• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Academia vs Joe Sixpack

.

  • Total voters
    51
samsmart said:
For example, take an agriculturist and a ecologist.
Click to expand...

I'll take the job. I'm an agricultural ecologist. I think we should weight heavily towards interdisciplinary degrees.
 
lizzie said:
No, I agree with your definition, but I don't agree with your assessment that a college grad = a member of academia. Most of those who graduate from college, progress on to jobs which are not research or academic-related. Engineers, doctors, nurses, architects, etc. The academics are the ones who are teaching and researching.
Click to expand...

That seems like splitting hairs. I think someone who has gone to a higher learning facility and has earned a degree in a field would be considered an "academic".

And by the way, engineers, doctors and nurses DO actively do research.
 
longview said:
I think the average Joe deserves more credit. and could learn how to govern effectively.
The University Professors might tend to be more ideologues.
It has been my experience that most PhDs make poor managers.
They can be very good in their own area of expertise, but hubris leads them to
believe that makes them good in all areas of Human knowledge.
Click to expand...

Part of the PhD is management, at least in the hard sciences. The PhD doesn't make them "good in all areas of Human Knowledge", but it does demonstrate the ability for critical thinking, assimilation, projection, adaptability, etc.
 
RadicalModerate said:
That seems like splitting hairs. I think someone who has gone to a higher learning facility and has earned a degree in a field would be considered an "academic".

And by the way, engineers, doctors and nurses DO actively do research.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. An Associates or Bachelors degree doesn't make one an academic. Masters....kinda, there are research Masters. But mostly we're talking about PhD students, Post-Docs, and Professors as the academics.
 
Gina said:
I'm no academic snob, but the great majority of average Joes and Josephines who attend some level of government meeting, are only angry. They often don't have a clear or practical idea to offer in response to the issue that spurred them to voice their opinion. Once they get up to speed on it, they usually peel off, back to their lives, leaving a small core of really concerned citizens and their representatives, to figure it out. I've seen it on many occasions.

I'm not saying all PhD's are whiz's at this stuff either, but they are useful in that some have expertise that can be tapped for information leading to solutions.

In the end, it takes people interested and able to work at it to make government work.
Click to expand...
I can see that, it would be bad to have a government made up of home owner association types.
I am not sure the business of Government would keep the PhDs interested ether.
 
longview said:
It has been my experience that most PhDs make poor managers.
Click to expand...

Teamwork and presentation skill development doesn't even begin until grad school.
 
Paschendale said:
What's theoretical about a biologist who works in a lab in a hospital? What's theoretical about a lawyer who defends indigent defendants in court, or one who fights to uphold contract law? What's theoretical about a computer engineer who designs the products that run this very forum? What's theoretical about a behavioral psychologist who models human behavior enough to produce successful marketing campaigns?

I'm not sure exactly what you think people do with their advanced degrees after they get them. Most don't stay in academia and become professors. They put their skills to good use, in extremely non-theoretical ways.

I think you are buying into a false image in this assertion.
Click to expand...

The world of academia is the world of educational pursuit and learning, not application of said learning. The examples you give are not working in the world of academia. The research biologist is working for a hospital, not an institution of learning. Academia is comprised of professors and researchers within the educational system.
 
Ikari said:
I wouldn't say that. An Associates or Bachelors degree doesn't make one an academic. Masters....kinda, there are research Masters. But mostly we're talking about PhD students, Post-Docs, and Professors as the academics.
Click to expand...

Again, that just seems like a personal opinion on the matter.

A bachelor degree is a type of academic degree, just like a PhD is.

I don't see a difference beyond levels of expertise.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Again, that just seems like a personal opinion on the matter.

A bachelor degree is a type of academic degree, just like a PhD is.

