 |
COLLEGE INDEPENDENT 'ALTERNATIVE PROSPECTUS' GUIDE
Part 4.
This is continued from
http://www.webspawner.com/users/newone042c/index.html
~newone042b~
~newone042~
[About students continued.]
Aside a tangent, the character: it seemed that neither the Reformation, nor the Enlightenment, despite wide crescents, nor also any rule of law, had quite got to this part of Scotland yet. "It’s coming,… …bi-plane or however…", and so there, "The law’s on the streets – it’s gude!". For the uninitiated the latter means that what’s actually good is the target of some extreme release of anger, or something I don’t know, at the situation and a general target. This is, at the most visible point of the iceberg, centrally the problem with this place as I relate in this guide and also an ongoing cycle from here to eternity. I’m quite sure that hell came from Edinburgh, and in fact probably is this place exclusively.
This does not seem anything like an over-reaction to me.
My apologies are also given here to those who are culturally oblivious to the references in this paragraph for the confusnig nature of these comments as I do not really understand the apparent unearthly situation myself, but it is more than necessary, and the truth. And for all there is nothing humourous or light though I may not naturally be able to equate any weight to these reported comments of other students in the final sense at all about what I write, at any time, now or at any coming time, and neither at any past time, however extremely serious I regard what I describe.
[Philosophy] (Please see the note at the bottom of this page.)
I also took two courses of the full four first year philosophy courses at this institution. These were pretty bad in considered hindsight though the lecturing staff were very adept at making things seem advanced. Frequently everything emanating from the drolling staff seemed very complicated, and this even seemed to stem also from that the subject matter intuitively seemed easy but the problem was not with the student's unfamiliarity to philosophy though one was made to be quite aware of this, in a manner which wouldn't be believed, I tell you.
There weren’t any adequate tutorials at all for me and those in my group – none of any standard – viable for a four year old to an eighty four year old. Here the tutor was "it" and the tutor could not deal with this and neither with the tutorials hence – but only ignored or rather, consequently, egged on the continuing jabs and unsmiling jokes of the students made out as non-contextual, utterly irrelevant, perhaps unforgivable, perhaps only expectable, non-philosophical rants. When, as very infrequently, someone asked a question related to anything studied she did not know, leading to a kind of hoped trust in her from me when I occasionally woke up. This was bizarre as of her complete inability to teach, maybe it was that she should be some kind of deep lady, though when it came to that she did not know what any of the "isms" were, when questioned. She would say "I’m not sure… is that…?", and then get it wrong. She was a postgraduate, but a paid-up member of the company!
Funnily though, Ms. Sophie was not, it seems, having to do with any or much of the lecture course content, just as the disturbing chattering students. "Oh For God’s Sake Woman." Surely, students don’t give tutorials? Even should they be trying to make sense. They weren’t. I was treated patronisingly by this tutor, and as if contextually mistaken when I piped in something obviously to do with the course once a term or so: as if I were more than eternally foolish to expect anything. Perhaps it was the only reaction in this situation. Nearly everyone jumped on board from very early on when the tutor seemed to suggest that someone else was to take tutorials but I think she had no intention of teaching at all anyway, it's hard to tell and irrelevant really.
Lectures were based on confusion often and for the most part this dominated. It seems that the Enlightenment passed here by, though one has learned of Descartes, and of course, as is not uncommon in philosophy, an opposition to this man's "rationalism" in one area. I suppose, that all these introductory exercises largely being loosely based on some popular and often dead-end areas of thought separately were most often in "what not to do" finally in serious thought so to introduce some basic modes of operating, would be clearer to the full time Philosophy students who had taken the pure logic course. And if ever more acceptable there were more often than not large basic flaws in presented reasoning, though ocassionally a simple subject was handled well. Further, when the areas studied were of the areas of thought which in this practice may still not have achieved enlighted discussion in this day and age, generally, here most annoyingly things fell somewhere beneath a reasonable level anyway. My experience was one of the two first year modules I took of four first year subjects. Then again, it is supposed afresh, this year could have been more disconcerting still for this if also taking first year pure logic with these heavily illogical or thought-wise facile and insulting (and the word invalid comes to me – wrong), drawn-out, aimless courses.
But very often one would be wondering wha this was for, if it was anything true. Rendering study of thought to a game of non-sequitive, ungrounded and remedial Ring-a-Ring-a-Roses projections is not a good introduction, these based on no more than just transient or flimsy projections which do not sustain in basic and true logic or, the same, a special and natural kind of common sense which exists only outside the lecture theatre). It is the fairy (not what's outside). Actually reading this back, it is so harmful. As I also remember very well. The thing is it took me some time to work this out, I trusting to some extent the content largely for some period, to my detriment.
More often than not the content of the 1st year Philosophy courses was characterised by a hugely whimsical approach to method and logic. And as the design is about introducing philosophical practises one can only conclude that the intention is to do this in a kind of "third-world material" way. The real shocking thing for me was the question of purpose, any purpose, which became very prevalent and noticeable to me from within the murk and could not be answered. This is not fun, and actually is very harmful indeed. (Had the lecturers themselves heard of purpose? It seemed quite often not in any way. Sometimes they had. And so, then, one supposes there is something they do, not to suggest that they have to. I don't know why actually.) The continuing, perhaps not initially evident categorical errors in presenting can be shocking, and the courses became progressively more and more categorically speaking challenged in essence, with only some notable exceptions. They were not going anywhere in their quagmire.
