1895 school exam, are we dumb?

[SirJosephPorter]

I think you're off the mark in more ways than one - the "initial spark" and the financing of the project(s)...the spark usually comes from a customer need through a good marketing effort, and the ability to allow the study to take place comes from money...which is usually generated through business operations, sometimes run by the entrepreneurs who hatched the idea for the business in the first place. It's a team effort - science, for the most part, is not a "stand-alone" proposition. None of the disciplines are...they all need each other to get moving and stay alive.

Again, you are confusing what corporations do with fundamental basic or applied research carried out by scientists or engineers in university setting. When originally I mentioned scientists studying the basic fundamental concepts, it was very much in the context of university research.

And contrary to what you may think, corporate management does not dictate university research. A scientist couldn’t care less about customer needs, he is there to study science, period. When he writes research proposal to government or granting body, he has to show scientific merit and relevance to the grant giving body, he doesn’t have to show market need, customer demand etc.

I think you are confusing what corporations do in their lab (which is very focused upon the corporation business) with the real research that goes on at the universities.

 

[JLM]

I still want to know what a "worthwhile job" is.........

A worthwhile job is garbage collection, with out it varmints thrive, the area starts to smell, disease is spread, possibly resulting in the sickness or death of Engineers or Architects.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

For some reason, I can't shake the picture out of mind of a team of scientists toiling away in a pharma lab somewhere, diligently trying to develop a new treatment for the diabetes epidemic, when in fact a decent diet and a healthier lifestyle would ease the problem, if not eliminate it altogether.

Given the setup, they HAVE to come up with something to justify their costs to the company, and the company HAS to sell lots of it - at high prices - to justify the R & D costs. It's just one possible example of science running slightly out of control, and the long term contribution to human well-being is questionable, at best.

Again, these are details. You are mentioning specific instance where you think that scientists are not doing a good job and using that to condemn the entire scientific and technological enterprise.

To which, I give the same reply again, look at the overall picture. Look at the tremendous advances we have made in the past 100 years. New electronic gadgets, better yielding crops, elimination of diseases like small pox, better medicines (antibiotics were unheard of 100 years ago), improved standard of living, increased life expectancy, the list goes on and on,

You may wish to go back to the good old days of 100 years ago (and perhaps catch typhoid or cholera), in my opinion, we are much better off today compared to 100 years ago, and a big thanks to science and technology for that.


And again, you are confusing what corporations do with research. The real research is carried out by the universities.

 

[JLM]

OK, let us look at P. Eng. These days to work as an Engineer, you must be certified by the appropriate engineering institute (or similar licensing body). My understanding is that they won't even consider anybody for certification unless they have an engineering degree.

Did your boss have the certification of the proper engineering institute? These days he won't get a job without one. And these days he probably won't be considered for certification without an engineering degree.

I guess we'll never know the details, I heard a few years ago that he had died. I have no doubt that he was certified by an appropriate engineer institute. I saw his certificate on his office wall enough times but never memorized the details.

 

[gerryh]

A worthwhile job is garbage collection, with out it varmints thrive, the area starts to smell, disease is spread, possibly resulting in the sickness or death of Engineers or Architects.

What was said, was that one needed a University education to get a worthwhile job. This imply's that jobs that do not require a University education are NOT worthwhile. I find a statement like this VERY elitist, arrogant, and ignorant.

 

[JLM]

What was said, was that one needed a University education to get a worthwhile job. This imply's that jobs that do not require a University education are NOT worthwhile. I find a statement like this VERY elitist, arrogant, and ignorant.

You won't get any argument from me there..........:smile:

 

[gerryh]

just as an added.......... I assume the idea is that one can not make the "big bucks" unless one has a University degree......I know of Plumbers, HVAC Technicians and Automotive techs that make in excess of 100k per year.... how much does a teacher make after 5 years of University?

 

[Bar Sinister]

This is a good example of why our bridges are falling, buildings are crumbling, airplanes are falling out of the sky, automobiles are breaking down, because we accept poorly trained people to do the important work.

To get into college or university all you need is seventy per cent, which means your missing thirty per cent of knowledge.

University grad means the person is not that smart.

Soon this society will become so obtuse that swinging in the trees will be the norm.

Actually marks are somewhat meaningless. For the most part all they measure is the ability to remember facts. They do not measure the ability to reason or appreciate, art, literature or music. I have taught many honour students whose knowledge of the particulars they needed to pass the course was quite detailed, but who whose general knowledge was quite limited. Having a only 70 average to get into university does not mean that knowledge in other areas is not much more highly developed, just as having a 90 average does not mean that the student knows everything about the course.

You are right about the missing 30%. I would not wish to be operated on by a surgeon who knew only 90% of his anatomy course. The same is true of auto mechanics. We expect these people to do a perfect job every time.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Being an "average" person, I didn't catch this little comment you slipped in earlier on. The "founding father of Canada?!?!?" Holeee mackerel! I can't believe you're serious about that one.

