exceptions. But it's just my experience that have this very narrow view. They also seem to hate law.

I think you forget that Law and Commerce are separate degrees - one of which you are studying yourself. In your opinion, someone who does Arts/Law is somehow less robot-y?

You sound like an arts student. Expression of opinion ideas and concepts and perhaps debates isn't something that is apart of commerce.

If you were deeply interested in values arts or some other liberally based degree would be somewhere to start. Commerce, as I'm sure you will find out, isn't very self reflective.

It doesn't matter, because I'm a theory-based person. Anything that involves alot of theory work would suit me fine. All my friends were surprised I chose to combine law with commerce instead of arts, but it suits the mathematical side of my brain more.

And... commerce students can express opinion, ideas and concepts as well as debate issues as well. I know that I'll probably be surrounded by people who are 'robots', as you say, but I did this course for me and not them - being able to deal with people who think differently (or don't think at all) is a part of growing up.

 

[|Axis_]

Is there a book I can get on that?

I dunno! Probably. But it formalises logical implications and teaches you how to draw valid conclusions, not bogus ones. Here's a question from a past maths exam paper (yes, a MATHS paper!):



"Brendan and Angel are characters in a TV series. Dedicated viewers of the series know that the following statements are true:

If Brendan is not having an affair with Angel and is not on drugs then he must be a serial killer.

If Brendan is a serial killer then he is not having an affair with Angel and if he is not a serial killer then he is not on drugs.

If Brendan is having an affair with Angel then he must be on drugs.

Viewer Claude Cowch-Petatoe concludes that Brendan is not having an affair with Angel. Prove that his conclusion is valid."



Here's another simple question: You know that an apple's rotten if it's brown. You bought a rotten apple. Is it brown?


It might all seem like common sense, but you can work this stuff out mechanically with a symbolic system and some rules of inference. I'm obviously biased here, but if only we all studied maths, we'd all reason better! By the way, Lewis Carroll devised many mysteries that could be solved using these methods.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Liberal Studies in Australia, although based on the US model degree is not completely the same. In the US, their Lib Arts degree requires compulsory study in basically eveything including things like a language (at least one), mathematics, English, history, social sciences, "lab" sciences etc. B Arts is limited to the subjects in the Arts faculty therefore, it isnt AS Liberal lol

B Liberal Studies does offer study in a wide variety of subjects but it isnt as restricted (in the sense of compulsory subjects) as the US program.

interesting. it reminds me of high school for some reason though (year7-9), with subjects as varied as that. still, it sounds good if you want to have broad knowledge, sort of like an extenion of high school.

 

[chookyn]

it just shits me when people point out petty things like that in a forum when the points should be focused on.

sorry, this is irrelevant, but Cyan_phoeniX you have 666 posts!

 

[Shuter]

I dunno! Probably. But it formalises logical implications and teaches you how to draw valid conclusions, not bogus ones. Here's a question from a past maths exam paper (yes, a MATHS paper!):



"Brendan and Angel are characters in a TV series. Dedicated viewers of the series know that the following statements are true:

If Brendan is not having an affair with Angel and is not on drugs then he must be a serial killer.

If Brendan is a serial killer then he is not having an affair with Angel and if he is not a serial killer then he is not on drugs.

If Brendan is having an affair with Angel then he must be on drugs.

Viewer Claude Cowch-Petatoe concludes that Brendan is not having an affair with Angel. Prove that his conclusion is valid."



Here's another simple question: You know that an apple's rotten if it's brown. You bought a rotten apple. Is it brown?


It might all seem like common sense, but you can work this stuff out mechanically with a symbolic system and some rules of inference. I'm obviously biased here, but if only we all studied maths, we'd all reason better! By the way, Lewis Carroll devised many mysteries that could be solved using these methods.

That stuff all seems really easy (it's just like simultanious equations + logic flowcharts). Dunno, maybe I'm just naturally more inclined that way. What course is that a part of?

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

I dunno! Probably. But it formalises logical implications and teaches you how to draw valid conclusions, not bogus ones. Here's a question from a past maths exam paper (yes, a MATHS paper!):



"Brendan and Angel are characters in a TV series. Dedicated viewers of the series know that the following statements are true:

If Brendan is not having an affair with Angel and is not on drugs then he must be a serial killer.

If Brendan is a serial killer then he is not having an affair with Angel and if he is not a serial killer then he is not on drugs.

If Brendan is having an affair with Angel then he must be on drugs.

