What's your opinion on mortarboards?

Nimmy said "**and their saying that we that have haven't learnt much**

Should read:

**and their saying that we haven't learnt much**

Perhaps their right. Now I feel a fool again."

For "their" read "they're". If you're going to correct your own English, at least do it properly.

wrighty, I'm dyslexic. If your going to take bizarre cheap shots for no apparently reason, make sure you have your facts right.

Was this because I corrected you on your poor understanding of evolution?

Goodness, I pity your tutors.

>>wrighty, I'm dyslexic. If your going to take bizarre cheap shots for no apparently reason, make sure you have your facts right.

Was this because I corrected you on your poor understanding of evolution?

Goodness, I pity your tutors.<<

Sure you are. Having read many of your lengthy posts on some of the other threads, with few if any errors, I doubt very much you're dyslexic, you just use it as a convenient label when someone else spots an error you haven't, the aim being to make them feel guilty. You've probably never learnt the difference between "there", "their" and "they're". Did you also use it to get extra time in exams?

I'm rubbish at drawing. Can I call it 'dysgraphia' and then opt to sit an art exam and get someone else to do it for me using my ideas?

And I don't recall you correcting me on my poor understanding of evolution - your 'debate' was with someone else, I only chipped in a couple of points at the end to clarify the basics for someone else. My understanding of the concepts of natural selection and evolution are sound.

wrighty

I'll thank you not to call me a lair in future, I am dyslexic.

There are spell checks on these things which pick up spelling mistakes, but not words spelt correctly but used in the wrong way, just think about that a little. You should see all the underlined words before correction.

And yes, having been assessed by a psychologist for nearly two hours, it was found my written IQ was 115 (average) and my verbal IQ was 131 (top 2% in the country), over all when I was assessed (1996) the IQ was 124. But because of the massive difference between verbal and written IQ it meant that I was dyslexic. Further, it was found I had minor learning difficulties (memory problem) as a result of which I got an extra 15 mins in my examination.

I have no idea why you trying to cause an argument, I don't believe I have personally insulted anybody on here, let alone call then a liar, certainly not you. So have the common curtisy and politeness to do the same. Please keep your debates to subjects and not personal.

**My understanding of the concepts of natural selection and evolution are sound**

If you say so.

Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar.

And mortar boards are cool, long may they reign.

Nimmy, you demonstrate absolutely my problem with use of the label 'dyslexic'. You may have a difference between your verbal and written IQ, but at 115 your written IQ is still well above average, which presumably is 100 by definition. So why claim to be a special case?

If another's IQ were measured at say 110 using both methods, would that person be entitled to longer on their exams? No presumably, as with no difference between both IQs there is no problem.

So, apologies for doubting you are dyslexic. Technically you may well be, but my point about using it as a convenient label stands. As for insulting others, you seem to have been very careful in your choice of words to be seen not to be insulting, but the tone of your arguments seems to me to betray the opposite intent. You certainly didn't hold back with the cheap shots when complaining that someone else posting here was using big words. Common courtesy and politeness should extend to what you mean as well as simply what you write.

Wrighty

Stop making things worse for yourself. You called me a liar, I have insulted nobody. There is absolutely no intent of my doing so, why would there be? I really am at a loss as to what your problem is here.

Your comment about the 'convenient label' does not stand, you have no idea how my condition affects me. You see the end result, I work hard to try and over come it, spell checks help. Don't judge people you do not know.

If a certain person is using 'long words', or relatively obscure words, in a debate, I'm perfectly entitled to comment on them if those words where being used as part of the argument and they came across as a bit pretentious and hid a poor understanding of science. They where not abusive to me and I didn't abuse him back because of it.

There seems to be a problem with the way I write, either that or people are extremely hypersensitive, but don't mistake directness with insults.

You have taken against me since I pointed out the driving force of evolution is adaptation of an organism to it's environment, not survival of the fittest (though that plays a part). You clearly didn't like being correct and saw an opportunity to have an incredibly juvenile cheap shot, then went on to call me a liar. You are entirely in the wrong here.

I came on this forum thinking it was a place people could have direct, open debates as adults, but without resorting to personal abuse. I saw it was a very quiet board so I tried to get things going by posting a lot on here. I was wrong. And there is obviously a problem with the way I write that seems to rub people up the wrong way, so I think it's not time to leave.

By the way mortarboards, YOU STILL ROCK!

Let's be clear here. I've not called you a liar, I've accused you of hiding behind a label of dyslexia to account for your spelling mistakes when you state that your written IQ is well above average.

And no, the driving force behind evolution is not adaptation to an environment - that would invoke some mechanism of inheritance whereby acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring - it is random mutation and survival of the fittest.

I agree with you about the forum being quiet, and you will remember that I supported your post when you were censored by the thought police here. Hope this thread doesn't end the same way.

Give it a rest you two, its getting boring

**Let's be clear here. I've not called you a liar**

**I doubt very much you're dyslexic**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

**The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as it does not convey the complex nature of natural selection, so they prefer and almost exclusively use the latter term (natural selection).**

I'll try and make it basic for you.

