The more I think and reflect against my studies so far, the more I start getting a feeling that I do not entirely grasp what it is that our education system in Finland is trying to achieve. Ever since the 90ies, the amount of starting positions in universities have increased, the ammattikorkeakoulu system has been established, and in general everything has gone to hell. Let me elaborate...
Looking at merely TKK, I can't help but think that it is ridiculously easy to get into TKK. Just write your name on a piece of paper and that's about it. I've been led to understand that in the history this hasn't been so. But regardless, these days it seems that just about anybody can get into the school, and this often also happens. This naturally decreases the quality of the student material, which is very much visible in day-to-day schoolwork.
Take an example of a recent essay we were tasked to write for school in a small group. The essay wasn't that long, but would have required a bit of understanding on the topic and preferrably some type of analysis and a synthesis of a situation based on the former. The amount of literature (articles, studies, books, etc.) is vast and finding material is trivial. What happens? The typical student appears to approach the problem at a shallow and superficial level: instead of doing an analysis over a period of time we get a snapshot of the current moment, instead of objective and quantifiable material we get the view from corporate websites, instead of any type of structured framework, we get a list of bullet points. And then my favorite: Wikipedia references. And all of this in a course which is aimed at Masters students, who should be now be fairly familiar with how to proceed with academic work and write academic papers. Sufficient to say, the situation is not looking too bright for our essay.
Maybe this is underestimating the intelligence of your average student, but the other alternative isn't that appealing either: are our students just intellectually lazy and uninterested in putting in the effort to understand the exercises? Maybe this is the point: when you try to educate everyone at a high level, you are bound to get unmotivated people to join the crowd, just for the sake of getting a paper and in this way dilute the value of the degree. And ultimately, what is the point of educating everyone at a very high level despite the fact that a fair portion of these people will then continue on to perform mechanical tasks that do not require the ability to utilize the skills that the universities are supposed to teach.
Mind you, I'm being slightly provocative here and venting my frustration at the system, since I do feel that the things we are taught are to an extent valuable and good, but I am annoyed to see this intellectual lazyness and mediocricity in a portion of the students. That said, I fortunately do know some people from school who I actually do know and trust to do a good job, so maybe all is not lost. But in practice I would still advocate restricting the number of entrants to universities, attempting to shift the ratio of faculty to students into a more favorable direction, and overall demanding more from the students (e.g. if you return a bad paper, the course staff should be keener to just flunk people as opposed to letting them barely pass).
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Status update
Every once in a while it's a good idea to just stop and breathe. For me, that happened this evening for no apparent reason. I've been deep-diving into very many different things recently and been trying to kick my studies into a bigger gear again in an attempt to get all my courses done by next summer. This has meant attending a couple of obligatory lectures every week, which have infact demonstrated yet again to me that I'm studying the right things: we've had good guest lecturers who I've at some times disagreed with and openly questioned them, which only goes to show that I do infact care enough about what I'm studying to actually take part in the discussion. That's more than what many students can say, at least when I reflect my experiences from campus.
Work-wise things are going quite well and my bosses are making sure that I have enough on my plate. In a sense I've come to the conclusion that my bosses are very good and they do actually care about the employees and help us grow in the direction that we are interested in. I know it sounds like a cliche, but recent discussions and actions have confirmed this to be true to the extent that sometimes the pace frightens me. But in so many ways things could be a lot worse, so in this respect I have very much to be grateful for.
As for my personal life, I won't dig too deep into that. But I will say that over the past half a year I've run into my ex on a couple of occasions, and ultimately I'm very relieved that that is over. In fact every time just helps me realize even more how much happier and better off I am with R than compared to my previous relationships. It's scary to think how far down the sinking ship would've dragged me had I not been able to detach myself from it. But fortunately I was able to detach myself, as the improvements in my quality of life have been so drastic that it's not easy to think of words to describe the change.
But to summarize, it's horrifying to think how well things are going on so many different fronts. A cynical person like me can't help but think that this sort of situation can't be sustainable and that something bad must be lurking around the corner as the current situation is way too good to be true, if you actually stop to think about it. But hopefully it will continue to be true for a long time still...
Work-wise things are going quite well and my bosses are making sure that I have enough on my plate. In a sense I've come to the conclusion that my bosses are very good and they do actually care about the employees and help us grow in the direction that we are interested in. I know it sounds like a cliche, but recent discussions and actions have confirmed this to be true to the extent that sometimes the pace frightens me. But in so many ways things could be a lot worse, so in this respect I have very much to be grateful for.
As for my personal life, I won't dig too deep into that. But I will say that over the past half a year I've run into my ex on a couple of occasions, and ultimately I'm very relieved that that is over. In fact every time just helps me realize even more how much happier and better off I am with R than compared to my previous relationships. It's scary to think how far down the sinking ship would've dragged me had I not been able to detach myself from it. But fortunately I was able to detach myself, as the improvements in my quality of life have been so drastic that it's not easy to think of words to describe the change.
But to summarize, it's horrifying to think how well things are going on so many different fronts. A cynical person like me can't help but think that this sort of situation can't be sustainable and that something bad must be lurking around the corner as the current situation is way too good to be true, if you actually stop to think about it. But hopefully it will continue to be true for a long time still...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
In search of the perfect shirt
In this day and age the requirements that the workplace dress code enforces upon employees has been very much relaxed, even to the point where a white-collar worker may show up to the office in jeans and a polo shirt. This has in essence seen the disappearance of ties and suits from very many fields which previously required these. However, from my personal experience the basic shirt for men has not disappeared; far from it. The requirements for the basic dress shirt have been tightening: if you rid yourself of suits and jackets, your shirt better be ironed and fit you well, as there isn't an extra layer protecting you any longer.
Interestingly enough most shirts that people wear at the office are ill fitting. Some of the common issues that we are faced with are shirts that are too large (and thus resemble a tent in fit) or may be lacking in the sleeve length department. When someone actually wears a tie, the collar is either way too large or then it will basically strangle the person who wears the shirt. And so on.
For the past couple of years I've been going through a pile of shirts from different manufacturers, prices ranging from two dozen euros up to 150 euros. The feeling I've gotten from these shirts is that with the extra premium you often get a better quality fabric and in some cases the stitching quality is improved. But ultimately if you don't get the fit right, you're not even halfway to the finishing line. I personally have a somewhat problematic torso: I'm fairly slim in the region of the waist with a slightly broader upper torso which then has two longer than avarage arms attached to it. So finding an off-the-rack shirt that fits me has been a path fraught with headaches. But it has been a learning process and it has developed my taste to a point where I can say precisely what I like or don't like about a shirt.
The culmination, at least for now, has been the arrival of my first made-to-measure shirt, which was a surprisingly pleasant experience as I was already mentally prepared to throw the first trial away as I anticipated that it would be near impossible to get the measurements exactly right the first time round. And in a way I was right: I still need to do a bit of fine-tuning with the sizing, but the end result of the first attempt is not in fact that bad: it's already easily become my favorite shirt, not least because it's the first black shirt that I've owned in quite a while. But the next shirt will be better...
Interestingly enough most shirts that people wear at the office are ill fitting. Some of the common issues that we are faced with are shirts that are too large (and thus resemble a tent in fit) or may be lacking in the sleeve length department. When someone actually wears a tie, the collar is either way too large or then it will basically strangle the person who wears the shirt. And so on.
For the past couple of years I've been going through a pile of shirts from different manufacturers, prices ranging from two dozen euros up to 150 euros. The feeling I've gotten from these shirts is that with the extra premium you often get a better quality fabric and in some cases the stitching quality is improved. But ultimately if you don't get the fit right, you're not even halfway to the finishing line. I personally have a somewhat problematic torso: I'm fairly slim in the region of the waist with a slightly broader upper torso which then has two longer than avarage arms attached to it. So finding an off-the-rack shirt that fits me has been a path fraught with headaches. But it has been a learning process and it has developed my taste to a point where I can say precisely what I like or don't like about a shirt.
The culmination, at least for now, has been the arrival of my first made-to-measure shirt, which was a surprisingly pleasant experience as I was already mentally prepared to throw the first trial away as I anticipated that it would be near impossible to get the measurements exactly right the first time round. And in a way I was right: I still need to do a bit of fine-tuning with the sizing, but the end result of the first attempt is not in fact that bad: it's already easily become my favorite shirt, not least because it's the first black shirt that I've owned in quite a while. But the next shirt will be better...