I don't see a difference beyond levels of expertise.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between having a degree, and being a member of the academic community. It isn't splitting hairs. It's knowing what the terms mean. I have a college education, but I am not an academic, because my degree enabled me to get a job as a registered nurse. If I had pursued a higher degree, for example, a PhD in nursing, and spent my career as a professor or dean of a nursing school, then that would be an academic pursuit.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Again, that just seems like a personal opinion on the matter.

A bachelor degree is a type of academic degree, just like a PhD is.

I don't see a difference beyond levels of expertise.
Click to expand...

Exposure, depth, experience, etc. It's not exactly a linear scale, The amount of time and effort necessary for higher and higher degrees increases nearly exponentially. Undergrad was a joke, pretty much a continuation of High School. But grad school...spent almost twice as long in it as undergrad and routinely was spending 13-14 hour days/7 days a week doing work. To me an academic means one who has achieved some of the highest degrees of difficulty within academia and has spent considerable time in academia.

It's as if one claims that anyone who completes the basic motorcycle safety course is an expert at riding motorcycles. Of course that's not true, you'd still be a novice less you've put in the time and effort in riding more, working on your bike, experiencing adverse weather, etc.
 
longview said:
I can see that, it would be bad to have a government made up of home owner association types.
I am not sure the business of Government would keep the PhDs interested ether.
Click to expand...

No, and I acknowledge that point. We need both kinds of people, highly educated and those with street smarts, (and there is an intersection of both) but they all must be equally interested in making government function better.
 
Hare said:
A recent quip by a fellow poster here inspired me to create this poll. Bear with me, while it may seem patently absurd to some, it is strictly for my own amusement and serves only as a sociopolitical barometer of sorts. Would you rather our governing body be comprised of the faculty of various Ivy league and highly accredited academic institutions (i.e. Harvard, MIT, Stanford etc.) or the first 535 individuals selected at random from your local phonebook?
Click to expand...

You're just playing a shell game. Trade politicians for academia, who then become politicians, it's all the same political machine designed to gain and hold power at the expense of everyone else. As few choices and as little power as possible should be relinquished from individuals, and handed on a sliver platter to "government". If we reduced that significantly, all the justified hand-wringing we have over politicans and how broken the system is, corrupt, etc., would be drastically reduced.
I'd rather change the game, than the players. (neither are of course likely to happen, they will never give up that power without a bloody fight, now that they have it).
 
Ikari said:
Exposure, depth, experience, etc. It's not exactly a linear scale, The amount of time and effort necessary for higher and higher degrees increases nearly exponentially. Undergrad was a joke, pretty much a continuation of High School. But grad school...spent almost twice as long in it as undergrad and routinely was spending 13-14 hour days/7 days a week doing work. To me an academic means one who has achieved some of the highest degrees of difficulty within academia and has spent considerable time in academia.

It's as if one claims that anyone who completes the basic motorcycle safety course is an expert at riding motorcycles. Of course that's not true, you'd still be a novice less you've put in the time and effort in riding more, working on your bike, experiencing adverse weather, etc.
Click to expand...

Man, my undergrad years were filled with many nights of the week ending up being 13 hour days :p
 
lizzie said:
The world of academia is the world of educational pursuit and learning, not application of said learning. The examples you give are not working in the world of academia. The research biologist is working for a hospital, not an institution of learning. Academia is comprised of professors and researchers within the educational system.
Click to expand...

So I will cease to be a member of academia when I graduate and start practicing law? And then perhaps my "book learning" will no longer be demonized? I don't think most of this discussion shares your notion that only people who still study or work at a school comprise academia.

But if that is so, then why would you want either academics or sixpacks in government? Why not draw from the well educated and practically experienced group that came out of academia and apply their skills?
 
Fiddytree said:
Man, my undergrad years were filled with many nights of the week ending up being 13 hour days :p
Click to expand...

Upper level science class, I suppose. Spending that kind of time on undergrad liberal arts is thinking the prof cares much more than they do, I figure.
 