Lets take bacteria. There are various different bacteria, some are known as extremophiles. Some can be know as thermophiles and some can be known as halophiles. The reason these organisms have these names is because of the environment they live in. one flourish in high temperatures and the other in saline conditions. That is, the environment determines the survival of these organisms. Other Bacteria unable to survive in these conditions will not be present or die.

Environmental factors are also the reason why fish have gills and fins and we have lungs and legs.

Adaptations in an organism is a result of PURELY RANDOM genetic mutations.

Evolution is not the same as adaptation nor is it the same as mutations. Organisms can adapt and mutate without necessarily evolving. This is a fundamental error people make. For example, the dark colour of an African and a light colouration of a northern European are adaptation to their environment, neither have evolved, they are both human. A human can mutate and have one blue eye and one red eye, but they are still eyes and still human - no evolution has taken place.

If, a mutation happens in an individual then it may be carried in the genetic code (if reproduction takes place) and may reappear in later descendants. If this mutation may beneficial, for example a bacteria may mutate and start producing antibiotics. This bestows an ADVANTAGE to an organism and the antibiotic producing bacteria kills any competing bacteria around it; it is here where the term 'survival of the fittest' use to be implemented. But the production of the antibiotic was merely a random mutation that happen to be beneficial to the survival of that bacteria.

But mutation may not necessary be for SURVIVAL of an organism. For instance hair.

In sort evolution is driven by environmental factors and mutation, if these mutations bestow an advantage for survival of one organism at the expense of another, so be it; but that's just as a result of the mutation.

THAT IS, EVOLUTION DRIVES THE SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM, SURVIVAL OF THE ORGANISM DOES NOT DRIVE EVOLUTION.

I'm off to watch come dancing.

Mortarboards - still cool.

I am with Simondo on this. Please boys (assuming you both are) give it a rest. It really is getting boring (yawn).

Mistakenly or not, I thought, that this tread was about mortarboards, gowns and other associated traditions, not nit picking through the messages of your fellow contributors.

Personally I am looking forward to little 'prancing', once the graduation day arrives. Haven't made my mind up about the potential head gear yet, though.

I think, with this one like so many other things in life, the key is choice. Some like and want to uphold tradition, others may prefer not to. I find it odd and quite irritating, that some seem adamant, that their preference is the one and only correct one.

If anyone wants to have a go or critique my spelling, grammar or anything else, please feel free. Just so long as you also take into account, that my first language is not English and therefore I may be a poor judge of how my writing comes across.

Wow some really interesting comments here. I particularly like the comments referring to mortar boards with reference to building and decorating. Very funny.

Having achieved my BAOpen(Open)not long ago my thoughts have turned to when I graduate.

I don't know why but my thoughts always turn to Robin Williams when he played Dr Patch Adams in the film . At his ceremony he turned round on reciept on his scroll to reveal his naked backside! Lol. Don't worry everyone, I won't be doing this soon ;)

You're right fat cat - Nimmy and I are guilty of threadjacking. I will pm him to continue our debate.

Getting back on track, mortarboards are fine for those that want them. I've so far graduated 3 times with cap and gown and each time it costs money in terms of the hire (for all of about 4 hours) of the traditional kit. I seem to recall being told not to wear the cap, and it seemed to be used only in the photos - that was at Manchester university in 1991 and 1994 so my memory may have failed me. So, a mortarboard could be considered a waste of money.

No pm facilities so I'll continue the evolution thread back where it belongs. Apologies again for threadjacking.

Which faculty did you graduate from Wrighty? I got my nursing degree from University of Manchester earlier this year and we all wore mortar boards. There didn't seem to be much choice in the matter but I didn't hear any objections. I loved it!

Purr, thanks Wrighty, of course it should read 'thread' and not 'tread'. Here I am, prompted to correct myself, hopefully correctly? (grin).

I wondered, whether anyone would be kind enough to inform an ignorant foreigner about the history/origins of mortarboards. I find it all quite fascinating, as my native country does not have this particular kind of dressing-up tradition.

I graduated in 1991 from the faculty of science and 1994 from medicine. As I said, long time ago, but I'm sure we were pretty much told not to put our mortarboards on until after we'd been up on the stage to shake hands with the dean or whoever it was. I only remember wearing it for the photos, and handing it back immediately after the ceremony, minus my £10 or whatever the cost of it was on top of the gown hire.

Fat cat - no idea myself on the origin of the mortarboard, history not really being my thing, but here's what Wikipedia has to say on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_board

There can’t be many debates on mortarboards as wide ranging and entertaining as this one, what with the brief excursions into evolution and dyslexia, and TheHumbleOne’s amusingly ironic claim to know better than the moderators! (incidentally, the censorship of opinions is not a great idea because the next censored opinion could be yours.)

