Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

People With Lots of Academic Qualifications

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    nyarlothothep
    Registered Users Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    PK2008 wrote: »
    The 'right' person for a job is the best person available, in this case the girl who had 7 years work experience. She didnt get there by knowing how to speak marketing jargon. Her bosses promoted her cos she knew the place inside out, she knew what to do when the systems went down, she knew what to do when there were too many calls to handle, what reports needed to be filled out, who to talk to about XYZ and how to talk to them etc etc.

    But most importantly she knew what was really valuable to her boss and she made sure she delivered it, this is how her performance was measured, not on how many marketing slogans she could reel off.

    you're just assuming all this stuff. How do you know it wasn't politics rather than merit that got her into that position?


  • Options
    #63
    PK2008
    Registered Users Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭PK2008


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    you're just assuming all this stuff. How do you know it wasn't politics rather than merit that got her into that position?

    I would argue that politics/politcal awareness is as much a merit as anything else in the workplace. If being politically aware and astute is very important to her bosses then she deserved to be put there.

    I think a lot of people try to use 'politics' as an excuse for why they havent been promoted. The further up you go in an organisation the more politically astute a person needs to be in order to make things happen especially across multiple departments.


  • Options
    #64
    soundsham
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭soundsham


    piby wrote: »
    There I was a guy I was chatting to a few weeks ago whose academic acheivements looked like this on paper:

    BA, MSc, Ma, HDip, PGCert, PhD (provisional)

    He actually had two PGCerts but I believe that you only write it down once on paper! As if that wasn't enough he was also halfway through his PhD!! In fairness that guy was well into his 40's so he must have worked at some point in his life but it's still an outrageous selection. I mean is it really necessary to have that many?!!

    I also know a fair few people who have multiple masters etc. So what the most (academically) qualified person you've ever met?


    what were talking about,the letters he had left to conquer from the alphabet ??


  • Options
    #65
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    pickarooney wrote: »

    There's an elitist respect for graduates of 'grandes écoles' (who invariably have daddies with friends anyway) but this doesn't extend to commoner uni.


    I believe that to be the case in ireland too
    <awaits backlash>
    but I honestly believe it, seen it with my own eyes


  • Options
    #66
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    If they're in technical positions on merit, they should be more than able to interview wet-eared technical graduates?

    How could they be in technical positions on merit if they are not technical? I contract out, and sometimes I basically interview guys to hire me( investors who have used me before recommend me which is tantemount to an order). Sometimes I go for interview.

    I have failed two interviews in my life ( and i do a lot) and both were non-techies. I am not nervous in interviews, nor off-putting, but I am technical, and if asked will talk for minutes about the relevancy for my experience to their case.

    It should be a no-brainer. I wont give the company, but I worked on the API which the clients need to use, wrote it, designed it. I generally walk in.

    See the problem with non-technical people? They should not be in interviews, should not be facing technicals. Dont understand what is going on. Have a strong ( at best) "back box" approach to what they should know, which is like someone with a grasp of medical terms interviewing Doctors.

    And in terms of assigning people within organisations, the same.

    So non-techies can make alright HR, and "project managers" - provided there is a technical team lead. But never ever let them pick a team.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Wudyaquit
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Wudyaquit


    IzzyWizzy wrote: »
    I don't understand how anyone could have 'too many' academic qualifications. You can never be too educated. I'd rather someone was being paid for research than for sitting on their hole watching Sky.

    Because it's better to get qualified and to apply those qualifications to the real world than to continue studying disparate fields just for the sake of it.
    If all the study is in the same field, fair enough, the ultimate research might yield something useful, but as other posters have mentioned, there are plenty of "serial academics" out there, who study one thing, then drop it and study something else.

    And to blanket assume that research is a good thing, is fairly short-sighted. You have to wonder, when you hear some of the reseach topics, whether they're being studied with the aim of contributing to society or for the purposes of the PhD at the end itself and the student's own ego.

    The person being paid for research that isn't ultimately used in the real world is contributing no more to the world than the person "sitting on their hole watching Sky", quite the opposite. They're a pointless drain on society's resources.


  • Options
    #68
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Wudyaquit wrote: »

    The person being paid for research that isn't ultimately used in the real world is contributing no more to the world than the person "sitting on their hole watching Sky", quite the opposite. They're a pointless drain on society's resources.

    could you explain that line again...


  • Options
    #69
    Wudyaquit
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Wudyaquit


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    could you explain that line again...

    If research isn't applied to the real world in some way the person isn't contributing anything, but is costing the state more than €200 a week it would cost for them to be on the dole.
    How exactly do you think unapplied research contributes, and to what?


