Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 2]

[P-Jay]

Asterix said:

How much would it cost to build Steve Austin today adjusted for inflation?

$28,852,576.06 - assuming technical advances hadn't made the process relatively cheaper.


http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=60000...

[CraigyMc]

Asterix said:

How much would it cost to build Steve Austin today adjusted for inflation?

Based on USD$6m in 1974 (when the series began), about USD$28.9m today, based on CPI.

[The Don of Croy]

P-Jay said:

Asterix said:

How much would it cost to build Steve Austin today adjusted for inflation?

$28,852,576.06 - assuming technical advances hadn't made the process relatively cheaper.


http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=60000...

He'd be replaced by a smartphone app for about £4.95.

[GTIR]

goldblum said:

LordGrover said:

monthefish said:

The Don of Croy said:

Back on topic - why are so many modern cars getting so ugly? BMW's (esp the X series), Audi, Mercs (too much Transformers influence) and all manner of eastern produce...is it to appeal to a new market?

I disagree.

Yes, there are some ugly cars, but that has always been so.

Mercedes DRL LEDs are almost offensive to my eye.

There's a type of small car I'm seeing a fair bit of round here that has repulsive vertical DRLs.

I remember when the Sierra was launched and it also faced a huge backlash on the design. "Jelly mould" was one of the nicer names.
There was also false rumours of Ford re-introducing the Cortina!

The fact was the Sierra design was years ahead of the competition, but soon fell behind.

Saying that the new shape E class front is quite ugly!

I find DRL haters are usually people that don't own a car new enough to have them. (Or ex smokers)

[Asterix]

Cheers lads.

[goldblum]

GTIR said:

I find DRL haters are usually people that don't own a car new enough to have them. (Or ex smokers)

You're right on both counts there. I'd point out though that when I change my car to the newer model it will be for the tiny performance gains over the previous model and I will still hate the DRLs. MB DRLs are some of the worst and Mercs also do that foglight-comes-on-at-the-same-side-of-the-vehicle-as-your-indicator-when-you turn thing. Fortunately the E63 has a fantastic engine that more than makes up for these shortcomings.

[LordGrover]

Some cars are done well and complement the overall effect. I'm no hater, just think in general, the Mercedes implementation/design/combination is poor.

[P-Jay]

Universities.

I never went, I could have, but I chose not too so I don't know an awful lot about them.

Anyway, I've read a few snide comments about 'micky mouse unis' and 'red brick unis' and of course 'real Unis'.

My question is, aside from the actual building, what's the difference? Are the courses different, the exams, or the marks for dissertations? Or is it just good old fashioned British snobbishness?

[marshalla]

Speaking as a former academic, and taking your questions in order - Yes, yes, yes and yes.

[monthefish]

P-Jay said:

Universities.

I never went, I could have, but I chose not too so I don't know an awful lot about them.

Anyway, I've read a few snide comments about 'micky mouse unis' and 'red brick unis' and of course 'real Unis'.

My question is, aside from the actual building, what's the difference? Are the courses different, the exams, or the marks for dissertations? Or is it just good old fashioned British snobbishness?

Quality of staff, quality/content of curriculum, quality of facilities etc etc.

[walm]

monthefish said:

Quality of staff, quality/content of curriculum, quality of facilities etc etc.

Don't forget the quality of student.
If people have to be very bright and work bloody hard to get in then the chances are they will be very hard working bright people when they leave too.

Also I imagine that they set the standard of the course so it is a challenge.
So while not everyone at a red-brick uni say, gets a first because the exam is tough, they might cruise to a first at a more "mickey mouse" place.

[monthefish]

P-Jay said:

monthefish said:

P-Jay said:

Universities.

I never went, I could have, but I chose not too so I don't know an awful lot about them.

Anyway, I've read a few snide comments about 'micky mouse unis' and 'red brick unis' and of course 'real Unis'.

My question is, aside from the actual building, what's the difference? Are the courses different, the exams, or the marks for dissertations? Or is it just good old fashioned British snobbishness?