Everyone knows that title goes to none other Sir John A. McDonald, who coincidentally was not only a Scotsman, he was also a Conservative. Talk about a visionary with skills, he was it. We couldn't have asked for a better leader to take on the task of pulling the wilderness together into a functioning country, against odds that must have seemed impossible at the time.

Trudeau can be regarded as founding father in the sense that he brought Canadian polity into the 20th century. Before he gave us the Charter, we had dictatorship of the Parliament (similar to what they used to have in Britain). Parliament was supreme, it could pass any laws it wished by a 50%+1 vote, courts were powerless to strike the laws down.

Trudeau gave us the proper system of checks and balances, where courts act as a check on a rogue PM (who could pass all kinds of draconian legislation if he has the majority).

Personally, I don’t think Canada was a complete nation before the Charter. So yes, I think Trudeau may properly be referred to as a founding father.

You elite folks should study up on real history when you get a minute...not only will you set yourself straight with real facts, but you might even decide to improve your voting habits...which are currently holding Canada back from a majority government that would apply those good, old-fashioned values of Sir John and chart a new and even more exciting course for this country as we proceed into the 21st century.

Really? What values are those, countryboy? Banning abortion? Recriminalizing homosexuality? Forcing the teaching of Book of Genesis in public schools (in addition to or in place of evolution)? Bringing back school prayers? Bringing back the noose? Making Christianity the de facto official religion of Canada?

Now, all that may seem like a paradise to you, but it is my idea of Hell on earth.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I guess we'll never know the details, I heard a few years ago that he had died. I have no doubt that he was certified by an appropriate engineer institute. I saw his certificate on his office wall enough times but never memorized the details.

Again, that was in the old days, JLM. Conditions are different today. These days very little happens without a college degree.

 

[JLM]

"Really? What values are those, countryboy? Banning abortion? Recriminalizing homosexuality? Forcing the teaching of Book of Genesis in public schools (in addition to or in place of evolution)? Bringing back school prayers? Bringing back the noose? Making Christianity the de facto official religion of Canada?"

Actually with the exception of the noose, I really question if any of that other stuff is actually the concern of Gov't. and if so only in a secondary or even tertiary role of Gov't. As far as preferences go between "Conservatives" and "Liberals", I don't really have any but if the Liberals want to make this stuff their main concerns then that would break the tie in my books.

 

[countryboy]

Trudeau can be regarded as founding father in the sense that he brought Canadian polity into the 20th century. Before he gave us the Charter, we had dictatorship of the Parliament (similar to what they used to have in Britain). Parliament was supreme, it could pass any laws it wished by a 50%+1 vote, courts were powerless to strike the laws down.

Trudeau gave us the proper system of checks and balances, where courts act as a check on a rogue PM (who could pass all kinds of draconian legislation if he has the majority).

Personally, I don’t think Canada was a complete nation before the Charter. So yes, I think Trudeau may properly be referred to as a founding father.




Really? What values are those, countryboy? Banning abortion? Recriminalizing homosexuality? Forcing the teaching of Book of Genesis in public schools (in addition to or in place of evolution)? Bringing back school prayers? Bringing back the noose? Making Christianity the de facto official religion of Canada?

Now, all that may seem like a paradise to you, but it is my idea of Hell on earth.

Getting worthwhile things done? Discarding programs that were set up to satisfy liberal cravings for things to look good (such as the stupid gun registry)? Doing some real budget work instead of downloading expenses to provinces (a al Paul Martin and his saving the country)? Upgrading Sir John's national railroad to current standards? Continuing to bring pride and substance back into the military after the Liberals virtually destroyed it through unwise budget cuts? Shall I go on?

 

[JLM]

Getting worthwhile things done? Discarding programs that were set up to satisfy liberal cravings for things to look good (such as the stupid gun registry)? Doing some real budget work instead of downloading expenses to provinces (a al Paul Martin and his saving the country)? Upgrading Sir John's national railroad to current standards? Continuing to bring pride and substance back into the military after the Liberals virtually destroyed it through unwise budget cuts? Shall I go on?

Geez, Countryboy- I'm not sure if you are reading my mind or if I'm reading yours. :lol:

 

[VanIsle]

Quoting SirJosephPorter These days one needs a university (or at least Community College) degree for any worthwhile job.
​

Quite so, quite so.

So - both of you feel this to be true. So you are telling the rest of us that people who simply apprentice (electricians, plummers, gas fitters, carpenters etal) and police officers, correctional officers and on and on do not have worthwhile jobs? Nearly all of the above, earn good money. What do either of you count as "worthwhile"? If you didn't work for your wife SJP, who would you work for and what pay would you earn? What do you count as a worthwhile job TenPenny? Both of you - what does one have to know or what does one have to earn before you consider them as having a worthwhile job.
I guess there are worthwhile jobs and worthwhile people. I would rather have a whole slew of worthwhile people in my life than a bunch of worthless over educated people. Not suggesting that educated people are not worthwhile but I've certainly been in the company of many well educated people with what you two may consider to have worthwhile jobs but they are not worthwhile people. Naturally the reverse is true but I've certainly known many worthwhile people who work hard at their (to me) worthwhile jobs and I hope I never snobby enough to consider that anyone who has a job, is not working at a worthwhile one.

