In Defence Of...

In provocation of this.

The other day as I was sitting amongst students of variegated faculties (rumour has it that medical students have their own 'library'), when a supposed debate on the trial level faced by different students of different courses arose from the ashes of lethargy and exam apathy.

"F**k you arts guys watch movie for class all, as if your course is so hard!"

"F**k you business students, you couldn't spell Foucault with a management team!"

(improvisation added)

So as we bandied our words around in a polite, respectable manner worthy of prodigal university students, we managed to emancipate a few positions:

1) Assuming that people choose their course because that's what the enjoy studying, then on a data basis those who fail or drop out determines how 'difficult' a course is, because if you're in your niche and still sucking it, then your either a complete r-tard or your course is insurmountable past four feet.

2)That data is gay and erodes the uniqueness of the individual, particularly pertaining to the environment of said individual. (For more information on individualism and the effect of the environment please see Thunderpants)

3) That the point is not worth arguing over as there is no measure for difficulty (based on previous point of individualism), and that everyone should be cool and listen to Interpol.

If your in a course-stereotype mood, feel free to guess which points belong to which faculty.

So anyways, the first point is fine and dandy from a purely empirical point of view, if one were to quantify data on things like lack of sleep, failure rate, dropout rate, hours spent in library etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. However, data and figures alone is not enough to measure the difficulty of course. Sure it gives you numbers, but the conclusion is based on a positive or negative conclusion. The statement may go something like this:

The data states that more business students lack sleep. Therefore we can infer that a business course is difficult.

Which, of course, is a very simplistic analysis.

The second point follows individualism, that we're all too cool and unique to be quantified. 'Nuff said.

And lastly, the third point builds on the second, where since we're all too cool to be transformed into numbers on a spreadsheet it is therefore impossible to ascertain which course is harder (not to mention a tad bit unethical and xeno-coursephobic), and that we should all just chill out to Leif Erikson by Interpol.

Sure some courses may entail more work. For example medicine is determined to rape the life out of its students. However this creates the God complex within them, which is what I despise in all doctors. Furthermore, they go on to rape the world of its cash, just like lawyers. Business students have loads of work but will inevitably get rich some day, where Arts students chill out, stone and theorise with the knowledge that we'll either rule the world or live in a box playing Risk.

Yet we study what we study willingly (unless your a student of journalism) and knowingly. So chill out and make the world a better place with whatever degree you have!



Unless your in law school, as entrance fee is the sale of your soul.