  • Options
    #70
    InReality
    Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭InReality


    On a societal level the downside to people having lots of qualifications is so small as to be almost immeasurable.

    The upside is new discoveries , which often occur when a person is able to think about a problem in a new way , i.e outside the norms of his/her discipline.

    One way of promoting this is having degrees in different academic disciplines.

    On an personal level I have no problem with people who are "lifelong students"
    In fact I find it hard to imagine anything less objectionable.

    & On the "unapplied research is a waste of money" theme
    I'd suggest reading up on how discoveries actually occur.


  • Options
    #71
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Wudyaquit wrote: »
    If research isn't applied to the real world in some way the person isn't contributing anything, but is costing the state more than €200 a week it would cost for them to be on the dole.
    How exactly do you think unapplied research contributes, and to what?

    research is never pointless


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,230 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Pittens wrote: »
    How could they be in technical positions on merit if they are not technical?

    I'm not sure if it was your intention, but you seem to be saying that people who are working in IT but have a non-IT degree are less clued up on what they're doing or less capable, which is a massively incorrect assumption.

    IT is nothing like medicine; a lot of what is learned in college is completely irrelevant to the workplace and a huge amount is learned directly on the job, by IT graduates and non IT graduates alike.


  • Options
    #73
    star.chaser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 740 ✭✭✭star.chaser


    piby wrote: »
    There I was a guy I was chatting to a few weeks ago whose academic acheivements looked like this on paper:

    BA, MSc, Ma, HDip, PGCert, PhD (provisional)

    He actually had two PGCerts but I believe that you only write it down once on paper! As if that wasn't enough he was also halfway through his PhD!! In fairness that guy was well into his 40's so he must have worked at some point in his life but it's still an outrageous selection. I mean is it really necessary to have that many?!!

    I also know a fair few people who have multiple masters etc. So what the most (academically) qualified person you've ever met?

    If you rearrange these letters, you get the following:


    Drab Camp Tech Gimps :pac:


  • Options
    #74
    Wudyaquit
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Wudyaquit


    InReality wrote: »
    On a societal level the downside to people having lots of qualifications is so small as to be almost immeasurable.
    Explain that to someone who hasn't been able to get into the education system.

    My original post:
    Wudyaquit wrote: »
    If all the study is in the same field, fair enough, the ultimate research might yield something useful, but as other posters have mentioned, there are plenty of "serial academics" out there, who study one thing, then drop it and study something else.

    The person being paid for research that isn't ultimately used in the real world is contributing no more to the world than the person "sitting on their hole watching Sky", quite the opposite. They're a pointless drain on society's resources.

    I fully accept that just because research isn't applied it can still be useful in terms of there being some "collateral wastage", if you like, and withdraw the wording, but I fully stand over the point. Doing research and then dropping it on a whim to follow something else is a waste of resources.
    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    research is never pointless
    Will you commission me to find out why the word "blue" doesn't smell like an orange? How much?


  • Options
    #75
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Wudyaquit wrote: »


    Will you commission me to find out why the word "blue" doesn't smell like an orange? How much?

    i have never heard of a phd student researching something irrelevant, or of no future economic, academic or technological benefit


  • Options
    #76
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    --LOS-- wrote: »
    That's true alright but even excluding those who study on the side, I really don't get this attitude that they are somehow stuck in college their whole life or that they don't have a "job". Phd students/postdocs, guess what, they get paid for that, it is a job. Lecturers might be viewed more as job holders to the general public than the postgrads/postdocs below them but their teaching is a very small part of what they do, they are basically a higher rank of student. Studying and research is one of the most fundamental jobs there is, the most important I think.



    Well that's nonsense, I would think quite the opposite, anyone with that many qualifications is generally always lecturing, giving talks/presentations, presenting conferences on a grand scale, they're hardly shy and retiring.

    I would have to disagree with some of what you have said. Not all Phd students get paid, only ones in subjects that are necessary to society. For example, one friend of mine earns £12 000 a year doing a PhD in genetics. 2 other friends of mine are doing PhDs, one in archaeology and one in philosophy, and they don't get paid a penny. One pays his way by teaching and doing admin for the university on the side, the other had his mum remortgage her house to pay for it.

    Also, at the 2 universities that I attended, the lecturers were not "a higher rank of student" but writers of academic books who earnt the main part of their income by teaching.

    Studying and research can be an important job, but it depends on your subject. For example, the person doing a PhD in philosophy isn't actually, IMO, contributing anything to society, while the one doing a PhD in genetics is, as his PhD entails working in a lab helping to try and find cures. (and I speak as someone with a degree in philosophy, so I am dissing my own subject here.)

