Saturday, August 28, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
UK Versus US Education System
Wanna know more on these two education systems? Let's hear what Mumeichan has shared about that.=)
Almost all Americans go though high school before the enter college. High school for them is like STPM and A-Levels for us. That also means our SPM is like Middle school or jr. High for them. Their high school syllabus is comparative to STPM and A-Levels, but many schools offer is much wider range of subjects.
In high school, they can take AP and honors classes. Both of these classes go deeper into the subjects. A good AP score usually exempt you from 1 year worth of classes for that subjects.
Students from UK and Singapore who enroll after their A-Levels with an A for some subject will usually get 1 year worth of credits too. Same goes for people who did AP. I've never come across any website having a standard guideline for STPM or other pre-U courses, but I suppose it isn't too hard to convince the Academic Standards people that the subjects you took are equivalent. After all, high school students there who did honors classes also have to do the same if they didn't take the standard AP exam.
Now, 1 year worth of classes actually means two classes taken in two semesters. For example one may do Biology I in the Fall semester and then Biology II in Winter. That two subjects would generally mean 1 year worth of classes for a certain subjects.
Now lets just try to compare US and UK from the academic perspective. From the job perspective, I believe most of the things you learn are pretty irrelevant at the lower positions for many types of jobs.
First of all, 1 year of studies in UK is about two weeks to a month shorter than is US. I'm not counting the spring, summer or any other holiday terms. Another difference is students have already chosen their major from the minute the apply in UK while they only do so in their 3rd year in US.
In their 3rd year in UK students have the choice to decide which subjects they want to specialize in. They are usually given a choice of a few different subjects. In US, they basically choose from whatever subjects the whole department offers during their 3rd and 4th years. In US the subjects are not exclusive to majoring students only, they may be taken by anyone.
Now, during the first year, students also do very general subjects in their first year. The difference is, their majors have already been decided, so the subjects are tailored for the specific major. So alot of irrelevant topics are omitted. While in US, one subject caters for students who could major in just about anything later. For example, the introductory pscyhology course for a BSc in Psych in UK may contain much more biological stuff while the introductory psychology course in US must maintain a fair balance of the biology parts to the sociology parts because the person taking it may major in BA in Psych or a Bsc in Psy or could even be doing Biology or something else.
In UK your first two years are pretty much planned for you and you get a small selection of subject in your third year to specialize. In US well it works like this in most cases. You need 120 credits to graduate. Normally people do 30 each year, 15 per semester. Each introductory course carries about 4 credits and the higher level course from year 2 onwards normally only carry 3. Almost all 3rd and 4th year courses carry only 3 credits. By 3rd and 4th year, I means courses normally done during their 3rd and 4th year, nothing stops anyone from doing it earlier as long as they've already fulfilled the requirements. The break down for this 120 credits is something like this. 40 credits belong to subjects that have absolutely nothing do with your major. About 20 credits are for the basic course you have to take before you can do the higher more in depth courses. For my actuarial and economic degree, that's about 4 math classes, 2 economics, 1 programming and 1 statistics. Then another 50 credits will be come from classes very specific to your major and the remaining 10 are from subjects somewhat related to your major. Like for actuarial math, those 10 can come from finance, economics or programming.
Also, there are different conventions for what skills graduates should have in both countries. In UK, I see all the Economics degree full of management and accounting subjects while in US is it strictly economics subjects. For psychology, I see alot of practical and counseling in UK while in US counseling and practical is optional, there is also a big focus on research and further theoretical study. So for me, I find an economic degree from UK lacking because what I want is deep theoretical study even if I'm gonna graduate with no skills for a typical business admin. But that doesn't equally apply to everyone. Also it's a misconception that in US, they only study 2 years worth of their major courses, it's really 3 years worth, because part of the initial 2 years is used to study all the basic courses first, what they normally study in their first year in UK.
In high school, they can take AP and honors classes. Both of these classes go deeper into the subjects. A good AP score usually exempt you from 1 year worth of classes for that subjects.
Students from UK and Singapore who enroll after their A-Levels with an A for some subject will usually get 1 year worth of credits too. Same goes for people who did AP. I've never come across any website having a standard guideline for STPM or other pre-U courses, but I suppose it isn't too hard to convince the Academic Standards people that the subjects you took are equivalent. After all, high school students there who did honors classes also have to do the same if they didn't take the standard AP exam.
Now, 1 year worth of classes actually means two classes taken in two semesters. For example one may do Biology I in the Fall semester and then Biology II in Winter. That two subjects would generally mean 1 year worth of classes for a certain subjects.
Now lets just try to compare US and UK from the academic perspective. From the job perspective, I believe most of the things you learn are pretty irrelevant at the lower positions for many types of jobs.
First of all, 1 year of studies in UK is about two weeks to a month shorter than is US. I'm not counting the spring, summer or any other holiday terms. Another difference is students have already chosen their major from the minute the apply in UK while they only do so in their 3rd year in US.
In their 3rd year in UK students have the choice to decide which subjects they want to specialize in. They are usually given a choice of a few different subjects. In US, they basically choose from whatever subjects the whole department offers during their 3rd and 4th years. In US the subjects are not exclusive to majoring students only, they may be taken by anyone.
Now, during the first year, students also do very general subjects in their first year. The difference is, their majors have already been decided, so the subjects are tailored for the specific major. So alot of irrelevant topics are omitted. While in US, one subject caters for students who could major in just about anything later. For example, the introductory pscyhology course for a BSc in Psych in UK may contain much more biological stuff while the introductory psychology course in US must maintain a fair balance of the biology parts to the sociology parts because the person taking it may major in BA in Psych or a Bsc in Psy or could even be doing Biology or something else.
In UK your first two years are pretty much planned for you and you get a small selection of subject in your third year to specialize. In US well it works like this in most cases. You need 120 credits to graduate. Normally people do 30 each year, 15 per semester. Each introductory course carries about 4 credits and the higher level course from year 2 onwards normally only carry 3. Almost all 3rd and 4th year courses carry only 3 credits. By 3rd and 4th year, I means courses normally done during their 3rd and 4th year, nothing stops anyone from doing it earlier as long as they've already fulfilled the requirements. The break down for this 120 credits is something like this. 40 credits belong to subjects that have absolutely nothing do with your major. About 20 credits are for the basic course you have to take before you can do the higher more in depth courses. For my actuarial and economic degree, that's about 4 math classes, 2 economics, 1 programming and 1 statistics. Then another 50 credits will be come from classes very specific to your major and the remaining 10 are from subjects somewhat related to your major. Like for actuarial math, those 10 can come from finance, economics or programming.
Also, there are different conventions for what skills graduates should have in both countries. In UK, I see all the Economics degree full of management and accounting subjects while in US is it strictly economics subjects. For psychology, I see alot of practical and counseling in UK while in US counseling and practical is optional, there is also a big focus on research and further theoretical study. So for me, I find an economic degree from UK lacking because what I want is deep theoretical study even if I'm gonna graduate with no skills for a typical business admin. But that doesn't equally apply to everyone. Also it's a misconception that in US, they only study 2 years worth of their major courses, it's really 3 years worth, because part of the initial 2 years is used to study all the basic courses first, what they normally study in their first year in UK.
By:Mumeichan(LYN Forummer)
I personally find that this should be the best view and the opinions shared regarding the differences of these two education system. Thanks for Sharing and i glad to share here too.=)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Descent Part 2
Yes it is really a nice movie, actually i have no plan at all except for studying for the coming mid term test, and then suddenly my phone rang up and out of a sudden, i agreed to join them for a movie at MIDVALLEY.
what a coincidence! the movie i watched is a horro types movie, which i feel like sharing it here.=)
The Descent: Part 2 is extremely successful for doing at least two things: cementing my need to never spelunk in uncharted (or charted) cave systems, while also cementing my need to never watch another spelunking horror movie.LOL
The first Descent film whetted my appetite, but the second just shat in my mouth. Sequels should only ever exist if there is a new story to tell, or at least a way to spin the original tale into unforeseen areas. This film is a tepid redundancy where some details have changed, but the beats are all the same. I wish the horrors were as deep as these caverns are supposed to be.
The Descent, as directed by Neil Marshall, is surprisingly adept at juggling the spook tactics of carnivorous cave monsters and claustrophobic isolation. The simple character design did not need expansion to be interesting. Geez, I wish I could just keep talking about that one. Because in Part 2, we don't just get five friends out for adventure; there are cops and rescue workers, as well as Sarah (Shauna Macdonald, the original film's survivor), but the same lack of development and depth is present. Everybody has that one special thing that makes them who they are. Yawn.
Things begin interestingly enough, picking up immediately after the first film ends. A mentally unstable Sarah emerges from the woods far from the area where rescue parties are searching for her. Officers Vaines (Gavan O'Herlihy, the bad cop) and Rios (Krysten Cummings, the good cop) are desperate to find out where the other missing girls are, but here's the thing: Sarah can't remember. She's taken to a hospital for tests, but there's not enough time to heal from the tasking ordeal she's just been through before Vaines bullheadedly decides an offshoot search party must scour the area where Sarah was found and that Sarah has to help. It seems pointless to bring up how weak Sarah's muscles would be, as well as how drained she would be after a lack of proper sleep, but it never left my mind.
Search-party enthusiasts Dan (Douglas Hodge), Cath (Anna Skellern), and Greg (Joshua Dallas) join the hunt. (There's some kind of relationship going somewhere between these three, but I couldn't care enough to make heads or tails of it.) By way of old kooky Ed Oswald's handy mineshaft elevator, the group head down into no man's land. This is right about the time the director and writers decide to forego originality, and the clichés, like the saliva-riddled crawlers, begin appearing at an alarming rate.
Once under the earth, Sarah flashes on a disturbing memory, causing her to lash out against the others before taking off on her own. A series of bad decisions splits the rest of the group up, and the body-count order almost predicts itself. When Sarah returns, her memory is regained, and she's turned into a badass killing machine. She leads her dwindling group through the monster-laden caves, soon finding a character previously thought dead. I won't ruin it for you, but it's still pretty obvious. The film's second half is very cookie-cutter, so spoiling everything would be tedious work indeed. As a plus, you probably won't guess the ending until it's right in front of you, and its dour outcome is rather pleasing for the sub-genre.
If this was the first film in a series, I would have far fewer problems with it. On its own, it's competent, and could easily stand up to the majority of low-budget horrors stinking up shelf space. Unfortunately, it's doomed to live in its predecessor's far superior shadow. There are moments in The Descent where I held my breath as characters snaked their way through the rapidly shrinking crawlspaces, and I could psychologically put myself in a similar situation. Conversely, the caves in Part 2 look like backdrops from any of the Flintstones movies, so I was constantly reminded that these people were on a set. Characters are often lit from above as if there were natural light sources that far underground. Even when total darkness is attempted in scenes where characters use flashlights or cameras for sight, there is still no logic to the way light hits things, which always took me out of the moment, assuming I was in it to begin with.
While the film is commendable for keeping its gore and effects on the practical side rather than digitizing everything, most of the effects are clunky and draw attention to themselves. Too many suspenseful moments are filmed far too close-up, or have disjointed inserts edited in. Fights with creatures inevitably contain a combat-pausing zoomed in shot of a poker entering the creature's eye, or an arm being torn apart in a bloody, neon-red manner. This tactic doesn't always fail, but the editing stilts most of the action-heavy scenes. At least the monsters still look pretty badass, even if their blindness aspect falls flat.
I'd feel comfortable spending another few pages dissecting how moronic the "Sarah forgot/Sarah remembered" plot arc is, or how inorganic the characters' motivations are, but that would be robbing you of time reading about or watching better movies. The scariest thing about The Descent: Part 2 is that people are going to be making money off of it for years to come. If the crawlers had a hold of this disc, they'd have committed suicide already. Maybe the sequel, already in development, will have this meta-plot involved.
Friday, August 6, 2010
2nd year Hectic Life
Argh, have been quite a long time since i last updated my blog.My life at UM is so hectic.reports reports and reports, the never ending reports are awaiting me weeks by weeks.!!=(
Here is what i wanna share:
Here is what i wanna share:
Caring for The Seasons
There was a man who had four sons. He wanted his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly, so he sent them each on a quest, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away.
The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in the fall.
When they had all gone and come back, he called them together to describe what they had seen.
The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said no, it was covered with green buds and full of promise. The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that smelled so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ever seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment.
The man then explained to his sons that they were all right, because they had each seen but only one season in the tree's life.
He told them that you cannot judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the essence of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that come from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are up.
If you give up when it's winter, you will miss the promise of your spring, the beauty of your summer, and the fulfillment of your fall.
This is to remind us not to let the pain of one season destroy the joy of all the rest. Don't judge life by one difficult season. Persevere through the difficult patches and better times are sure to follow.
There was a man who had four sons. He wanted his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly, so he sent them each on a quest, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away.
The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in the fall.
When they had all gone and come back, he called them together to describe what they had seen.
The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said no, it was covered with green buds and full of promise. The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that smelled so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ever seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment.
The man then explained to his sons that they were all right, because they had each seen but only one season in the tree's life.
He told them that you cannot judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the essence of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that come from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are up.
If you give up when it's winter, you will miss the promise of your spring, the beauty of your summer, and the fulfillment of your fall.
This is to remind us not to let the pain of one season destroy the joy of all the rest. Don't judge life by one difficult season. Persevere through the difficult patches and better times are sure to follow.
And from this i have learn to take thing by facing both sides. It may just not the difficult year that i might have gone through, perhaps what i think of is to let a better time to follow the perserverance through the difficult patches=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)