Corpus Christi Trimble

[Jezza]

Media Studies is always used as an example in such discussions but I suggest it's every bit as 'worthy' as Classical History, Art History & Latin (amongst others).

I did media studies.  

I quite enjoyed it really, and it's certainly allowed me to professionally pursue various interests. My dissertation was on Manufacturing News and Self-censorship in the Media. Quite a topical subject, I felt.

[Tom B]

Frenchie wrote:

I just wished we had a broader range of questions in such show and that knowledge in science and engineering was also recognised and valued maybe?

I've been working on the show now for seven years. You're not the only one I've heard say this, Frenchie. Sadly, for each person like you there are five or six who say there are too many science Qs or that they find the science Qs off-putting. Unable to please everyone, we can but please ourselves: the proportion of science Qs has increased slightly on the show in recent years and is now around one in four.

[Frenchie]

Frenchie wrote:

I just wished we had a broader range of questions in such show and that knowledge in science and engineering was also recognised and valued maybe?

I've been working on the show now for seven years. You're not the only one I've heard say this, Frenchie. Sadly, for each person like you there are five or six who say there are too many science Qs or that they find the science Qs off-putting. Unable to please everyone, we can but please ourselves: the proportion of science Qs has increased slightly on the show in recent years and is now around one in four.

Cheers. I guess it's because those are the Qs I can or could answer. Seriously though I was wondering whether it wouldn't broaden the audience/appeal; the comment you make may reveal a bias in the audience background?

[Wowbagger]

(I confess I am currently applying for an MA in the War Studies dept at Kings so perhaps I’m prejudiced)

War Studies, which presumably is a branch of history, is well worth studying. If a few more historians had been consulted in 2003, then we might not have invaded Iraq.

There seems to be a dangerous mindset which assumes that all education should be geared to make itself useful in some way to "business".

Nothing dangerous Wow; don't exagerate please! As there's nothing wrong with applying *things* to Olympic performance on the side, while taking a break from big gas turbines... I just wished we had a broader range of questions in such show and that knowledge in science and engineering was also recognised and valued maybe? More math and science questions please!  And the same wow (no pun) factor for the good scientists...

Actually, I think it is dangerous. "Business" has a greater say in academia than it ever used to, and has a strong influence on funding. It's far easier for a scientist with a 2:1 to get funding for a Masters from arms companies and GM food companies than it is for arts students with an equivalent degree, who have to rely far more heavily on Government bodies to fund their work.

This goes further than University level too: we have a couple of secondary schools in this area which call themselves "Business and Enterprise Colleges", whatever that means.

[matthew]

Frenchie wrote:

I just wished we had a broader range of questions in such show and that knowledge in science and engineering was also recognised and valued maybe?

I've been working on the show now for seven years. You're not the only one I've heard say this, Frenchie. Sadly, for each person like you there are five or six who say there are too many science Qs or that they find the science Qs off-putting. Unable to please everyone, we can but please ourselves: the proportion of science Qs has increased slightly on the show in recent years and is now around one in four.

Cheers. I guess it's because those are the Qs I can or could answer. Seriously though I was wondering whether it wouldn't broaden the audience/appeal; the comment you make may reveal a bias in the audience background?

And equally possibly the British population in gerneral.

Most people will not admit being unable to read or spell but are happy to admit that they "don't do maths"

As an engineer I find the maths/ science questions the ones I am most capable of answering and I struggle with the language/ literature / grammer questions. Therefore I prefer the science/ maths questions as it is always nice to be able to answer the questions.  

As an aside the science/ maths question tends to be one where the answer is either known or not and can be highly specialised. A literature question may just find a scientist who has read the right book. Hence the teams consist of four people so that the teams can spread their knowledge base.

Matthew

[Really Ancien]

I find University Challenge a bit slow. 15 to 1 was more my style. There's been a tendency to skimp on questions and push up the jeopardy on quiz shows. Shows like Millionaire are like watching paint dry.

Damon.

[frankly frankie]

I'm amazed nobody's mentioned the Miss Piggy-esque mannerisms ...