Paschendale said:
So I will cease to be a member of academia when I graduate and start practicing law? And then perhaps my "book learning" will no longer be demonized? I don't think most of this discussion shares your notion that only people who still study or work at a school comprise academia.

But if that is so, then why would you want either academics or sixpacks in government? Why not draw from the well educated and practically experienced group that came out of academia and apply their skills?
Click to expand...

If you aren't currently teaching, or researching for a university, you aren't a member of academia anyway. No one is demonizing your "book learning". We are trying to establish what academia is vs what a college education is, and the two are not the same.

I have no problem with well-educated anyone in government. I just think that a balance is needed. Not purely theorists, nor purely pragmatists.
 
Fiddytree said:
Man, my undergrad years were filled with many nights of the week ending up being 13 hour days :p
Click to expand...

So were mine, but that was mostly drinking at the fraternity house. Let's see, undergrad I had 2 majors (Physics and Chemistry) and 3 minors (Math, Botany and Political Science). I never took less than 15 hours, one semester I took 21 hours. I was in SPS (President for 2 years), Chemistry Club (Vice-President), Student Government, Student Council for the College of Natural Arts and Science (Secretary), I tutored, I did research in Physics and Chemistry (I even created a new fluorescence lab experiment for P-Chem), I had a job with the Physics department, and I was an officer in my Fraternity for 3 years. And it all fit in all nice and well leaving me with enough time to piss off most days of the week and get drunk with friends.

Undergrad was easy. Masters work was tougher, but still straight forward. PhD work kicked my ass and left me with no time (I only took 1 week off a year and that was around Christmas).
 
Ikari said:
So were mine, but that was mostly drinking at the fraternity house. Let's see, undergrad I had 2 majors (Physics and Chemistry) and 3 minors (Math, Botany and Political Science). I never took less than 15 hours, one semester I took 21 hours. I was in SPS (President for 2 years), Chemistry Club (Vice-President), Student Government, Student Council for the College of Natural Arts and Science (Secretary), I tutored, I did research in Physics and Chemistry (I even created a new fluorescence lab experiment for P-Chem), I had a job with the Physics department, and I was an officer in my Fraternity for 3 years. And it all fit in all nice and well leaving me with enough time to piss off most days of the week and get drunk with friends.

Undergrad was easy. Masters work was tougher, but still straight forward. PhD work kicked my ass and left me with no time (I only took 1 week off a year and that was around Christmas).
Click to expand...

I was reading books and writing all the time. That must have been why I didn't come out of the bedroom to talk to my roommates. :p
 
Ikari said:
one semester I took 21 hours.
Click to expand...

One semester I took 18, grad (including a med lab, gm for crops), UF, and left 2-3 weeks early to speak in Europe.
 
ecofarm said:
Upper level science class, I suppose. Spending that kind of time on undergrad liberal arts is thinking the prof cares much more than they do, I figure.
Click to expand...

No, it paid off. Trust me. I worked 30 x's harder in the history department than I did in the education/special education departments, and about 2 x's as hard in that department as I did in the political science department. 12 credits in history and political science meant I saw no one, and had to force myself to get a break or two. "History is a sea of books....swim" as one of our professors taught us.
 
lizzie said:
I have no problem with well-educated anyone in government. I just think that a balance is needed. Not purely theorists, nor purely pragmatists.
Click to expand...

The choice should not be between purely theoretical or "purely pragmatic". I don't see what's pragmatic about being uneducated, but let's leave that aside for now. Even the intent of the OP is not about choosing specifically between college professors and whatever Joe Sixpack does for a living (before Sarah Palin came along). The OP is about choosing between the educated and the uneducated. And there is nothing that the uneducated bring to the table in governance that the educated do not.
 
Paschendale said:
The OP is about choosing between the educated and the uneducated. And there is nothing that the uneducated bring to the table in governance that the educated do not.
Click to expand...

No. The op is about adacemia vs Joe Sixpack. It isn't about educated vs uneducated.
 
Academia is not pragmatic? Applied science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom