Excellent reading and background information regarding your experiences and observations.
Mine are similar but found it much more of a lonesome experience and did not manage to engage with anyone on the way, possibly because I was always out of sync (i.e. late!).
I'm not sure if you have started your Level 3 modules, but I can strongly recommend starting with the Roman & Greek Myths one and then finishing off with a triumphal explosion with A333.
I marvel at your wonderful writing here on Substack after you posted about it on the OU forum. Well done! You demonstrate the amazingness of life-long academic learning opportunities afforded to us by the work of the Open University and the energy that Mr Harold Wilson put into it.
I'm definitely starting level three philosophy in September so I can hang out with my lovely friends! There's a history of the 20th century module that starts in February that I am contemplating (Who knew that 1989 is history? I was there!). The two modules would overlap but I'll get it all done with quicker.
Thanks, Mr Wilson, for the White Heat of Technology!
I understand your urgency, though I would counsel respect for the extra work involved in Level 3. I did two modules concurrently and it nearly resulted in total disaster, but that was me and my own delinquency. You will probably do much better—it involves more independent working, which you are probably doing anyway 😉
Yeah ... 1989 ... 'istry? Flippin' 'eck!
Back in't'70 an' 80s there were riotin' in t'streets, we were chumpin' fer firewood and pieces of 'arf spent coyl t'chuck on t'fire 'cos o't'power cuts. We 'ad strikes, no buses, no rubbish picked up, tha couldn't even die in peace withaht bein' left on t'street t'go a bit soft or 'ard dependin' on't'weather.
N'wonder Ah failed mi bloody exams an' ended up doin' t'OU fot'ty year later!
Ev'ry whi-er thi went in Yorkshire an't'North East, thi boots came back wi' red rust from shut dahn fact'ries an' steelweks. 'Twere like that fillum 'Threads' after t'bomb 'ad dropped. Coppers fahtin' wehkin' men, families fahtin' between thim'selves.
Civil War were real. Wi' t'army trucks and copper's meat wagins parked up everywhere or drivin' in convoy on thi' way t'next scrap.
Tell that t'kids o'today 'an theh won't believe yer!
My thinking on the two modules is that it won't be so bad if I start one in September and the other in February so at least the final EMAs won't be at the same time.
Hi Ragged - so admire your tenacity in studying now but it is a stage of life when you can think properly. Bit like youth being wasted on the young, university is similarly wasted! It used to be that only the very academic / aspiring professionals would go until Blair turned university into an industry that extended (by lowering standards) the opportunity to politically brainwash the young , at the same time as enslaving them in the debt system. I think it was the case (100 years ago?) that - apart from extremely able people who were offered places at Oxford or Cambridge - people would attend a university (free - no tuition fees) nearest their home town. It wasn't a drinking / party culture because the students wouldn't be able to keep up with the standard and pace of work and didn't have the money (ability to borrow). Now, like most other things, it is a corrupt money game.
I think that one consequence of this is that many people who, like you, might have turned to study for its own sake in later life, are simply put off - they've burnt out any intellectual curiosity they might have had, as well as their bank balance, at an early stage. I have noticed the decline in evening classes offered since the Blair era. I just checked - the Workers Educational Association is still going - I remember doing a brilliant history of architecture course with them 25 years ago. Couldn't face the woke-ness now - bad enough doing a Masters recently - not especially within the course (constitutional law is not fertile ground) but generally in university communications and publicity. Lip well and truly bitten. Was about to start a PhD but my professor made it very clear that many of the areas I would have researched were 'no-go' areas today and I would be marked down. So what's the point?
I hate to sound trite, but surely it’s even more important to study the things you’re interested in when it seems that everyone will disapprove. Having your ideas challenged is always healthy and if your arguments are resilient they’ll be improved by the process.
I found it interesting that the philosophers welcomed disagreement. To get a good grade in an essay, you have to step outside the bounds of agreement. In other topics, you just had to repeat what your tutor told you.
Agree, and I do, but there is little point in engaging in study through universities these days unless you are happy to be constrained by their parameters of acceptable inquiry. There is no point in applying to be supervised for a doctorate which will not be awarded because one has transgressed the university’s boundaries of ‘acceptable narrative’.
Isn't it inevitable that inquiry will be constrained? After all, the university can't teach everything in three years. For a PhD, I think they are far more forgiving of your unpopular opinions than you might imagine.
I guess you know better than me, since you’ve been there and I haven’t. I do sometimes think that with any work, studying included, one should really do it for its own sake, just for the satisfaction of doing something as well as you can possibly manage, rather than for the material benefits.
Also, now I’m thinking of that scene in Gandhi when the protestors peacefully march towards the Dharasana Salt Works in Gujarat and are beaten down by the police. Each individual in that protest could have believed his actions were unimportant but quite possibly India wouldn’t have won independence without them.
I just remembered an episode from a couple of modules ago.
In our online forums, I had a run in with the moderator who shut down our discussion about Marx. We just completed the final asignment on Marx and someone wanted to talk about Communism. Our discussion had nothing to do with the exam except that it was about Marx & Communism.
The tutor said you can't talk about that because:
— There might be other students who have not done the exam yet and you'll discourage them by finishing on time.
— There might be students who did really badly and you’ll make them sad if you did well.
He really didn't want people doing well and talking about it. He even said that when he was a student he was crap at assignments. I told my own tutor and she said he was a dick and I should complain but the chief boss said tutors are in charge and that's that.
Excellent reading and background information regarding your experiences and observations.
Mine are similar but found it much more of a lonesome experience and did not manage to engage with anyone on the way, possibly because I was always out of sync (i.e. late!).