To be fair the two philosophy courses did have some substance, and should be there conceivably be any university or academic atmosphere lingering for someone, would be provocative and possibly therefore inspirational, as hence perhaps the lowest level acceptable course one might find as remedial games are not funny or any way fully serious. And this recurring attitude [more below again]: confuse students to throw them into the library (properly here, tantalise), probably, at a stretch, for some lucky souls with strong and compatible outlooks, should be able to work better with philosophy than with other Edinburgh courses. But then again, as I experienced and some others experienced there weren't any tutorials. It would be the last thing in the world, except for even one or two or even three things I would do to recommend this philosophy course to anyone.
I must make it clear again, though, that I only experienced a half of one of four years in Philosophy, and this full year was entitled an "Introduction". I do assume, still, that things picked up after this (this DID NOT happen with Music, in fact the reverse was true, the course got worse). Philosopy students have assured me that the breadth within the whole course was a significant improvement in experience in totality to that of the first year. And some specialise significantly, and so with much harder application and particular blessedness of spirit than occurs elsewhere, I can readily see that something of a good degree has been acheivable. This funny thing, though, to much extent, with the teaching remaining lurks unexplained in one's mind.
This same phenomen, also, however, I have been told was a great mask to the effect of forgetting of how one was, not to mention of enthusiasm and thoughts in inexperience and similar. And, one envisages, as was confirmed, a good deal of one's former mental disposition, and I suppose person. This would be the effect of this first year if nearly the sum of one's active life for such a period, I can easily imagine myself. Indeed I have experienced this as studying Music, I forget as I consider, and indeed forget normally though I can appreciate at the same time in thought, had the same effect. Even when very aware of this, it is true I am very seldom aware of or able to appreciate the full reality of this forgetting. To know of it is at least something.
One wonders just how ill the teaching staff have been througout all of this time. They are not stupid.
Trying to hold myself at bay and see value here again, I suppose that the course designers could defend themselves by holding up what I have described as being challenging: the introduction to the modes of operation (really quite basic) but with content which is always to be looked at without assuming it to make any sense as it largely does not. I don't know. I can't see what else they would do for most of the output.
One of a couple of exceptions was the Introduction to Aesthetics section, the height of the year, in which we had covered a pretty good amount of the very basics of a basic introduction to aesthetics in philosophy. So there was teaching here, and it was not concerned with "what's wrong" for a change. I felt this was an almost unwritably astonishing achievement at the time in my stupor. And further, this section of a few weeks in itself, for example, was endlessly better than the whole fourth year alleged honours Aesthetics of Music course over at Alison House. And the Introduction to Universalisation in Morals near the beginning of the year had most of the required stuff from a few medium sized philosophy dictionary entries, with nothing more, and if not enlightening or hardly enlightened contextually, really, in itself, then given such to interest students. These were the exceptions. Though it was not like Music as all of it may be wholly new to the students, where very, very little of what was given in lectures from staff of Alison House, aesthetics aside, should have been remotely new or even recent to a quarter- to half-serious student.
However there was nearly always something more than very juvenile about the standard of awareness at the philosophy department, something that is hard to believe, such that it seemed every lecture that the lecturer was trying to scream "YOU could only do better than this", or begging for someone to scream this out ("We could only do better than this"). This context itself I experienced, if we are serious, and the tone of voice for a year was terribly serious for someone relaxedly imagining it should be serious and ready as well to enjoy this, is, it seems obvious, so invalid in a way that it must be worse than juvenile. This for me most often puts the Introduction to Philosophy I experienced into the category of very clearly "wrong" and and more than just dangerous, destructive. The "Edinburgh Uni." lowest common denominating factor here, there are many to be found, and which is below a sober and mature groan is that at least you can’t know where you wouldn’t be expected to make sense of it. It does seem a serious place, and it is a serious thing. I can say that the Philosophy department did go quite a bit further than the Music department's basic dictionary definitions fully or nearly fully for thirteen year olds, or even seven year olds, naturally, even despite the clear analysis report here of what that is.
* IMPORTANT * 31 Dec. 05. The course structure of the Philosophy degree course of Edinburgh University has changed since I studied. This change took place a few years ago. In this case I don't know if there have been tremendous improvements or not. I would be very pleased to hear and to pass on genuine comments here.
-----* 30 Dec. 05. Please see the next page for a general and normal comment on the study of Philosophy as detatched from study at Edinburgh University.
Continued at
~newone042e
Contact is welcome.
Please email the address below
or fax 00 44 871 239 7110.
Next Page (Part 5)
Head of article - Part 1
End messages / Help this site
The Ulster Orchestra of Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Publicise this cause any way. Save The Other Cinema. Advise donations.
VISIT HERE frequently, advertising income SAVES RAINFOREST measures: Bmark.
Send E-Mail to: newone042@yahoo.co.uk
Copyright © 2005 newone042. All Rights Reserved