Anyway, back to the mortarboards. I personally find the idea of dressing up in a bizarre costume to re-enact some arcane rite of medieval religious privilege to be rather weird. For me, my degree is the change that those three years of study brought about in me, and this is evidenced by a certificate should someone need it. I don’t feel the need to affirm it by looking at a photo of myself wearing a silly hat and robes – this seems quite irrelevant. It won’t surprise you to learn therefore that I didn’t attend my grad ceremony! My son recently graduated, and being of similar mind didn’t attend his either.

However, I did attend my daughter’s, and I have her photo, mortarboard and all, on display. To her, it represents a fun day with her friends celebrating three years of hard work and the milestone of the end of university life. When I look at the photo, I don’t see my own feelings about such events – I see her feelings about her day because I see it through her eyes. I see her smile and I smile too.

**TheHumbleOne’s amusingly ironic claim to know better than the moderators!**

Who claimed this I wonder? Perhaps the 'thehumbleOne' has actually been a moderator on several forums. So they may know as much as one. But I can't see anybody claiming to know more than one on here.

Anyway, back to mortarboards.

I honestly cannot quite comprehend why wearing a cap and gown would bring out so much smarmy mocking and condescension (except when it comes to one's own family members of course).

'Bizarre'? And I really don't remember re-enacting any religious rite at my ceremony.

We carried ours mainly as males. The girls wore theirs. Nobody felt as if they where dressed bizarrely and I don't think anybody felt 'silly'. Most that I came into contact with thought it was a lot of fun wearing the cap and gown.

In fact, wearing the cap and gown, putting them on and swishing the gowns was a major part of the days fun. It made the day extra special and, as said. A lot more then just a stuffy suit and nice flora frock. Then walking in line to a seat, where you had to sit for hours till everybody shook the hand of the chancellor, then after that, the long speeches of the honorary bestowees, if there's such a word.

If people think them self superior and above such things, fine, we bow in thy presence. But it really is an harmless part of the day.

And we still have the certificate too!!

I'm surprised people feel so strongly against them.

I would love to wear one at my graduation ceremony and I think it just wouldn't be the same without one. It's a shame they're not part of it!

Nimmy writes: “If people think them self superior and above such things, fine, we bow in thy presence.”

And verily I say unto thee, “Thou hast completely missed the point!”

Your point is the self development within yourself that studying for your degree has wrought?

You see wearing silly costumes for one day at the end of it bizarre?

If you have a mortarboard does this entitle you to get plastered?

I am sick and tired of people thinking my degree is not a proper degree with the open uni.

I shall buy my motar board, and wear it before the ceromany and after for my photos with pride,  my photo next to my daughters we will both have the hat!

It should be choice as this country is supposed to be about freedom of choice, so if they are saying we can hire them why not wear them? It has taken me a long time to get wear i am i have 1 more yr, through illness, work, and moving from country to another, and if i want to graduate in style then that is what i am going to do, i will only have the chance to do it once so i am going to do my way !!!!!

I finished my first degree in October 2009 and have my degree ceremony coming up in June at Ely cathedral.  I'm told that these ceremonies are really worthwhile but, although I don't feel VERY strongly about it, I'm slightly disappointed that mortar-boards are not worn.

My own view is that they are traditional rather than old-fashioned and although it may be a reflection of my advanced age, I rather like tradition.

Why do the anti-traditionalists like gowns but hate mortar boards?

Why did the OU just not settle for a comfortable pair of jeans and a CND tee shirt?

I am with the "for" crowd in this debate.

To me, I will have worked hard for my degree and I would like my photograph to look complete. It wont take away the hard work, and sense of pride and achievement, by any means, but nonetheless, I would like the right to craduate in a silly hat especially since its supposed to be part of academic dress.

I'm not foolish enough to think that a ceremony and photo of myself in a mortar board is the objective of getting a degree, but it's a right of passage, and a lasting physical reminder of my qualification, for all my friends and family to see.

I would imagine a great many of us have photographs of our weddings or other important occasions, and the graduation photo is much the same in my opinion. Just like some brides wont wear a veil, some feel imcomplete without it.

I think the mortar boards should be made an optional part of the ceremony. I fully appreciate the views of others; that they are not needed and not wanted, but the chance to wear them when we graduate should be given to those of us whom feel it is important - just like the chance to attend the ceremony is optional.

***just like the chance to attend the ceremony is optional.***

I always thought that was compulsory unless ill.  Until the university bestows a degree on you (by the chancellor giving it you and shaking hands) you was a graduand.

I was always miffed I either missed it or there was no hat toss ceremony.  That was something I looked forward too.

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the university invited you to accept the award at a ceremony. I didn't realise that meant one has to attend.

I personally wouldn't be held back from my own ceremony, after all it's what we spend years working hard for.

I think we should have them because everyone has worked so hard and at the end of the day, it is a rite of passage. Whether it means something to you or not, a graduation ceremony would not feel the same without wearing one. It does annoy me somewhat that the OU have not taken these comments on board and some of these comments were made in 2009! I wonder if any of these people did eventually get to wear their mortar boards or were they fobbed off with the notion that 'people think they are old fashioned'. If that is the argument, then do away with the gown as well!