I'm not sure if you have started your Level 3 modules, but I can strongly recommend starting with the Roman & Greek Myths one and then finishing off with a triumphal explosion with A333.
I marvel at your wonderful writing here on Substack after you posted about it on the OU forum. Well done! You demonstrate the amazingness of life-long academic learning opportunities afforded to us by the work of the Open University and the energy that Mr Harold Wilson put into it.
Thank you for your very kind words!
I'm definitely starting level three philosophy in September so I can hang out with my lovely friends! There's a history of the 20th century module that starts in February that I am contemplating (Who knew that 1989 is history? I was there!). The two modules would overlap but I'll get it all done with quicker.
Thanks, Mr Wilson, for the White Heat of Technology!
I understand your urgency, though I would counsel respect for the extra work involved in Level 3. I did two modules concurrently and it nearly resulted in total disaster, but that was me and my own delinquency. You will probably do much better—it involves more independent working, which you are probably doing anyway 😉
Yeah ... 1989 ... 'istry? Flippin' 'eck!
Back in't'70 an' 80s there were riotin' in t'streets, we were chumpin' fer firewood and pieces of 'arf spent coyl t'chuck on t'fire 'cos o't'power cuts. We 'ad strikes, no buses, no rubbish picked up, tha couldn't even die in peace withaht bein' left on t'street t'go a bit soft or 'ard dependin' on't'weather.
N'wonder Ah failed mi bloody exams an' ended up doin' t'OU fot'ty year later!
Ev'ry whi-er thi went in Yorkshire an't'North East, thi boots came back wi' red rust from shut dahn fact'ries an' steelweks. 'Twere like that fillum 'Threads' after t'bomb 'ad dropped. Coppers fahtin' wehkin' men, families fahtin' between thim'selves.
Civil War were real. Wi' t'army trucks and copper's meat wagins parked up everywhere or drivin' in convoy on thi' way t'next scrap.
Tell that t'kids o'today 'an theh won't believe yer!
Ha! Ha! History, eh?
My thinking on the two modules is that it won't be so bad if I start one in September and the other in February so at least the final EMAs won't be at the same time.
Indeed, that makes sense.
It would be interesting to see how you might write the bibliography should you choose to quote my rant! 😀
Hi Ragged - so admire your tenacity in studying now but it is a stage of life when you can think properly. Bit like youth being wasted on the young, university is similarly wasted! It used to be that only the very academic / aspiring professionals would go until Blair turned university into an industry that extended (by lowering standards) the opportunity to politically brainwash the young , at the same time as enslaving them in the debt system. I think it was the case (100 years ago?) that - apart from extremely able people who were offered places at Oxford or Cambridge - people would attend a university (free - no tuition fees) nearest their home town. It wasn't a drinking / party culture because the students wouldn't be able to keep up with the standard and pace of work and didn't have the money (ability to borrow). Now, like most other things, it is a corrupt money game.
I think that one consequence of this is that many people who, like you, might have turned to study for its own sake in later life, are simply put off - they've burnt out any intellectual curiosity they might have had, as well as their bank balance, at an early stage. I have noticed the decline in evening classes offered since the Blair era. I just checked - the Workers Educational Association is still going - I remember doing a brilliant history of architecture course with them 25 years ago. Couldn't face the woke-ness now - bad enough doing a Masters recently - not especially within the course (constitutional law is not fertile ground) but generally in university communications and publicity. Lip well and truly bitten. Was about to start a PhD but my professor made it very clear that many of the areas I would have researched were 'no-go' areas today and I would be marked down. So what's the point?
It's not so bad, Bettina. Perhaps I included too many complaints and not enough celebration. I'm actually loving it (mostly).
I hate to sound trite, but surely it’s even more important to study the things you’re interested in when it seems that everyone will disapprove. Having your ideas challenged is always healthy and if your arguments are resilient they’ll be improved by the process.
I found it interesting that the philosophers welcomed disagreement. To get a good grade in an essay, you have to step outside the bounds of agreement. In other topics, you just had to repeat what your tutor told you.
Agree, and I do, but there is little point in engaging in study through universities these days unless you are happy to be constrained by their parameters of acceptable inquiry. There is no point in applying to be supervised for a doctorate which will not be awarded because one has transgressed the university’s boundaries of ‘acceptable narrative’.
Isn't it inevitable that inquiry will be constrained? After all, the university can't teach everything in three years. For a PhD, I think they are far more forgiving of your unpopular opinions than you might imagine.
I guess you know better than me, since you’ve been there and I haven’t. I do sometimes think that with any work, studying included, one should really do it for its own sake, just for the satisfaction of doing something as well as you can possibly manage, rather than for the material benefits.
Also, now I’m thinking of that scene in Gandhi when the protestors peacefully march towards the Dharasana Salt Works in Gujarat and are beaten down by the police. Each individual in that protest could have believed his actions were unimportant but quite possibly India wouldn’t have won independence without them.
I just remembered an episode from a couple of modules ago.
In our online forums, I had a run in with the moderator who shut down our discussion about Marx. We just completed the final asignment on Marx and someone wanted to talk about Communism. Our discussion had nothing to do with the exam except that it was about Marx & Communism.
The tutor said you can't talk about that because:
— There might be other students who have not done the exam yet and you'll discourage them by finishing on time.
— There might be students who did really badly and you’ll make them sad if you did well.
He really didn't want people doing well and talking about it. He even said that when he was a student he was crap at assignments. I told my own tutor and she said he was a dick and I should complain but the chief boss said tutors are in charge and that's that.