Monday, November 02, 2009
On the temporary nature of structures
I've frequently argued with many people about things which ultimately end up in a discussion about nationalism. One aspect is legislation: if I'm a member of a group of people occupying a piece of land and wish to remain a member of the group, I will naturally have to adhere to some types of rules. If I don't adhere to them, there are typically some types of consequences. In nature this consequence is often expulsion from the community. And in our world can typically range from reprimands and fines to imprisonment or even death (which I don't necessarily agree with).
So what can one do if one doesn't agree with the rules? The most obvious choice is always to accept that it's a trade-off situation: I will have to accept them to get the other benefits of staying with the group. So in short: do nothing. The second choice is to do something about it, i.e. attempt to reform legislation, change taxation, or do something else. So essentially bitch and moan and propose alternative solutions and apply all the rhetorical tools that you have available to you. Or thirdly you can agree that you have differing views with the rest of the group and accept that you do not wish to be a part of the group any longer and find a new group to join. There may be other options as well, but these are the blindingly obvious ones.
It is the third option which typically tends to cause the most friction with the people who I've discussed. I think the issue is that very many people can or do not want to question the concept of a nation. The problem arises when someone suggests that maybe the concept of a sovereign nation is something that should be challenged: the world should be a lot more fluid and enable us to disband with the concept altogether. Maybe that is a bit radical, but on a more tangible level I think that I personally should be able to change my citizenship if I do not agree with what the rest of the group that forms a nation is doing. Ultimately, however, I think that a nation is merely a temporary structure that is useful as long as it serves a purpose. It is a mean to an end, but not a purpose in itself. Similar to any sort of alliance between entities, but still ultimately temporary in nature, even though nations are a lot more long in duration than other structures.
So what can one do if one doesn't agree with the rules? The most obvious choice is always to accept that it's a trade-off situation: I will have to accept them to get the other benefits of staying with the group. So in short: do nothing. The second choice is to do something about it, i.e. attempt to reform legislation, change taxation, or do something else. So essentially bitch and moan and propose alternative solutions and apply all the rhetorical tools that you have available to you. Or thirdly you can agree that you have differing views with the rest of the group and accept that you do not wish to be a part of the group any longer and find a new group to join. There may be other options as well, but these are the blindingly obvious ones.
It is the third option which typically tends to cause the most friction with the people who I've discussed. I think the issue is that very many people can or do not want to question the concept of a nation. The problem arises when someone suggests that maybe the concept of a sovereign nation is something that should be challenged: the world should be a lot more fluid and enable us to disband with the concept altogether. Maybe that is a bit radical, but on a more tangible level I think that I personally should be able to change my citizenship if I do not agree with what the rest of the group that forms a nation is doing. Ultimately, however, I think that a nation is merely a temporary structure that is useful as long as it serves a purpose. It is a mean to an end, but not a purpose in itself. Similar to any sort of alliance between entities, but still ultimately temporary in nature, even though nations are a lot more long in duration than other structures.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The decline of journalism
Maybe the topic is slightly provocative, but it seems that at least some Finnish newspapers have been declining in quality very rapidly. I personally don't subscribe to any newspapers as they don't fit my lifestyle: I don't eat breakfast nor do I sit at home in the mornings for long enough to be able to read a newspaper. Instead I prefer to get my news online. So that's why I pay more attention to the online versions of some of Finland's larger newspapers. But unfortunately it seems that either some of these papers don't take online presence seriously or then they just don't care for their brands.
I vaguely recall that Kauppalehti used to be a semi-decent newspaper which focused on business. We still get the paper version at the office and because of some unknown campaign, my new broker is going to send two months worth of Kauppalehti to me. But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure about the brand anymore. I check out their online news about once a day, and the quality is appalling, to say the least. These days it seems that it's a rare case and a big feat when they manage to post a bit of news online without it containing a number of spelling mistakes. And even that would be ok if they would actively hunt them down and correct them. But more annoyingly I think that their overall quality is very much lacking: their news seems to be very biased and tabloid-like. They seem to be desperately seeking for sensational stories, and failing at this, as well as passing rumors and gossip. If one were to have tendencies to see conspiracies, one could easily assume that the writers of Kauppalehti were actively using their medium to drive the stocks of various companies up or down, depending on their will. But that may be giving too much credit to Kauppalehti, so maybe we'll just assume that it's just bad journalism by amateur reporters.