Viewer Claude Cowch-Petatoe concludes that Brendan is not having an affair with Angel. Prove that his conclusion is valid."



Here's another simple question: You know that an apple's rotten if it's brown. You bought a rotten apple. Is it brown?


It might all seem like common sense, but you can work this stuff out mechanically with a symbolic system and some rules of inference. I'm obviously biased here, but if only we all studied maths, we'd all reason better! By the way, Lewis Carroll devised many mysteries that could be solved using these methods.

that can be proved through formal logic. Probably something like (In PL):

A=Brendan is having an affair with Angel
D=Brendan is on drugs
S=Brendan is a serial killer

(~A&~D)->S, (S->~A)&(~S->~D), A->D : ~A

you would prove it is valid by doing all this funky shit that i wont do right now. probably need to apply RAA overall, Assume ~D, MT to get A, get S from that maybe?

EDIT: ok, my being the sad type of person that i am tried to solve it at midnight and i did it in 13 steps, although its probably likely it can be done in less, assuming i actually translated it properly

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Here's another simple question: You know that an apple's rotten if it's brown. You bought a rotten apple. Is it brown?

Apple is rotten=R
Apple is brown=B

B->R : R->B

invalid.

thats sort of like saying. 'If its red than its a colour, therefore if it is a colour than its red.'

 

[Sarah168]

interesting. it reminds me of high school for some reason though (year7-9), with subjects as varied as that. still, it sounds good if you want to have broad knowledge, sort of like an extenion of high school.

Yeah, I always hear that's it's good if you're after a general education at uni. I once talked to this USYD 2nd yr B Arts student and he said he transferred into B Arts from B Lib studies cos it was "too much like high school" lol

 

[LazyBoy]

cyan you stuffed that up.


B = R not B-> R

its B=R : R-> B

Perfectly logical, and it fits the statement.


say as R=C : C=R
My interpretation is Red equals a colour, therefore a colour equals red. You have to watch for the english your translating into an equation.

 

[matt#1]

cyan you stuffed that up.


B = R not B-> R

its B=R : R-> B

Perfectly logical, and it fits the statement.


say as R=C : C=R
My interpretation is Red equals a colour, therefore a colour equals red. You have to watch for the english your translating into an equation.

what? Ithought this thread was about whether uni makes you a better person. What's with the equations?

 

[Shuter]

cyan you stuffed that up.


B = R not B-> R

its B=R : R-> B

Perfectly logical, and it fits the statement.


say as R=C : C=R
My interpretation is Red equals a colour, therefore a colour equals red. You have to watch for the english your translating into an equation.

Isn't it only that the apple COULD be brown, but it isn't definatly.

B doesn't = R as there are additional colors which could be R.

 

[Xayma]

Actually he didn't.

If an apple is Brown then its rotten.

It doesn't state any other cases, so you can't assume that if it is rotten than it is brown.

Ie it isn't if and only if.

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

cyan you stuffed that up.


B = R not B-> R

its B=R : R-> B

Perfectly logical, and it fits the statement.


say as R=C : C=R
My interpretation is Red equals a colour, therefore a colour equals red. You have to watch for the english your translating into an equation.

i didnt stuff up. its an if...then statement. so you use the arrow. I dunno where you get the equal signs, it is PL i was using. maybe your using something different?

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

Actually he didn't.

If an apple is Brown then its rotten.

It doesn't state any other cases, so you can't assume that if it is rotten than it is brown.

Ie it isn't if and only if.

what i was thinking

 

[LazyBoy]

i didnt stuff up. its an if...then statement. so you use the arrow. I dunno where you get the equal signs, it is PL i was using. maybe your using something different?

My ignorance. sorry. i didnt realise exactly you were using real mathmatical operators. sorry

 

[|Axis_]

That stuff all seems really easy (it's just like simultanious equations + logic flowcharts). Dunno, maybe I'm just naturally more inclined that way. What course is that a part of?

You might learn about it in a Discrete Maths course (in UNSW you will). You might also learn things about making statements about "all" things, "some" things and compounds of all these things.

Yeah, you can't say whether the rotten apple's brown or not. However, you can conclude that if the apple's not rotten, it's not brown.

This stuff is important because later in maths, you really can't be careless about what certain theories infer. A maths version of the apple example is: You know that you get 4 if you square 2. You've got a 4, so can you conclude that it was by squaring 2?

Haha! This is amusing