Re: Convert speaker spikes from quadrupod to tripod

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
> > government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
> > The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
> > expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
> > government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
> > was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
> > results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
> > So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
> > - to know the context in which the figures are presented.
> >

> Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
> had reasonably expected.

Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
the average.


> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
> woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
> they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
> although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.

I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
so can't say.

> > The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
> > etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
> > earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
> > degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
> > take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.
> >
> > Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
> > in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
> > be dismissed. :-)
> >
> > Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
> > Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
> > well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
> > will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.
> >
> > So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
> > be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
> > with simply getting to work.
> >

> It will be of use in some cases, granted.

Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
'some' it will not.

Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.

But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
status, etc.

My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
work can be worth a lot more than money."

But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Rob[_12_]]

Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article >, Rob
> > wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> It may do if you are wondering if the generalisation presented by the
>>> government means what the govenment want you to think it means. :-)
>>> The point here is that graduates *regardless of topic* are now
>>> expected to pay fees, etc, and the statistic is wheeled out by the
>>> government as one way to justify this. The point of the examination
>>> was to see if the situation was the same across all topics. The
>>> results reported indicated big differences from one topic to another.
>>> So you would need - as common for experimental results and statistics
>>> - to know the context in which the figures are presented.
>>>
>
>> Quite. You may have a 'bankable' degree but you may not get the job you
>> had reasonably expected.
>
> Yes, in any group an individual's outcome may differ from the average. But
> that does not change the average if it is included in the computation of
> the average.
>

No, I know. But it's why an individual attains below average that's of
importance. 'Average' is of limited use in this discussion, that's all
I'm saying.

>
>> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
>> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a black
>> woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you know who
>> they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the wild -
>> although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find out.
>
> I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in physical
> science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or other reasons
> there may be a bias in student preferences at the outset. Don't have data
> so can't say.
>

Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
when 'sexism engineering' is input.


>>> The implication is that - if you are a studying a topic like comp sci,
>>> etc, - that your degree does tend to increase your probable lifetime
>>> earnings. But that for some other topics going to uni and getting a
>>> degree may be likely to reduce them. People deciding what courses to
>>> take, or careers to aim at, might find that of some interest.
>>>
>>> Of course you can argue that 'averages' "don't tell you a great deal"
>>> in any (individual) case. If so, then the initial statistic can also
>>> be dismissed. :-)
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd stick with my own standard advice to students, etc.
>>> Simply do what you find interesting and find you can do enjoyably
>>> well. But I know that many students are anxious to take degrees that
>>> will give them a good job or career for obvious reasons.
>>>
>>> So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic might
>>> be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing that
>>> with simply getting to work.
>>>
>
>> It will be of use in some cases, granted.
>
> Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show they
> are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the averages
> they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that situation. But for
> 'some' it will not.
>

There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an already
OT subject.


> Although as I said, I would personally recommend people to do what they
> find interesting and find they can do enjoyably well, be that engineering,
> bee keeping, or acting. The 'feedback' of being able to make a living (or
> not) will then guide them. :-) I always found it was good to have *not*
> had any clear and predeterimed 'career' in mind, but to just take up
> opportunities that seems worthwhile. These then present themselves
> according to what talents and knowledge you have in my experience.
>
> But I know that many students dislike that approach. They want to know 'how
> to pass the exam' with minimal learning or understanding of the subjects,
> and 'what courses will get me a good job' where 'good' means money and
> status, etc.
>
> My oldest brother was an engineer. Came to it via the Fleet Air Arm and
> Birkbeck. Did it the hard way. The best advice he ever gave me was, "Choose
> a job you enjoy doing. You spend a lot of your life at work. Enjoying your
> work can be worth a lot more than money."
>

Precisely so, couldn't agree more. As the subjects i teach have very
little to do with commercial gain I don't see much money motivation.

> But the problem here is that some students may have totally unrealistic
> ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they think they will
> be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But the vast bulk will not,
> and may find that some other topics would have suited them better *both*
> for getting a job, *and* for jobs they eventually find they enjoy.
>

I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
about 'vast bulk' though.

I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Rob

[Jim Lesurf[_3_]]

In article >, Rob
> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:


> >
> >> Law is a profession that discriminates for example. So the 'high
> >> earning' may correlate if you're a white man, and not if you're a
> >> black woman. So the statistics only start to have meaning once you
> >> know who they apply to - and that research doesn't seem to be in the
> >> wild - although I can't imagine it'd be especially difficult to find
> >> out.
> >
> > I have my doubts that your comments about 'Law' apply generally in
> > physical science and engineering in the UK. Although for cultural or
> > other reasons there may be a bias in student preferences at the
> > outset. Don't have data so can't say.
> >

> Pleased to hear it. Mind you, google scholar throws up quite a few hits
> when 'sexism engineering' is input.

