http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/...ollow-your-arts/2005/06/17/1118869093825.htmlArvin Sloane said:Hopefully the collective BoS masses will be able to counter my sudden love for it.
really good read.Generator said:http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/...ollow-your-arts/2005/06/17/1118869093825.html
An article that most should read through at some stage.
says the woman doing maths and chemistry~*HSC 4 life*~ said:i'd never do psychology, borrrrrrrrrrrring
if the author had any idea about a law degree, or the legal profession, then she would know that a law career is not about memorising rules."An extraordinary number also turned out to love the law. On reflection, it is understandable so many have opted to... memorise rules"
as if. that's kind of saying you can get proper qualified medical advice and heal thyself from browsing the netand lawyers lose work to legal websites
Isn't that how they make the OC scripts?But computers can't write a television script
No, just people using copy + paste with scripts of old tv shows.Arvin Sloane said:Isn't that how they make the OC scripts?
i must spread some more reputation before i can shower jumb with kudos aginjumb said:As for the article, I thought it was a bit prentious for the writer to insinuate that people who do law or accounting are not passionate about their work. It's also funny that arcording to the article, if you do an "impassionate" course you will be rich, but if you do a "passionate" course you will be poor.
There is nothing wrong with those, and you may find that you wish to branch out at Macquarie (which has a pretty lenient transfer system)Arvin Sloane said:Convince me why doing this would be bad.
In terms of lack of career paths, etc etc.
Hopefully the collective BoS masses will be able to counter my sudden love for it.
I thought that the writer was quite clear in suggesting that there are many who ignore their passions in favour of a vocational or status symbol degree on the understanding that a liberal arts education is 'worthless' in the workforce. In other words (I would hate to think that this paragraph suggests something else), it was merely challenging the prevailing point of view that derides a liberal arts education as lacking in an employment sense.jumb said:As for the article, I thought it was a bit prentious for the writer to insinuate that people who do law or accounting are not passionate about their work. It's also funny that arcording to the article, if you do an "impassionate" course you will be rich, but if you do a "passionate" course you will be poor.
Haha, i only wishArvin Sloane said:Now if MQ had some Neo-Gothic architecture my decision would be made.
I can't block people anymore , but at least your thread is serious.Arvin Sloane said:Convince me why doing this would be bad.
In terms of lack of career paths, etc etc.
Hopefully the collective BoS masses will be able to counter my sudden love for it.
of course. :uhhuh:Generator said:So you ignored the actual message that the article sought to impress upon us all just because someone sought to lightly denigrate your chosen path in illustrating a point that appears to have escaped your 'keen' legal mind?
Bloody hell, you just missed my edit. I went overboard with what should have been a simple rebuttal (of a sort), so I changed it ever so slightly.Frigid said:of course. :uhhuh:
remember, according to the inferences made by the author, i am but a sheep. i choose to "ignore" my "passions" and follow the high-UAI, number-crunching, rule-memorising way.
in reality, i think people can be just as passionate about commerce and law as they are about arts. to promote liberal degrees, there is no need to denigrate other courses.
i may agree with her purpose (to tell people to do what they are passionate about), but i strongly disagree with her argument.
Bloody hell, read what generator is saying. Stop being so disillusioned. That's not at all what the author said. The writer never called you a sheep. She never said that anyone who does law or accounting follows the flock.Frigid said:of course. :uhhuh:
remember, according to the inferences made by the author, i am but a sheep. i choose to "ignore" my "passions" and follow the high-UAI, number-crunching, rule-memorising way.
in reality, i think people can be just as passionate about commerce and law as they are about arts. to promote liberal degrees, there is no need to denigrate other courses.
i may agree with her purpose (to tell people to do what they are passionate about), but i strongly disagree with her argument.