Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

I think it has to be all 3. assessment is fairest way to make someone work over a period and improtantly learn to work a project. Exam is the only real way to really test learning... disseration is a deep dive into something and a way of proving ability to research

 

What are your views on Porton Down?

 

As a blanket statement, I disagree with that . Too many students learn just enough to pass an exam which is forgotten weeks later. Some cheat, heck some tutors cheat by giving the questions out beforehand - how does that test learning, it doesn't, it tests memory. I agree with your first sentence

 

you are right but thats why i tie it to assessment. Exam rote learning happens. we all know that but it only move a person up a grade say. i cannot convert a guy who knows nothing into a first.

And i totally agree number manipulation goes on. tutors certainly give out answers and questions.

Hell it was so mad in my own course year one they added extra continuous assessment to get people to pass energy systems courses by bascially giving the same questions covered the day before in the "assessment exam" the next day.

Why i remember once walking into the hall and finding the question paper left there by a mate who'd sat it an hour before. Needless to say you simply take out the prepared answer from your folder and hand it in as a result.

Mind you I got 98% in final exam too so I knew it but the dolts who didn't scraped by a year and the uni got more money in.. those guys never made it to end of course so they were fooling themselves from day 1 but were also led on IMO.

The exam put you in a controlled scenario with auditable trails. The handing our of questions still occurs but for me it is the only way to just threshold the thing.

In other words.. a uni can scrape a guy along on continuous assessment and a bad exam and get him by but to have a first you have to go do a lot more and understand the stuff.

I would say the dissertation then is important too as it gives a basis........ to judge too.

................................................

I just want to digress here a minute.

If i were interviewing there is something i do look for.

If I want a technician I hire a technician.

if i want an engineer I do not hire an ex-technician.

Here's an example. My boss here is a female right... no isse.. best boss ever she loves me and minds me... Its like heaven. she is an engineer. mechanical.

But..... her husband works in semi conductor industry as a technician. he is doing a degree. There is not one week goes by she's not whinging at me (like i give a toss) that she is doing all his work and assignments.

that's one example

I had the bad fortune of having my american collegues go out fo their way to hire an engineer... despite me telling them tehre was not enough work for both of us. They hired a guy who was ex-technician. result.. nothing but problems.. can't do this, can't do that.. thats too hard... etc

Ended up leaving us.

result? I do all the "work" including travel to USA.

Now they worry if i leave what'll they do.. result lets get intern... lets hire a graduate... cycle starts again.

.....................

If you want someone who is willing to do something and take a risk hire an engineer. If you want someone who want to work in a box and not take a risk and keep things the same. hire an ex-technican.

I think the uniions and shift rotas and production quotas etc train them to duck and dodge.

uni doesn't teach that. the graduate will get his nose bloodied many times but they sit apart from it a bit and can do something new.... once he learns where his arse is cos uni certainly doesn't teach what only experience can.

 

Starts with ad hominem attack



Coronal holes are surface down events where as sun spot are outward moving events, both are magentics. Spots are related to convention but also strong magnetic events also relate to cnvection in holes spots so, you are talking cack there

"Coronal holes are nothing to do with convection" No the temperature differences related to sun spots are related to convection, if that is what I said it would indeed have been correct to say it is inaccurate. Coronal holes are relative to magnetics and conductivity hence the lack of emissions because the EM cannot produce both simultaneuously. I already explained that more than once. My mistake or error was not clearly distinguishing when I was talking about sun spots and coronal holes, due to whatever, rushng to post in all honesty rather than taking my time. As for uneducated, ect ect, the labels you attempt to apply to me, your ignorance is astouunding, you have ignored everything that suited you and pick at parts you think you can attack, in order to what? Win? #fail.

"they are regions of open magnetic field lines and lower plasma density, hence their appearance in EUV images." which is what I said about coronal holes, my mistake was not clearly stating when I was talking about coronal holes and sun spots. My mistake


When it suits you you use observations by scientists to support your wild and uneducated speculation, then the next paragraph you'll turn round and claim "they have no clue about..." and therefore your unfounded nonsense is somehow equivalent to genuine research.
more garbage from you again, you really are irked because I flattened your climate arguments. It has really set you off.
If I agree with one theory based on observations and disagree with another, in your world that makes me {insert list of labels] Yet when you are proven wrong, deny it and respond with #meltdown and #conspiracy that doesn't detract from you or display an "uneducated opinion"?


"You still get your information from a known #fraud because just like the Nature ice thickness article you will copy and paste things that support your agenda without any knowledge of the science or even reading the sources themselves."

Here we have again labels and attacks on the source rather than combating the message I posted a video from the scientists in arctic who "stated unequivocally that we don't know how thick the ice is" but you keep referring to the article that i got the video from BUT the video is from hte British expedition tasked with solving this problem, why are you ignoring the words of the scientist on hte expedition? Why do you keep avoiding that?

Also, agenda? I asked you to lay out my agenda? You ignored that. Any time I ask you somethig relevant that is backed by science you go missing, literally, every time. Even the recent correlation of solar activity, that fits quite perfectly, you had nothing, When given scientists own words on how their work was abused you try label it an anti AGW #conspiracy, ironic given I thought I was the #conspiracy type.

You work off labels, insults and attacks where your arguments fail, in times past I would get really pissed and #meltdown as it is called here, but really this sort of kack shows what you are, someone who cannot handle disagreement, you have this desire to force people to accept your view.

"You have been #exposed as a liar and this is why you cannot discuss a topic for more than one sentence. You don't have a clue so you copy and paste as much nonsense as possible."

Again insult labels and false claims "I cannot discuss a topic for more than one sentence" > have you read this thread? I put time into my posts and cite sources and you reply with #conspiracy and #'meltdown. Do you get irony?
There is an abundance of posts explaining my position and cited sources as to why as well relative information, in quite extensive posts and you repeatedly reply with insults and mockery. You've an alarmingly short memory. Ad hominem attacks are part of your tool kit. That and paraphrasing, and changing tack and also absolutel refusal to eveer admit you are wrong on anything.

So, in a case of me posting as much nonsense as possible. (Science journals papers credible sources and maybe some not so credible though the information within can nonetheless be credible, very much so) If a not so credible sources agrees with your view point you will deem it credible, which sums up your rdiculous static belief system perfectly.

Lets take an example. You claim the 97% consensus backs your AGW argument.

I prove that they never asked one scientist, and even post scientist rebuttals re their work classified as agreeing when the scientist explicitly states his paper does not agree.
What was your come back "oh that's an AGW website" and "I am spamming" That was your learned come back.

When debating if I offer an opinion source or even sceintific paper, you come back with insults and unrelated false arguments as a straw man is yor favourite.


Of all the posts I made, and put effort into, you finally make a post more than 2 or three lines, but only because you think you are a dog with a bone re coronal holes. Whilst I might not have the knowledge to discuss that subject at level of figuring out the physics, obviously, the information relating to how earth is being affected and the importance of it on our climate, was a valid argument to put forward given the failure of IPCC modelling. Of course you ignored all of that argument and jumped on this in your childish attack.

To you, if you deem someone wrong, rather than correct, you come back with abuse, labels and "agenda"
unlike you I am not afraid to be wrong, or corrected, I've been corrected many times on here and no doubt will continue to be corrected from time to time, and that's normal, I can accept it. You as proven time and time again cannot, which is why you resort to the **** you do, only when I have had enough of that kack, do I get irked, then you claim I am what you are as a result.



If this was a science forum, I most likely would be corrected on some specifics, but you would be banned, because you are a pretty nasty **** when people don't accept your view.

Astro your posts are so emotionally driven it lame.
Now go back to ignoring everything bar what you think you can argue.

I still posted plenty to call into question IPCC modelling, deal with the points and stop going at me with your "agenda" You really do not see the irony. You are the epitome of the internet warrior, for you it's the battle that drives you and the resulting pathetic need "win"

For me, I am just looking at alternate explanations for some accepted views, how that offends you is beyond me, but then again, that is how religious fanatics carry themselves, that is undeniable. You believe something and disregard anything that disagrees and as shown on here repeatedly attack anyone that disagrees.