[hubner]

Latin is very misunderstood. It is not the study of a language, like French or German. It is the definitive grammar and logic of thought that underpins most European languages - certainly English.  It is Latin that is also teh accepted language of the scientific definition or the law court - because its meanings and roots are so precise. Unlike the vernacular.
[snip]

Latin is no more precise than any other language. Legal and scientific terms in Latin are just names, the concepts have no connection with Latin itself. And Latin is not the definitive grammar and logic of thought that underpins most European languages, certainly not English. English is a Germanic language, although a large part of its vocabulary has Latin origins via French.

[bikenerd]

Actually, I think it is dangerous. "Business" has a greater say in academia than it ever used to, and has a strong influence on funding. It's far easier for a scientist with a 2:1 to get funding for a Masters from arms companies and GM food companies than it is for arts students with an equivalent degree, who have to rely far more heavily on Government bodies to fund their work.

This goes further than University level too: we have a couple of secondary schools in this area which call themselves "Business and Enterprise Colleges", whatever that means.

Balderdash.  The majority PhDs and MScs are funded by the research councils.  However, the science and engineering research councils receive more funding than the arts research councils hence there are more science PhDs and MScs available.
Of the 7 research students in my year, only 1 receives extra funding and that is from the Met Office!

[Wowbagger]

I'm speaking from my daughter's experience, where she, with a 1st in History, couldn't get funding whereas several of her friends with science 2:1s, could. Warwick Uni, 2004.

But you contradict yourself anyway:-

The majority PhDs and MScs are funded by the research councils.  However, the science and engineering research councils receive more funding than the arts research councils hence there are more science PhDs and MScs available.

There's already a built-in majority for science, and there were, from memory, two specific 2:1 science students in her year who received funding from in one case an arms manufacturer and in another a GM food company. I believe this to be fairly typical.

[andygates]

Swots are hot. 

[bikenerd]

I agree that there are more science and engineering PhDs available, but these are funded by the research councils, government bodies that are funded from general taxation, not from contributions from industry.
It is the government's choice of which research councils they fund.  I'm sure they have some algorithm that measures the contribution to the taxation coffers that science and art graduates make and fund the research councils accordingly.

PhDs funded by industry are the exception, not the norm.  I think you should look into this further, rather than just going by your rather small sample size.

[Bluebottle]

While I agree with most of the above, we should be careful about sample size.  There are a good few science PhDs around my institution.  I cannot think of any of them who are funded by the research councils.  Industry has a vital role to play at the smaller universities who find it difficult to compete with the big boys for RC grants.

[TimO]

Out of all our PhDs, and that's something like 20 or 30 people, I think there is one who is funded jointly by EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) and the Met Office.  All the remainder are funding purely from EPSRC or STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council).  As far as I know none of our PhDs are funded by industry, nor can I remember any of them being funded in that way for the eight years I've been here.  At least as far as Space Physics and Atmospheric Physics goes, there is little to no direct industrial involvement in our funding.

[hairyhippy]

Foundations of pyramids.

[Charlotte]

Bit of a minger tho. 

I'm sorry, Tiger.  But I'm going to have to beat you to a bloody pulp and set fire to your bicycle.

[spesh]

She was saying on the radio this am. that all the attention she's getting from the media etc is essentially because she’s female, the implication being AFAICS that ‘fuss’ especially from some quarters is sexist, and if she was male it would not have been the same.

Fair comment, though I think some of the media coverage is the manifestation of what I would call a culture of anti-intellectualism.

What this culture entails is a dislike of anyone who is perceived as being too clever by half. If you're clever (or at least know the answers), you're expected to keep damn well quiet about it, so as not to give anyone else an inferiority complex. 

[Adrian]

Bit of a minger tho. 

I'm sorry, Tiger.  But I'm going to have to beat you to a bloody pulp and set fire to your bicycle.

But why? He has already ruled himself out as competition.

[Bledlow]

Oh be still my beating heart...
a thread about intelligent women with glasses and bicycles, and now librarians.

I'm going for a short lie down in a darkened room.

With a packet of tissues? 

[bikesdontfloat]

As an engineer I find the maths/ science questions the ones I am most capable of answering and I struggle with the language/ literature / grammer questions. Therefore I prefer the science/ maths questions as it is always nice to be able to answer the questions.  

As an aside the science/ maths question tends to be one where the answer is either known or not and can be highly specialised. A literature question may just find a scientist who has read the right book. Hence the teams consist of four people so that the teams can spread their knowledge base.