Another thing that I've been able to amuse myself with are the commenting features of some online newspapers, for instance Helsingin Sanomat. I've read very many different online news sites in the past decade, and seldom have I seen such an amount of trolling as is frequently present in the comments of Finland's number one newspaper. I'm not saying that it's the fault of Helsingin Sanomat; far from it. From what I've read their news, I think that they're actually doing a decent job of it. I may not be directly in line with their political stance, but I can appreciate what they're writing and where they're coming from. But the comments! If you ever have to kill an hour or two of time, head on down to the comments area of HS's web site and you're bound to get a laugh or two, or your money back.
I vaguely recall that Kauppalehti used to be a semi-decent newspaper which focused on business. We still get the paper version at the office and because of some unknown campaign, my new broker is going to send two months worth of Kauppalehti to me. But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure about the brand anymore. I check out their online news about once a day, and the quality is appalling, to say the least. These days it seems that it's a rare case and a big feat when they manage to post a bit of news online without it containing a number of spelling mistakes. And even that would be ok if they would actively hunt them down and correct them. But more annoyingly I think that their overall quality is very much lacking: their news seems to be very biased and tabloid-like. They seem to be desperately seeking for sensational stories, and failing at this, as well as passing rumors and gossip. If one were to have tendencies to see conspiracies, one could easily assume that the writers of Kauppalehti were actively using their medium to drive the stocks of various companies up or down, depending on their will. But that may be giving too much credit to Kauppalehti, so maybe we'll just assume that it's just bad journalism by amateur reporters.
Another thing that I've been able to amuse myself with are the commenting features of some online newspapers, for instance Helsingin Sanomat. I've read very many different online news sites in the past decade, and seldom have I seen such an amount of trolling as is frequently present in the comments of Finland's number one newspaper. I'm not saying that it's the fault of Helsingin Sanomat; far from it. From what I've read their news, I think that they're actually doing a decent job of it. I may not be directly in line with their political stance, but I can appreciate what they're writing and where they're coming from. But the comments! If you ever have to kill an hour or two of time, head on down to the comments area of HS's web site and you're bound to get a laugh or two, or your money back.
Monday, October 19, 2009
First level reached
Earlier today (Sunday) I had my first level-test in Krav Maga. Or any martial art/self-defense system, for that matter. The experience was certainly interesting as I had practically no clue as to what I was walking into on a practical level. All in all the test was certainly much easier than I expected and I think I would've given myself some negative feedback on a few things, the most annoying of which was when I totally froze and failed to defend myself properly when the instructor was hitting hooks at my head. The situation was slightly amusing since I don't really know why that happened: I knew what I was facing and what I had to do, I saw the fist, but for some odd reason I failed to react. On the second try I got my arm in the way, but blocked with the wrong part and got another hit on my head. It was only on the third attempt that I was actually able to focus enough to get any type of semi-credible defense and counter-attack in place. In retrospect that was the most annoying thing that happened and I would've given myself a minus for something as stupid as that.
Anyway, ultimately it seemed like the P1 test was more focused on just checking that everyone was somewhat sane and able to take part in further training, if they so wished. This became obvious when everyone passed the test and there were a few people who had no clue as to how to break free from a headlock as well as other types of chokes. In general, though, it seemed quite strange that people who had attended the course would have been able to not pick up the simple moves and techniques, but oh well...
Now with the P1 behind, I guess life will go on as usual and I'll see if I can train enough to get P2 next spring. I was also thinking of supplementing my KM with some fitness boxing as the company seems to be kind enough to arrange a fitness boxing lesson every Monday at a nearby office...
Anyway, ultimately it seemed like the P1 test was more focused on just checking that everyone was somewhat sane and able to take part in further training, if they so wished. This became obvious when everyone passed the test and there were a few people who had no clue as to how to break free from a headlock as well as other types of chokes. In general, though, it seemed quite strange that people who had attended the course would have been able to not pick up the simple moves and techniques, but oh well...
Now with the P1 behind, I guess life will go on as usual and I'll see if I can train enough to get P2 next spring. I was also thinking of supplementing my KM with some fitness boxing as the company seems to be kind enough to arrange a fitness boxing lesson every Monday at a nearby office...
Thursday, October 15, 2009
On taxes and subsidies
Finland has been recently trying to revamp its laws and taxation when it comes to saving for pensions. Previously the setup has been that individuals gain tax benefits if they save towards their pensions via voluntary pension insurances, which are managed by private companies. These companies typically charge an arm and a leg for offering this service, which seems logical for them and raises the question of how silly this is for the government to essentially subsidize private companies in this way. And taking into account the fact that most likely these funds will anyway be very conservatively managed and create less-than-optimal profits for their owners (and the overpriced management fees on top), the system seems flawed.
