"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:06:42 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"IMM" wrote
| When I was in a German office for a month, they would have the
| odd celebration and out came the beer. We were never invited.
| I wonder why ?
| Because we were better looking, better dressed, better dancers,
| better singers and better at life than them.

And we won the war.

No, the *Americans* won the war! We put them up for three years.

NO. We won the war with their weapons, doing their fighting and they charged
us with interest. Something sounds not right in that.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote
| PoP wrote:
| Take the worlds biggest w*nker, apply a
| liberal dose of newspaper, and what do you get?
| IMM?

Soggy newspaper?

Ink on your willy?

Owain

Andy Hall wrote in message ...
"IMM" wrote
| When I was in a German office for a month, they would have the
| odd celebration and out came the beer. We were never invited.
| I wonder why ?
| Because we were better looking, better dressed, better dancers,
| better singers and better at life than them.

And we won the war.

I mentioned the war.

That could be why you weren't invited to the parties....


I always found that asking people if they used to go to the Nuremberg
rallies produced the same response. Particularly effective in disrupting
meetings!

Regards
Capitol

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:06:42 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote
| When I was in a German office for a month, they would have the
| odd celebration and out came the beer. We were never invited.
| I wonder why ?
| Because we were better looking, better dressed, better dancers,
| better singers and better at life than them.

And we won the war.


No, the *Americans* won the war! We put them up for three years.



The russkies won the war.


MM

In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Applied to comp sci graduates from un snotty unis the usual response is
'thats not fair, you didn't tell us, and the government ought to tell
us, that its possible to put bananas under a flower pot' ....

I profoundly wish there was no truth in your assertion; but in my direct
experience of regular guest lecturing at a couple of universities
("established", "traditional", or whatever we're supposed to call "real"
ones - incidentally dissing a few excellent poly departments such as
Hatfield's comp sci course), and confirmed by several friends who do Uni
teaching full time - there is at least a substantial minority of students
who expect detailed handholding and ludicrously explicit guidance about
what will be On The Exam.

I'm sure this attitude isn't totally a recent invention: equally, I'm sure
it's more prevalent, and much more vocally expressed, than 20-30 years ago
when Uni education was shamelessly "elitist", i.e. aimed to nurture the
critical thinking skills of those able to string a few coherent thoughts
together. There are still plenty of bright, self-motivated, intellectually
curious students coming through: but the 'teaching quality exercises' seem
to be geared towards making Uni teaching more and more like school teaching.

Fortunately, most of the lecturers I know are still insisting on telling
their students that it's an *education* they're getting, not some narrow
"training", and that final exam questions and intermediate
assessments/assignments are there to demonstrate reasoning from appropriately
understood principles and an ability to do some unguided fact-gathering
and sifting, rather than regurgitaion of last term's lecture notes. But
as I say, there is more of an objection to this discipline than there once
was: and it comes strongly, incidentally, from some students who are paying
full (overseas) fees, and will say, more or less explicitly, "I [or more
accurately, my parents or my country' government] have paid scads of money
to send me on this course, when I have this qualification I can get a Good
Job, it's your job to make sure I get this qualification".

Indeed, one of the (presumably) unintended consequences of making students
pay increasing amounts of their own money for their tuition - rather than
treating their education as an investment by the whole of society in the
minds of the best-and-brightest - is that it may well reinforce this narrow,
selfish, consumerist approach to ones university education. Depressing...
but, as noted, not universal, or even yet the majority viewpoint in the
few institutions I have close contact with.

.................................................. ....... followed by a
claim for constructive dismissal and discrimination against the
terminally stupid.

Now here, oh Naturally Philosophical one, you stray in my view into the
world of rant. No doubt there's some 'customer culture' element to the
whinges of the wannabe spoonfeds, as I've already alluded to above: but
regular legal action for teaching at an appropriate level has yet to rear
its ugly head in UK academe!

Stefek

wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Applied to comp sci graduates from un snotty unis the usual response is
'thats not fair, you didn't tell us, and the government ought to tell
us, that its possible to put bananas under a flower pot' ....

I profoundly wish there was no truth in your assertion; but in my direct
experience of regular guest lecturing at a couple of universities
("established", "traditional", or whatever we're supposed to call "real"
ones - incidentally dissing a few excellent poly departments such as
Hatfield's comp sci course), and confirmed by several friends who do Uni
teaching full time - there is at least a substantial minority of students
who expect detailed handholding and ludicrously explicit guidance about
what will be On The Exam.

So what. All students try to milk the lecturers beforehand about what is in
the exam. We used to send a dollybird with her skirt deliberately pulled up
her bum to one lecturer, who we knew would give more to her than anyone
else.

With many course the Qs are pretty obvious. One lecturer would prepare us
by saying "If this was course where I didn't know the Qs until the day, this
is how I would approach it". It was applying logic to the syllabus, and
narrowing down matters.

I'm sure this attitude isn't totally a recent invention: equally, I'm sure
it's more prevalent, and much more vocally expressed, than 20-30 years ago
when Uni education was shamelessly "elitist", i.e. aimed to nurture the
critical thinking skills of those able to string a few coherent thoughts
together. There are still plenty of bright, self-motivated, intellectually
curious students coming through: but the 'teaching quality exercises' seem
to be geared towards making Uni teaching more and more like school
teaching.

I was always told answer anyway you like, as long as you justify your
approach and reasoning.

Fortunately, most of the lecturers I know are still insisting on telling
their students that it's an *education* they're getting, not some narrow
"training", and that final exam questions and intermediate
assessments/assignments are there to demonstrate reasoning from
appropriately
understood principles and an ability to do some unguided fact-gathering
and sifting, rather than regurgitaion of last term's lecture notes.

That is correct. But that is also used as a get out by some uni's for bad
teaching. In short, they are saying, do it yourself.

But
as I say, there is more of an objection to this discipline than there once
was: and it comes strongly, incidentally, from some students who are
paying
full (overseas) fees, and will say, more or less explicitly, "I [or more
accurately, my parents or my country' government] have paid scads of money
to send me on this course, when I have this qualification I can get a Good
Job, it's your job to make sure I get this qualification".

Quite right. It is the part responsibility of the institution to ensure
students are up to scratch and of the standard required.

I see the snots have one-to-one tutorials. All paid for by taxpayers.

Indeed, one of the (presumably) unintended consequences of making students
pay increasing amounts of their own money for their tuition - rather than
treating their education as an investment by the whole of society in the
minds of the best-and-brightest - is that it may well reinforce this
narrow,
selfish, consumerist approach to ones university education. Depressing...
but, as noted, not universal, or even yet the majority viewpoint in the
few institutions I have close contact with.

Yes, like in the USA, where many courses are vocational, or mere training
courses.

.................................................. ....... followed by a
claim for constructive dismissal and discrimination against the
terminally stupid.

Now here, oh Naturally Philosophical one, you stray in my view into the
world of rant. No doubt there's some 'customer culture' element to the
whinges of the wannabe spoonfeds, as I've already alluded to above: but
regular legal action for teaching at an appropriate level has yet to rear
its ugly head in UK academe!

Stefek

Ah., The mexican charcioal burner thing.

Well it was sort of raher wonderful in its awfulness...

Yes I suppose if you are going for an indoor charcoal burner then
purple is the only colour to have. Myself I'd have added pink polka
dots a la Mr Blobby :-)

Anna
--
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plasterwork, plaster conservation
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling and pargeting
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 07976 649862