Your whole style is perfectly encapsulated in two posts, one where I post the 40 lines of evidence for condensed matter on the sun by Phsyscist and Engineer Pierre Marie Robitaille.

• You claimed it was "a meltdown"without even knowing what he was talking about, or the arguments he disagreed with, or the new data which I posted.
  • You then attacked Robitaille personally thereafter claiming he has no education to make such claims(claims you didn't understand, and also you know nothing about Robitaille(because imaging is his field and imaging is how we get sun data. (did you admit you were wrong) nope, you went off on attacking me again thereafter.

Your so called explanation of me fits what I have just explained about you.

What annoys me is not differing opinions, it's the insults and ridicule that people dish out when faced with differing opinions.

 

mito - I can't add a worthy comment on the engineer/technician situation you mention because I don't know enough about it but I hear what you're saying. My lad did an MEng that included work placements at various places and they were probably one of the most valuable aspects of his course because all the learning in the world, all the letters after your name, mean nothing if you can't translate those facts and figures into a meaningful, practical situation. And you're right, nobody can blag a 1st class degree.

 

Never been there.
I remember it having a very bad reputation in the past. I don't agree with experimenting on animals unless it's absolutely necessary for medical purposes- not for weapons development or cosmetics.

 

Very strange. Coppers walking around with sub-machine guns. It was harder getting in there security-wise than it was visiting my mate at Altcourse

 

Whilst I'm not in engineering, I think the principle of what you're saying there is a bit of an over generalisation.

As you're suggesting that those who've worked up through the system and gathered their qualifications whilst doing the job, are somehow of a lesser calibre in terms of intellectual level than those who came straight through the Uni route.

I'm sure your experiences are valid, but it'd be a mistake to hold the view that it's an across the board fact.

I've worked with some cracking graduates who have gone on to have fantastic careers after coming into business with nothing but a certificate, but their intelligence, eagerness to learn and work hard has seen them through.

However, I've equally worked with some graduates who had zero common sense and even less managerial accumen, who can't apply their learning to practical, day to day use.

I've also worked with those who've come through the ranks, studied outside of work (often at their own expense) and really made a difference.

Everyone's different mate, and sometimes people make decisions around higher education for personal, family or economic reasons, but they should never be written off and 'typecast'.

 

Absolutely not as it requires a deep understanding of the subject\s, something a blagger wouldn't have.

You are taught stuff, but you only really learn when you begin to apply the knowledge into real world situations. You can study and study, but you only really learn when you move from student to professional. Education is like getting tools, once you head out into the actual world, you learn how to use those tools. Work placement is a head start on that real world application obviously and it obviously leads to better study too and in the end better professionals.

 

I think with Engineering, disasters are seldom down to the Engineer's engineering education. Take the China shopping mall collapse.
The main components in that failure was overall project leadership and lack of communication.

No single engineer did a faulty job yet that whole shopping centre collapsed due to good individual engineering jobs with poor engineering project oversight and communication.
The sort of way Engineers learn to apply their tools in the working world rather than at school, though these days I'd imagine project management is part of Engineering courses?

 

I will only take graduates who have had experience on a placement year.

 

Re Wiki and google researching, this is bad news.
Google will in future choose what way to rank sources based on what "facts" are contained within.

An example is climate science, where the "facts" are thin on the ground, pro MMCC articles will therefor be rated as factual and will be ranked higher than any argument to the contrary due to "consensus" rather than any empirical proof. This is especially ridiculous for theoritical sciences and controversial issues like Israel palestine.

Whilse I am all for facts, it is a little concerning that google should decide what is a fact and not a fact.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-tell-whether-facts-on-the-internet-are-true/

 

Engineering failures contribute more towards technological advancement than successes do. Which is why failures are studied as part of an engineering course. Obviously disasters, like the one you mention, are on a different scale and should never happen, but lessons will have been learnt from that too. It's just not the type of learning scenario you want is it?

 

Not at all, I've a firm believer in history because history is obviously a set of lessons, albeit coupled with a lot of meaningless information, take the mall collapse, where who and so on is irrelevant more or less, but obviously the how and why are important.