Anyway, the changes in the legislation seem to focus on introducing a setup where the individual person can use a multitude of different financial instruments when saving, and is able to perform reallocation of capital with no tax consequences, as long as they do not withdraw the capital from these special accounts before they reach the pension age. Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we've previously had. However, I think this still doesn't address the rather fundamental problem of market distortions that are caused every time the government steps in.
I'm personally very skeptical about any types of subsidies or benefits that the government (or any other authority) hands out. They may benefit some, but most likely the overall consequences aren't understood due to the complex nature of the world that we live in. A very good example of this is in the Finnish tax legislation where you can deduct parts of the interest payments that you incur from your house loan. While I technically understand the intention behind that, I fear that in fact these types of subsidies merely end up directly into the house prices and push them further up, meaning that the net benefit for an individual who is looking to purchase a house is more or less zero, at best.
Additionally, the problem on sudsidization via taxes is that it is so bloody complex. Combine, for instance, the two above topics: saving via investing and purchasing a home. You get tax benefits from your home loan, but if you get any types of capital incomes from abroad, you start losing your tax benefit. This doesn't happen with capital income from Finland. Ok, I can see that this might encourage Finns to invest in Finland. Fair enough. But now my investment portfolio has an increasing amount of risk that stems from the fact that I do not distribute my savings geographically. So if things go south in Finland and the economy goes bad, I lose my job (and thus my steady income from wages), and then I also lose my equity that I've been trying to build up for the rainy day, because I haven't been able to achieve a properly diverse portfolio of ownings from abroad. A double-whammy right in the back of my head. (And yes, I am aware that I could invest abroad via mutual funds that are managed by Finnish financial institutions, but the amounts they charge for this service are ludicrous to say the least).
So ultimately I think the goal should be to get away from tax benefits and subsidies, which unnecessarily complicate the system and don't even achieve the intended results at the end of the day. Instead we should scrap these types of systems in favor of a lower tax rate. And as an additional benefit, we could also decrease the size of the tax authority, which would no longer need such a large machinery to operate...
Anyway, the changes in the legislation seem to focus on introducing a setup where the individual person can use a multitude of different financial instruments when saving, and is able to perform reallocation of capital with no tax consequences, as long as they do not withdraw the capital from these special accounts before they reach the pension age. Sounds a lot more reasonable than what we've previously had. However, I think this still doesn't address the rather fundamental problem of market distortions that are caused every time the government steps in.
I'm personally very skeptical about any types of subsidies or benefits that the government (or any other authority) hands out. They may benefit some, but most likely the overall consequences aren't understood due to the complex nature of the world that we live in. A very good example of this is in the Finnish tax legislation where you can deduct parts of the interest payments that you incur from your house loan. While I technically understand the intention behind that, I fear that in fact these types of subsidies merely end up directly into the house prices and push them further up, meaning that the net benefit for an individual who is looking to purchase a house is more or less zero, at best.
Additionally, the problem on sudsidization via taxes is that it is so bloody complex. Combine, for instance, the two above topics: saving via investing and purchasing a home. You get tax benefits from your home loan, but if you get any types of capital incomes from abroad, you start losing your tax benefit. This doesn't happen with capital income from Finland. Ok, I can see that this might encourage Finns to invest in Finland. Fair enough. But now my investment portfolio has an increasing amount of risk that stems from the fact that I do not distribute my savings geographically. So if things go south in Finland and the economy goes bad, I lose my job (and thus my steady income from wages), and then I also lose my equity that I've been trying to build up for the rainy day, because I haven't been able to achieve a properly diverse portfolio of ownings from abroad. A double-whammy right in the back of my head. (And yes, I am aware that I could invest abroad via mutual funds that are managed by Finnish financial institutions, but the amounts they charge for this service are ludicrous to say the least).
So ultimately I think the goal should be to get away from tax benefits and subsidies, which unnecessarily complicate the system and don't even achieve the intended results at the end of the day. Instead we should scrap these types of systems in favor of a lower tax rate. And as an additional benefit, we could also decrease the size of the tax authority, which would no longer need such a large machinery to operate...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
