stevepl
2 Feb 2010
Study / "MAGISTER" OR "MASTERS DEGREE" - ARE THEY THE SAME? [75]
Who said 50 hours of study on top of their full time work?
If you are working in a related field then what's to study? You have to study or be trained at work to do the job. Agreed not in all cases but as I stated a lot of cases. When my wife was studying she was working with MRP systems that was one big chunk of her studies that she had better knowledge of than anyone who would have been studying full time and not exposed to the daily reality.
I've seen the syllabuses for many courses and what the capabilities of the students should be after studying. Don't talk about just hours, many full time students are playing at the game whilst those working are facing reality where things matter and the details are important. Most of the courses (I'm not talking about purely academic ones) are so broad based that they only give a flavour of the subject. Whether someone studies 4 years or 7 years in cloud cuckoo land, it's still cloud cuckoo land.
So we return to the theme that a degree only shows you are capable of studying. What you have studied may be of no real use. Passing your exams, completing coursework is your proof that you can study. If you can do it in 1 year or 5 years I don't see the difference. If your trying to convince me that someone who studies 2 years longer will be so much more of an expert on the subject that they will immediately be fully exploitable in the workplace then I'm sorry but I'm not conviced. If you are telling me that someone with a degree should after further training have the capability to do a job then I agree. But in this case if someone can learn the subject to pass the exam in shorter time, wouldn't that make them the harder working and brighter person.
do more than 50 hours a week study on top of their full-time job?
Who said 50 hours of study on top of their full time work?
If you are working in a related field then what's to study? You have to study or be trained at work to do the job. Agreed not in all cases but as I stated a lot of cases. When my wife was studying she was working with MRP systems that was one big chunk of her studies that she had better knowledge of than anyone who would have been studying full time and not exposed to the daily reality.
I've seen the syllabuses for many courses and what the capabilities of the students should be after studying. Don't talk about just hours, many full time students are playing at the game whilst those working are facing reality where things matter and the details are important. Most of the courses (I'm not talking about purely academic ones) are so broad based that they only give a flavour of the subject. Whether someone studies 4 years or 7 years in cloud cuckoo land, it's still cloud cuckoo land.
So we return to the theme that a degree only shows you are capable of studying. What you have studied may be of no real use. Passing your exams, completing coursework is your proof that you can study. If you can do it in 1 year or 5 years I don't see the difference. If your trying to convince me that someone who studies 2 years longer will be so much more of an expert on the subject that they will immediately be fully exploitable in the workplace then I'm sorry but I'm not conviced. If you are telling me that someone with a degree should after further training have the capability to do a job then I agree. But in this case if someone can learn the subject to pass the exam in shorter time, wouldn't that make them the harder working and brighter person.