On 09/02/16 20:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
snip

Well that's yet another difference. Until the great dumbing-down of
university courses in the UK in recent years,[1] first degrees tended
not to be modular, and the department of the primary subject arranged
lecturers in necessary ancillary subjects as part of the main course.

[1] which doesn't apply to all universities.

A stunningly inaccurate statement. It was possible to take different
modules in top rated Universities (from a selected list) to get a degree 40
years ago. Including Oxbridge.

Things like PPE, or PPP you mean? Whatever the theory, in practice you
couldn't dream up your own combination, there were some established ones



It still is.

True, you couldn't mix, say, engineering and tourism

That of course is what I meant. You couldn't do a Keele style degree of
knitting, Serbo-Croat, media studies and physics. I wasn't trying to
imply that their was no choice of modules in a subject. The point I
was making, of course, that things like computer programming for
chemists, while taught by the subject experts, was part of the Chemistry
degree, not a separately credited module.


Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?








--
Now we've developed the technology to 'chip' and track every dog, why
not extend it to sex offenders.

Brian Reay wrote:




Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?

In your eagerness to make bizarre rude remarks about me you seem to
forget we were both on the same side in the originai discussion, which
was when someone expressed surprised about a Fortran course in a
Chemistry degree. You seem to have gone off at a tangent somewhere. I
must take more care about not replying to you, I suppose!


--

Roger Hayter

On 2/9/2016 4:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:




Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?

In your eagerness to make bizarre rude remarks about me you seem to
forget we were both on the same side in the originai discussion, which
was when someone expressed surprised about a Fortran course in a
Chemistry degree. You seem to have gone off at a tangent somewhere. I
must take more care about not replying to you, I suppose!



The issue was not a FORTRAN course in a Chemistry degree. It was a
FORTRAN course provided by the Chemistry department - and that by
"professors" who didn't know FORTRAN.

But then trolls never learned to read. They just contradict things they
know nothing about.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================