 

[VanIsle]

Again, that was in the old days, JLM. Conditions are different today. These days very little happens without a college degree.

I could not disagree with you more.

 

[VanIsle]

Quoting Liberalman
This is a good example of why our bridges are falling, buildings are crumbling, airplanes are falling out of the sky, automobiles are breaking down, because we accept poorly trained people to do the important work.
And just who is training these poorly trained people? University Profs? Where did they get their poor training. Architects draw plans for buildings. My son's employers are in the midst of a court case right now because the plans they had drawn up were of such poor quality, my son had to show them what was wrong with the plans and how to correct them. They did concede that their plans were wrong. They just don't want to refund as much money as they should. Has my son been to university - yes. But he's not a graduate. Has he been to trade school - yes.
To get into college or university all you need is seventy per cent, which means your missing thirty per cent of knowledge.
I think you would have to show that those are the marks right across the country for entrance to a university. From what I understand they are higher here and I cannot see why they would be less in Ontario. Maybe you're missing some details.
University grad means the person is not that smart.
University grad means the person has been to university. Nothing more and nothing less. The marks that person gets are important but how they perform on the job is more important. A degree is useless unless you know what to do with it.

Soon this society will become so obtuse that swinging in the trees will be the norm.
You mean it isn't?

 

[Cliffy]

A university degree doesn't mean squat. I know a lot of idiots with degrees and many more that are flipping burgers at Micky D's. I look at our forests and how badly they have been mismanaged by degrees. I know doctors who think that they have a degree that we should all worship the ground they walk on but who couldn't get a diagnosis right if their life depended on it. No less than five doctors told me that I would be dead in a month back in 96 if I didn't get triple bypass. I was a draftsman who ended up designing houses because the architect could do the job properly.

A degree just says you remember stuff until you get a degree and then you will, more than likely, promptly forget it. Give me a person who can think on their feet, solve problems from logic and common sense, take the initiative when the situation requires it. People who hire based on degrees are morons. People should be hired because of their ability not because of a piece of paper.

 

[countryboy]

Sure, a person can learn anything he wants. But try to get a good job these days without a university degree. It is very difficult. In the old days, a person could get a good job based upon high school diploma. Those days are long gone.

Next time your toilet malfunctions, you'd better make sure the plumber you call has a university degree. Otherwise, he might not do a "good job." Ditto for the paramedic, firefighter, policeman, and tow truck driver responding to your next car accident. And the person who delivers your mail.

 

[countryboy]

I said, "I think there are quite a few exceptions to your "progress and prosperity" rule too. We don't seem to have been able to eradicate wars, poverty, sickness, homelessness, and a few other maladies that continue to afflict us on an everyday basis." And you responded with:

Again, these are details. You are mentioning specific instance where you think that scientists are not doing a good job and using that to condemn the entire scientific and technological enterprise.

You do have an imagination, I'll grant you that. Since when are wars, poverty, sickness, and homelessness considered to be "details?" I wasn't condemning the entire scientific and technological enterprise (as you put it)...I was pointing out to you that a great number of very serious problems remain to be solved, whether it be by science or other means. Gawd, you're sensitive about science, aren't you!

 

[countryboy]

What you are saying here in nothing new, countryboy. In the business world it is known as ‘market pull’ and ‘technology push’. You seem to think that the only innovation takes place by ‘market pull’, and that there is no such thing as ’technology push’.

Uh yes, I'm quite familiar with the terms. I'm just curious as to which book you referenced to find them. Or was it a website?

Studies have shown that most of the time market pull doesn’t work. The reason for that is that science and technology does not obey Human commands, one cannot come up with a scientific principle or technological innovation at an order barked by the management.

Sounds like you got "barked at" a few times by the management (that would be the people responsible to keep the budgets and results under control). Is science your "religion?" Reason I ask is you seem to be hyper-sensitive about the entire subject, especially if someone has a viewpoint different than yours.

I did work in rubber technology for a few years. The management would dearly love to have a new elastomer, with greater wet skid resistance (good for braking) and lower rolling resistance (lower gas consumption) at the same time. Technologists have been singularly unsuccessful in finding one.

What?!? I thought science had all the answers! Now who or what are you going to blame this on?

Contrary to what you may think, it is not as easy as management giving specifications to the engineers, and engineers coming up with a new plastic, or a new cell phone etc. It doesn’t work that way. If you think that is how technology advances (manger gives the engineer an order and engineer fulfills it), you have a very poor understanding of science and technology indeed.

I've told you before, if you want to know what I think, just ask. Continuing to make these wild-assed assumptions simply makes you look unstable, especially when it's so blatantly obvious that you preface your conclusions with them. Didn't they teach you anything in your university studies about establishing a base of facts?