It's right to see failures as steps towards success, it's only failure if it doesn't work and you stop trying

The mall tho, was a classic case of good engineers being led by a someone who was probably an excellent engineer but a poor project leader.
The main components in that project that caused the collapse were alterations to the initial project, narrowing pillars to accomade for lifts, and adding concrete soundproofing to the top floor restaurants, overall project management, effective leadership would have identified that both these individual alterations would lead to disaster because the load bearing of the initial project was not even considered by those overseeing the project's alterations late on.

The lesson was not an engineering one but a lesson in communitation and overall project management. A good lesson to show that the best engineers in the world can invite disaaster through non engineering failures.

I think and it's not a shocker, that the subject being taught should be as diverse as possible in all realted areas

 

Yes it is but.....

in the end its another skill set altogether. It needs experience to do right. an engineering course will be bascially broad but lacking real depth in any one earea. an Msc shoud narrow in focus and be deeper.


but true expertise only comes with deep dive into narrow focus so you shouldn't buy this someone can apply stuff across any industry cos it doesn't work.

 

It is change control and risk planning.

If you start a project and do x and y then in comes the non engineer and says oh i'd like this and that and the other and you go off and accommodate all that without returning the the proper change control and inputting the change through a process whereby all affected aspects are assessed and approved then you end up with unintended consequences

Proper risk assessment should deal with all possible failure modes possible and trying to place a fix during project to design out such failures... not 100% possible of course.

it sounds to me in the case described that more than just one or two things that changed affected enough. I'd say somehow factor of safeties were not sufficient and poor materials or execution might also have been involved.

Put it this way. If you go into older buildings in manufacturing you might find sound baffles hung up of a myraid set of pipes and all sorts. Roofs don't fall in in those cases.

I had a manager about 10 years back who used to wander the halls looking up worrying he ballsed it al up when he was a lwly engineer and every time it snowed he'd be frantic... in short he hadn't a goo.

 

Wasn't the mall collapse due to illegal addition of floors from the original design? If so it also highlights corruption over safety. Shouldn't project leaders be well qualified engineers or have one working closely with them..

Re. the google truth article - I agree with the comment that since 'facts' on most websites are generally "true" the knowledge triples they talk about just indicates that most sites agree with each other which is a measure of coherence, not truth.

 

An MSc in my experience gives more focus on management within engineering as that is the level you are looking towards in your professional life. Really what you should be looking for is 10 years post graduate expereince and then apply for CEng - as I did. this way you have served your engineering apprenticeship and have the qualifications and experince to back it all up.

 

It would be in my line of work tho in Engineering of that type I would assume so but don't know.
All of that planning would have ben carried out and added as part the initial project documents.

The problem was no one went back and looked at the initial specifications of the project, involving the engineers and architects. A whole new set of equations would have needed to be worked out for the alterations to the project, this could not possibly have been done because disaster would have been predicted. Load beating in such a project should not be complicated where you need to support an elevated weight, it's not like it was a fancy cable strung massive bridge

I mean, when you are the lead project engineer, and the architect, to have engineers come to you and say "we plan to redice the width of supporting columns and increase the weight at the top of the structure to the tune of many tonnes, alarm bells would be ringing surely. I suspect the alterations were carried out without oversight though I don;t know that for sure, but it seems like the only logical explanation for the following disaster.

The materials were sound as far as I know as was the actual construction, but the supporting colums that held up te roof and top floors were too wide to accomodate the lifts in the shopping mall, imo the sacrifice should have been the lift space or location, not the reduction of load baring capability. Then that change followed by tonnes of concrete being layed on the top floors just compounded that mistake.

It could be that the initial project was over, and then these alterations were made post project handover, and dealth with as individual engineering tasks. That would go some way to explain the communication or leadership issue, and also, the adding of concrete to the upper floors, that work could have been carried out with the original plans in hand not the plans with the alterred load bearing columns.

So i think the colums being narrowed was probably sound engineering, that there would have been no collapse, but when the second alteration of adding concerete floors to the upper floors, that compounded the previous "error" though alone it might not have been an error, but then again, load bearing should be calculated to take far more weight than will be put on that support?