Not doubt. Given fields with numbers of examples in the millions I assume
you could find examples of almost anything. I can't say I've noticed it.
But then I guess my only contact will have been because some of the people
I have hired/supervised/worked with have been from what might seem 'ethinic
minorities' (or whatever the nice phrase may be) in a UK context. So far as
I could tell, their mix of abilities, etc, showed no signs of being
different to others. But I don't doubt you can find examples of bias that
would pass me by. So I guess I am not well placed to comment in general.


> >>> So I can't help suspecting that such a breakdown by degree topic
> >>> might be of interest to those considering going to uni and comparing
> >>> that with simply getting to work.
> >>>
> >
> >> It will be of use in some cases, granted.
> >
> > Indeed. And unless a specific indivudual has relevant evidence to show
> > they are *not* average in a systematic way, then their best bet is the
> > averages they can find. That is likely to be so for most in that
> > situation. But for 'some' it will not.
> >

> There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
> class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
> skew things.

The difficulty here is akin to your waryness about 'averages'. Yes, there
will be examples of what you say. My experience is that it isn't common in
engineering or physical science in the UK. But no doubt I may have simply
missed it. I am sure I an just as guilty of ignorance as anyone else who
hasn't been in the sharp end of being badly treated.

I do recall a case some decades ago when someone was being interviewed for
a job at Armstrong Audio. He was turned down and became annoyed. Started
claiming he was being discriminated against for reasons of colour, etc. So
the director took him around the factory and showed him the people already
happily working there on the line, offices, etc Since the staff came from
around and about the North/East London area it was a bit like the 'United
Nations'. :-)

That has reminded me of one if the photos I think is on the Armstrong
website. This shows one of our test/repair staff of the time. He was
someone with superb 'diagnostic' skills for finding out faults in equipment
and fixing them. If curious, it is the lower image on

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/pandp/prod2.html

Interesting that some people do develop a particular talent for being able
to find faults. Yet some people who design kit find this hard when their
magnum opus won't behave.

Maybe it was different elsewhere. But the Armstrong employees were all
essentially like a 'family'. Including coach trips together, everyone
getting a chicken or alternative at Xmas, etc. I thoughly enjoyed my years
there and pleased to have worked with all of them.

The company was taken on after it ceased making consumer gear by Twaleb -
who was originally from Mauritius (is that how you spell it, I can't
recall!) He'd joined the company years before as a 'tester' and ended up
running the place and owning it.

I used to envy him as his wife was a stewardess on the Mauritius arline so
he kept being able to get free seats there and back. Closest I ever got to
that was when I worked for a few months at Aerospat in Tolouse. Since Air
France were part-funding the work I could fly home most weekends with my
laundry. If the standard seats were full they used to shove me into 1st.
:-)

> But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
> someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
> discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

....or even to presume they will, or that differs from anywhere else.
Wouldn't do to discriminate against engineers and assume they are
abnormally bad in this respect, would it? :-)

> In most cases that's to do with society and not the subject, of course.
> Although as you probably know, study/teachng/research of natural science
> has 'gendered moments' according to some ;-) Another topic on an
> already OT subject.

Yes. :-) However so far as physical science or EE in the UK goes, the
main problem in the past seemed to be at school level, with kids being
given the feeling that it 'wasn't for girls'.


> > But the problem here is that some students may have totally
> > unrealistic ideas, and take subjects like 'media studies' because they
> > think they will be the next Jeremy Paxman, etc. One or two may. But
> > the vast bulk will not, and may find that some other topics would have
> > suited them better *both* for getting a job, *and* for jobs they
> > eventually find they enjoy.
> >

> I have to accept the strong possibility that some students do media
> studies because it's the only course they could get on. Not so sure
> about 'vast bulk' though.

The 'vast bulk' comment was wrt assuming they could become Paxman clones.
The problem here is that there are only a tiny number of jobs like that,
even if all the graduates in media studies were 'good enough' whatever that
might mean in the context.

> I think media is fascinating: snippet news generation, Sky, Wikipedia,
> film/violence, commercial vs state media, even boutique hifi mags.
> What's all that little lot about? And waht's all this twitter-blog? I
> think it's crucial we have people who can not only describe our media,
> but have the skills to analyse and evaluate.

Yes. But to bring us back to the root of the discussion: I have my doubts
that anyone needs to go to university to spot when the media are talking
spheriods of revolution. Although in audio, some idea of EE or physics
might help a bit! And in some cases the technobabble is quite
mind-numbingly fancy. Baloney Baffles Brains... :-)

But I agree this is all wildly OT so I'll stop here.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:08:35 GMT, Rob >
wrote:

>There's plenty of evidence of discrimination on grounds of race, gender,
>class, sexuality and disability for example - so that's always going to
>skew things. But this all becomes vicious - it'd be daft to dissuade
>someone from studying engineering because they're going to face
>discrimination when it gets to the job interview.

But these days the discrimination is more likely in FAVOUR of the
lame-duck categories.