Wong's lies about my education

[brianeyci]

I didn't know university classes with such tiny amounts of instruction time even existed. I've never taken a class that met less than three hours a week.

It's not... it's a semester hour, apparently an American way of saying one hour per week for the entire semester.

Still the onus was on tjhairball to explain how his degree was three times superior so at worst Mike is guilty of not knowing locale specific facts and the exact meaning of words from university in bumfuck, nowhere.

It doesn't change the "lofty vantage" or "three times more education" at all.

What do most people think of when they hear three times more education? I think of three times at least, and I think of undergrad, grad and Ph.D. levels, so I would think only a Ph.D. can even have the gall to claim three times. But even then it doesn't make much sense.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way he figured that his entire education would have taken 7 years at 12 hours per semester, thus revealing that at a more robust 24 hours per week per semester (not unreasonable for a real university), he could have gotten all four of his degrees in just 3.5 years. And he's still trying to pretend that he accomplished something "extraordinary", or that what he did is somehow worth three times a quality engineering degree.

[Ghost Rider]

I didn't know university classes with such tiny amounts of instruction time even existed. I've never taken a class that met less than three hours a week.

It's not... it's a semester hour, apparently an American way of saying one hour per week for the entire semester.

Still the onus was on tjhairball to explain how his degree was three times superior so at worst Mike is guilty of not knowing locale specific facts and the exact meaning of words from university in bumfuck, nowhere.

It doesn't change the "lofty vantage" or "three times more education" at all.

What do most people think of when they hear three times more education? I think of three times at least, and I think of undergrad, grad and Ph.D. levels, so I would think only a Ph.D. can even have the gall to claim three times. But even then it doesn't make much sense.

Strangely I've never understood the semester hour beyond the very thought of what it is. It's a rating of how many credit you've taken.

But three times the education? That's utterly meaningless. No one with any brain matter would go "Because I gots a PhD, I gots the three times the edumacation!". There's no such thing. Honestly take Kureneko as an example. He's demonstrated what he has learned and the depth of his knowledge. This blithering fool has given us empty platitudes to distract from the thought, he has demonstrated his knowledge...and it was found extremely lacking.

In the end, this is just a layer that people like Scooty-Puff Jr and others use to demonstrate that at best they passed their half assed course load with a C- average and dislike that anyone dare tell them they are wrong.

[Terralthra]

I love the way he figured that his entire education would have taken 7 years at 12 hours per semester, thus revealing that at a more robust 24 hours per week per semester (not unreasonable for a real university), he could have gotten all four of his degrees in just 3.5 years. And he's still trying to pretend that he accomplished something "extraordinary", or that what he did is somehow worth three times a quality engineering degree.

I only take 15-18 credits per quarter. Of course, that's because I'm working full-time while doing so.

[Soontir C'boath]

The fact that his university doesn't have a proper catalogue of courses is fucking annoying.

You'd think they can have something like this; PDF: Stony Brook Physics Major

Looking at my own school's physics program, there's a lot of spots where you see DECs which are courses that can be non-major related electives. Frankly looking at all of those, if a physics major here decided to take courses in other majors such as religion and philosophy , he wouldn't have a hard time filling those DEC requirements at the same time.

To say he has three times the education because your program requirements allows multiple majoring is just being a fucking idiot.

I'd assume a semester hour means a credit like everywhere else. A three credit course means three hours a week and so on.

[Junghalli]

It's not... it's a semester hour, apparently an American way of saying one hour per week for the entire semester.

That's what I meant. I've never taken a class that met less than three hours a week. Unless it's mostly outside work a one hour a week class sounds like it's probably laughably lightweight. I realize quantity isn't everything, but many of my professors end up not being able to get through all the material they'd like because three hours of instruction a week isn't enough, so I can't see a one hour a week class covering much material in much depth.

Maybe it's different in the sciences than the humanities, maybe it's different in an elite level program, but I'm not about to take TJhairball's word for it. It's probably just some 101 introductory class.

[Soontir C'boath]

Ghetto edit:
Ok, looking at my school's Physics major, there's 39 DEC credits that a physics major can take in a four year schedule.

That definitely allows for the completion of the major of Religious Studies which requires only 30 credits. Then there's the major for Mathematics which requires 33-37 credits.

This can certainly be completed in five years.

To say that a completion of three majors means three times the education is stupid since if a Physics student decided to take those 39 DEC credits without majoring in something, it doesn't mean he had any less education. He just didn't get a degree for the courses he took.

[phongn]

I only take 15-18 credits per quarter. Of course, that's because I'm working full-time while doing so.

Well, in most US schools 15-18 credit-hours/semester is considered a full-time course load (presumably also the same for the quarter system)

It's not... it's a semester hour, apparently an American way of saying one hour per week for the entire semester.

Right. Most courses tend to be 3-4 credit-hours, meaning 3-4 hours/week instruction. Labs tend to be the exception; a 1-hour lab credit-wise may be 2-3 hours of actual in-lab time (or more).

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, in most US schools 15-18 credit-hours/semester is considered a full-time course load (presumably also the same for the quarter system)

That may possibly be even pushing it, depending the shcool. Where I live 12-15 credits were a "full" courseload, and only the really dedicated (or impatient) studnets too more than 4 classes (generally it was 2-3 credits per class, with most being 3.)

Right. Most courses tend to be 3-4 credit-hours, meaning 3-4 hours/week instruction. Labs tend to be the exception; a 1-hour lab credit-wise may be 2-3 hours of actual in-lab time (or more).

Again where I live it depends on the class, usually you were looking more at like 50 minutes per class 3 times a week (MWF) or maybe 2 1 1/4 hour classes. So you'd be looking at 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

Not that I'd put anyn stock in "Credit hours" alone. It always also depends upon the professors and the classes. Some professors will be very laid back, while others will cram as much learning (and work) into the semester as possible.

Edit: There's also online courses. At least one of the colleges around here (a technical college I believe) offers some of its courses online and they advertise those as being more streamlined and quicker.

[skies]

What do most people think of when they hear three times more education? I think of three times at least, and I think of undergrad, grad and Ph.D. levels, so I would think only a Ph.D. can even have the gall to claim three times. But even then it doesn't make much sense.

Exactly! Spreading yourself over multiple programs as an undergrad doesn't make you more educated, it just means your education had a different focus. One person may have focused on logic and physics, another may be hard core physics only, while a third may be applied physics and engineering. One is not inheriantly superior to any other 4-5 year program other assuming all things being equal. That said, App. State seems to have a good reputation. Waterloo, however, IS an elite Engineering and hard science school. It takes dedicated study at the post-graduate level to gain a "lofty position". Even then, you can no-longer dabble in multiple specialties. You have to specialize very quickly to do well.

TGHairball may be perfectly competent, or above average, but this holier than thou attitude is not how I would expect a serious researcher to behave, regardless of provocation.

[Darth Wong]

The liberal arts people at Waterloo had a schedule like what tjhairball seems to think is normal. The thing is, the engineering students had twice their workload.

Liberal arts students are generally accustomed to being pampered; the idea of a workload of 40+ hours per week (classes + homework) seems utterly absurd to most of them. It was a running joke among engineers at UW that the arts students were constantly on vacation. Meanwhile, we didn't even get spring break.

[Elfdart]

I lost track with the last thread, so just for clarification:

Is this guy BigHairyMountainPussy?

[Darth Wong]

I lost track with the last thread, so just for clarification:

Is this guy BigHairyMountainPussy?

Most likely.

[phongn]

For your amusement value, their advertising video

[Stark]

In the AU universities I have experience with, there are limits to how much workload you can take on per semester, but different faculties use widely differing scale. A humanities 10credit maths course would be less work than an engineering 5credit maths course, for instance, and back in the 90s (where everyone was doing 'forty credit points' a semester full-time) the humanities guys didn't seem to be doing anywhere near the amount of work, lectures, labs and tutorials the science and engineering guys were.

[Junghalli]

Well, in most US schools 15-18 credit-hours/semester is considered a full-time course load (presumably also the same for the quarter system)

SFSU allows a maximum of 19 units per semester, or six classes. With each class being 3-4 hours that equals about 18 hours a week plus reading, studying, essays etc. That's probably a typical work load for a student like myself who still lives with their parents and gets grants and so doesn't have to worry about supporting themselves during the school year or paying their own tuition for the most part.

DW is right, unless you're really dedicated you're not typically going to be spending 40 hours a week if you're a lit major.

[NecronLord]

Is this guy BigHairyMountainPussy?

No. I'm fairly certain he's not.

[brianeyci]

Liberal arts students are generally accustomed to being pampered; the idea of a workload of 40+ hours per week (classes + homework) seems utterly absurd to most of them.

I would say it's more because outspoken dicks like tjhairball ruins it for everybody. You don't really hear about the guy who is ashamed or guilty he can't do more with his life, but takes Bachelor of Shit anyway because that's the only way to compete in the marketplace because everybody has one and if he doesn't have one he's got nothing but high school that's worthless.

The situation is even more unbearable when you realize they came from an environmen where they went to school 8 hours a day, five days a week. What, did these kinds of fucks skip class in high school?

Maybe it's different in the sciences than the humanities, maybe it's different in an elite level program, but I'm not about to take TJhairball's word for it. It's probably just some 101 introductory class.

It's not. Arts and Science are generally rolled into one, at least up here: we do not have pampered "liberal arts" colleges. So physics takes three hours a week minimum and so does science. To be brutally honest, some professors are awful and it's not worth going to classes, or some professors talk at a level so much above you that you're better off spending the time reading the textbook.

Three hours a week is the minimum I've ever seen in any class though. English teachers want their time to talk and can talk for a very long time believe it or not.

[Vympel]

No. I'm fairly certain he's not.

How so? I'm fairly certain he is, given the similarity in name theme, style, and most importantly that on strek-v-swars he spoke of tjhairball's time here as if he were the same person.

[SCRawl]

The liberal arts people at Waterloo had a schedule like what tjhairball seems to think is normal. The thing is, the engineering students had twice their workload.

Liberal arts students are generally accustomed to being pampered; the idea of a workload of 40+ hours per week (classes + homework) seems utterly absurd to most of them. It was a running joke among engineers at UW that the arts students were constantly on vacation. Meanwhile, we didn't even get spring break.

Back when I was a physics student at McMaster University, riding the bus to go home, I overheard a couple of arts (or humanities, or whatever) students talking about their day. "Today's my heavy day," one of them said. "Two lectures and a tutorial." I just had to roll my eyes at that one.

A full course load, full-time science student (like I was) at a decent university will usually have five or (more likely) six classes at a time, though it's possible that one of them might be an elective, and therefore relatively easy. I still goggled at the course load of the engineering physics students, who at times carried a seventh course.

[Kane Starkiller]

10+ hours per week per course is very typical of physics courses at Appalachian. The 3 credit hour standard is supposed to correspond to about 10 hours of work.

Wait a minute so he has 10 hours per week? That is the total number of hours per week, am I getting this right?
My own Electrical engineering and computing faculty in Zagreb has a workload of 27 hours per week in the first semester, 26 in the second, third and fourth.
A semester lasts for about 13 weeks.(red, black and gray are days when no class is held).
So that is about 340 hours per semester for first two years. Which translates into five and a half year of his "lofty" 10-hours-per-week, 122-hours-per-semester program. What a fucking joke.

[SCRawl]

10+ hours per week per course is very typical of physics courses at Appalachian. The 3 credit hour standard is supposed to correspond to about 10 hours of work.

Wait a minute so he has 10 hours per week? That is the total number of hours per week, am I getting this right?
My own Electrical engineering and computing faculty in Zagreb has a workload of 27 hours per week in the first semester, 26 in the second, third and fourth.
A semester lasts for about 13 weeks.(red, black and gray are days when no class is held).
So that is about 340 hours per semester for first two years. Which translates into five and a half year of his "lofty" 10-hours-per-week, 122-hours-per-semester program. What a fucking joke.

I have to assume that the 10 hours/week he's talking about is for one course, as in for one of his five (or so) courses. Sounds about right, when you include assignments, studying, etc. A lab course would probably suck up more time than that, but would also include another three hours in-school work.

[brianeyci]

So that is about 340 hours per semester for first two years. Which translates into five and a half year of his "lofty" 10-hours-per-week, 122-hours-per-semester program. What a fucking joke.

Believe it or not engineers, arts and science majors have a schedule like this. The biggest pain is all the classes aren't together though, so some days you have one hour of class. Ten hours a week is standard shit, even for a physics or math major. The problem isn't that it's abnormal: of course it is, to anybody with a brain. Engineering is eight hours a day, five days a week of classes and anybody who knows anything about engineering knows this, while arts and science is ten hours the whole week. It's hairball's claim of superiority that makes it a big joke.

I have to assume that the 10 hours/week he's talking about is for one course, as in for one of his five (or so) courses.

That's for work. Kane is talking about classes, which is right. At his university, 90 semester hours is fourth year. So assume thirty semester hours per year, and if there's two semesters per year that's 15 semester hours per semester. Which means,

15 hours of class a week.

This is standard stuff for arts and science students.

It is actually not all terrible. The theoretical mathematicians, physicists and such need a schedule like this, because most of their learning happens outside the class. At the very top, it is very high, very difficult, more than engineering, because it is all theoretical. I would argue that even a very good historian needs a schedule like this, because most of the learning comes from reading.

But most arts and science students are either dishonest about their education or don't figure out what all that extra time is for until it's too late. That is the real problem, not that there's not enough classes. Of course if someone claims like hairball does that he's three times better well, he obviously can't point to this spare time and expect people to take his word for it that he spent it on great things.

[Androsphinx]

Believe it or not engineers, arts and science majors have a schedule like this. The biggest pain is all the classes aren't together though, so some days you have one hour of class. Ten hours a week is standard shit, even for a physics or math major. The problem isn't that it's abnormal: of course it is, to anybody with a brain. Engineering is eight hours a day, five days a week of classes and anybody who knows anything about engineering knows this, while arts and science is ten hours the whole week. It's hairball's claim of superiority that makes it a big joke.

One of my (history) supervisees complained last week that his workload (probably about 30 hours a week, because he never does the additional "optional" reading) was about three times that of his friends doing history in London. I have no idea what they manage to do with their time.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting how he goes on about how many students go on to complete PhDs (with no regard for the quality of those PhDs or where they are taken), loudly and repeatedly proclaiming that this is the ultimate test of the difficulty of a program, when the most obvious tests of the difficulty of a program would be the admission requirements and failure rate. Particularly failure rate, given the trend of high-school grade inflation. If it's difficult to get in and difficult to survive the program, then it's a difficult program. If, on the other hand, almost no one ever actually flunks out of this program, then how hard can it be?

UW engineering is well-known for flunking a lot of students; more than half in the first year alone. You don't just progress to third and fourth year in UW engineering; you're glad to survive to third and fourth year. Hairball, on the other hand, says nothing about this. As I said before, everything hairball says about his education reeks of resume inflation and self-promotion.