Matthew

Here we come back to the issue of the 2 cultures and the problem that only one side wants to bridge the gap.

You will find no end of sciencey, technical bods who are au fait with literature, art of all desdriptons, classical music, can play instruments to an incredibly high standard and have a generally well rounded education.  Nobody thinks this is abnormal, it's part of their being a rounded individual.

Coming from the opposite direcition there are far fewer artsy folk who claim to have a detailed knowledge of cosmology, to find maths fascinating and practice genetics in their spare time.  And yet no one will think any worse of a mixed media artist who disdains any knowldedge of science or maths, after all, they are an artist.

[GruB]

She was saying on the radio this am. that all the attention she's getting from the media etc is essentially because she’s female, the implication being AFAICS that ‘fuss’ especially from some quarters is sexist, and if she was male it would not have been the same.

I saw that too.  We need to encourage smart women, to get them out of the kitchen and into the boardroom.  They are better managers in many ways IMO.

[Frenchie]

While I agree with most of the above, we should be careful about sample size.  There are a good few science PhDs around my institution.  I cannot think of any of them who are funded by the research councils.  Industry has a vital role to play at the smaller universities who find it difficult to compete with the big boys for RC grants.

Indeed. I am involved in a number of industry supported projects; thinking of it most of them are in fact, even if long term sometimes. Blue sky research is far more difficult to justify at present; at least in engineering. Industry has a big role to play, including in the big universities.

Wow, you should however know that anecdoctal evidence is not proof. Far from it. My partner works in classics/social and she did get full funding for a PhD, and she isn't even British (opens can of worms); what should I conclude?! 

[Wowbagger]

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, Frenchie: Bikenerd has already pointed out that government puts more money into science students' further degrees than it does for arts students; and Bluebottle, whom you quote, has stated that of the "good few" science PhDs at his place, he "can't think of any of them who are funded by the research councils" i.e. they are presumably funded by industry.

In what way are these statements contradicting my assertion that it's easier for science students to obtain funding for further study than it is for arts students? Given that a quick Google has indicated that £2.8bn of Govt money goes to the 7 research councils, of which £100m goes to the Arts (5 of the others are pure science, the 7th is Economic) I can't see that there's any question about it.

And, having demonstrated that there is more funding going to science research, why should someone like Gail Trimble, who clearly has a first-class brain, not be supported for the sort of research that she wants to do?

[Phil]

You'll be telling me next that scientists are of greater value to society than historians.

There's a world of difference between history and Latin literature.
Books that haven't been read for hundreds of years being analysed for what purpose?

What's the point in reading books at all? What's your opinion on people who study English?

[bikenerd]

What's the point in reading books at all? What's your opinion on people who study English?

Reading is a hobby.  If you have a naturally inquisitive mind then it can be interesting to read up on a subject that is outside your sphere of knowledge or just a good yarn.  In the past year I've read a book on how the metre was developed and measured, a history of the Napoleonic wars, Moby Dick and some Philip K. Dick novels.  However, I don't think I'd be happy if all I did was read these books and then write an essay on it, for someone to mark and say "well done".  I'd rather be testing hypotheses on how the climate system works, writing peer reviewed papers and feeling that I'm advancing human knowledge.

Some of my best friends studied English at university.  It's a soft course, I'm afraid.  The workload was minimal, one essay per module per term.  This was at Newcastle, supposedly a decent university.
English may teach you analytical skills, but the background knowledge is in something that has no application outside academia.  A science degree would also teach you analytical skills but give you background knowledge is something that might actually get you a job at the end of your course.

I know I'm sounding like a condescending prick.  I'm not the most eloquent of people (typical scientist, you might say).  Studying an arts subject doesn't make you any less intelligent, or have any less worth as a person, just don't be surprised when you can't find a job at the end, or funding for a PhD, or that you have to do a law or journalism conversion course.  Or like two of my aforementioned friends who studied English, go back to Uni as an undergrad to study medicine and psychology.  The one who studied psychology said "this is so hard, I can't believe the work load!".

Wowbagger: do you think that arts subject PhDs should be funded to the same level as science and engineering PhDs?  Surely it should be relative to the number of jobs available after the course has finished.