Quality of staff, quality/content of curriculum, quality of facilities etc etc.

Yes I get that, the buildings will be nicer, they'll attract better lecturers and have a nicer gym - but are the curriculums actually different?

Yes. Very different in a lot of cases.

[P-Jay]

So the exams and grading are actually different then?

Seems a stupid system to me.

[monthefish]

P-Jay said:

So the exams and grading are actually different then?

Seems a stupid system to me.

But what are you comparing?
Each subject/course will differ from University to University, so you're not comparing apples with apples to start with. There is an almost infinite range of subtly different Degree courses, 'Business with Tourism', Business with Modern Languages' etc etc

Glasgow University does a 'Product Design' degree.
Strathclyde University, also in Glasgow, does a 'Product Design' degree.

The former course has a Design bias whereas the latter has a strong Engineering bias. Even though they're both 'Product Design', what a student will learn as part of their degree courses will be very different.

It's not like there is a set agenda that Universities must follow, and I guess this is the point that probably answers your original question best. The better Universitites will generally have a better, more substantial degree curriculum and the facilities to support it.

[HereBeMonsters]

GTIR said:

I find DRL haters are usually people that don't own a car new enough to have them. (Or ex smokers)

Cringe thread?

[Dr Jekyll]

P-Jay said:

Universities.

I never went, I could have, but I chose not too so I don't know an awful lot about them.

Anyway, I've read a few snide comments about 'micky mouse unis' and 'red brick unis' and of course 'real Unis'.

My question is, aside from the actual building, what's the difference? Are the courses different, the exams, or the marks for dissertations? Or is it just good old fashioned British snobbishness?

Some are harder to get into than others, I suspect this is what employers are looking for. Trying to get someone else to do their selection for them.

[marshalla]

P-Jay said:

So the exams and grading are actually different then?

Seems a stupid system to me.

Very different, but so are teaching/learning methods and student profiles.

The "old guard" pride themselves on being very research oriented with relatively little contact between staff and students - so only strong candidates survive to graduation, whereas the newer universities tend to have come from a more vocational education background where staff/student contact is much higher and there is a lot more "teaching" undertaken rather than directing studies.

A good student will do well in any of them, a poorer student will tend to do better in the newer universities - not because it's easier, but because the style helps them to achieve more.

[walm]

marshalla said:

The "old guard" pride themselves on being very research oriented with relatively little contact between staff and students - so only strong candidates survive to graduation, whereas the newer universities tend to have come from a more vocational education background where staff/student contact is much higher and there is a lot more "teaching" undertaken rather than directing studies.

WTF?
Oxbridge is famous for its incredibly high staff-student contact known as the tutorial system.

Also - one second on Google gave me the top 10 unis with the lowest drop out rate.
The vast majority were "old guard" unis.

[GTIR]

HereBeMonsters said:

GTIR said:

I find DRL haters are usually people that don't own a car new enough to have them. (Or ex smokers)

Cringe thread?

Is that where they hang out? I don't know.

Do you need a cigarette?

[marshalla]

walm said:

marshalla said:

The "old guard" pride themselves on being very research oriented with relatively little contact between staff and students - so only strong candidates survive to graduation, whereas the newer universities tend to have come from a more vocational education background where staff/student contact is much higher and there is a lot more "teaching" undertaken rather than directing studies.

WTF?
Oxbridge is famous for its incredibly high staff-student contact known as the tutorial system.

Also - one second on Google gave me the top 10 unis with the lowest drop out rate.
The vast majority were "old guard" unis.

I didn't say they had a higher drop-out rate - they don't, because they have higher entrance requirements. I've worked in several different institutions over the years - my contact hours ranged from 25+ per week (on timetable, plus at least another 10 per week in unofficial support), to 5 per week. The difference lies in whether they see themselves as primarily teaching establishments (newer group) or research & learning (older group).

Similar courses, different teaching & learning styles. Tutorial systems tend to rely on good students doing a lot of prep. in advance - and not all are capable of that. Nothing wrong with any of the styles.