    The majority of people I know who have become perpetual students do it for the simple reason that they don't know what else to do and they like the academic life as it's easier than living in the real world. Alot of us did/do have paid jobs on the side but that is just for a bit of extra cash. The majority of long-time university students I know start off with the student loan, then for their next degrees get career development loans from the bank, and so on. Well, this applies to those studying history/media studies/philosophy, etc. All of the science graduates from my universities went on to either real, proper paid jobs or paid Phds.


  • Options
    #77
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Wudyaquit wrote: »
    Doing research and then dropping it on a whim to follow something else is a waste of resources.
    You hold this belief for all things right? Like using the internet for non-essential services is a waste of resources isn't it?

    Will you commission me to find out why the word "blue" doesn't smell like an orange? How much?

    What a ridiculous suggestion, did you get that off the Sun website or something?


  • Options
    #78
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    I would have to disagree with some of what you have said. Not all Phd students get paid, only ones in subjects that are necessary to society. For example, one friend of mine earns £12 000 a year doing a PhD in genetics. 2 other friends of mine are doing PhDs, one in archaeology and one in philosophy, and they don't get paid a penny. One pays his way by teaching and doing admin for the university on the side, the other had his mum remortgage her house to pay for it.

    It has nothing to do with what subject a person is studying, you can get funding for archaeology and philosophy, but you'd have to be a bit of a dick to have your mother remortgage their house. imo of course.


  • Options
    #79
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    Studying and research can be an important job, but it depends on your subject. For example, the person doing a PhD in philosophy isn't actually, IMO, contributing anything to society, while the one doing a PhD in genetics is, as his PhD entails working in a lab helping to try and find cures.

    Personally I'd much sooner buy a book on philosophy than a book on genetics. The thing with a subject like philosophy is that it opens a range of options for "the real world", whereas genetics will be fairly limited.


  • Options
    #80
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    IzzyWizzy wrote: »
    No, I just made it up. Of course I reckon so. I haven't lived everywhere in the world, but I definitely think education is respected more on the continent, for example. Here, people seem to think working is the only thing that matters. I know for a fact my Irish family think I'm exactly the same as people who sit at home drinking Dutch Gold because I'm a full time student. It gets on your nerves when you spend all day at college and then work part time (as I was doing until this month) and people treat you like a waster. My relatives in Italy and the US are much more positive about my studies, always asking how it's going, what I'm doing, sending cards for graduations and congratulating me on internships. It's not that I expect that. It's just a really huge difference in the way further education is viewed.

    I'm not sure it is that respected elsewhere. I've lived in the UK, Sweden and Finland, and all those places, in my experience, also seem to value work more than studying.


  • Options
    #81
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    prinz wrote: »
    Personally I'd much sooner buy a book on philosophy than a book on genetics. The thing with a subject like philosophy is that it opens a range of options for "the real world", whereas genetics will be fairly limited.

    There is this myth that a philosohy degree opens the door to a wide range of career choices, but it doesn't really. The jobs you can get with genetics may be limited, but they are real jobs, relevant to what you have studied, in high demand and fairly well paid. The same can't be said for a philosophy degree, and I should know, I have one and I know classfuls of people with them. Lecturers just say that philosophy degrees give you this range of options, because they can't think of anything specific that it's actually useful for. Whether a book on philosophy or genetics would be more interesting just depends on the person. Being bored of philosophy now, I'd rather read a book on genetics.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    The thing with a subject like philosophy is that it opens a range of options for "the real world", whereas genetics will be fairly limited.

    Dont get that.... Most works on philosophy are dated, and if you wanted to know hpw man actually works - if the proper study of mankind is man - then genetics or neuroscience is your only man.


  • Options
    #83
    Wudyaquit
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Wudyaquit


    brianthebard wrote: »
    You hold this belief for all things right? Like using the internet for non-essential services is a waste of resources isn't it?
    I would if my using the internet for non-essential services was excluding someone else from using it more productively.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    What a ridiculous suggestion, did you get that off the Sun website or something?
    How silly of me. Can you help me think of a less ridiculous one to prove my point? I'd appreciate that.
    Intellectual snobbery, I'd thought, was reserved for people with intellect, but I may have been mistaken.


  • Options
    #84
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    brianthebard wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with what subject a person is studying, you can get funding for archaeology and philosophy, but you'd have to be a bit of a dick to have your mother remortgage their house. imo of course.
    I don't know how they do it in Ireland as I have never studied there, but elsewhere of course it depends on what subject you are studing. They need people to do scientific research in labs and are willing to pay for it. Not so many places are willing to pay for someone to study an arts or humanities subject.


  • Options
    #85
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    IT is nothing like medicine; a lot of what is learned in college is completely irrelevant to the workplace and a huge amount is learned directly on the job, by IT graduates and non IT graduates alike.

    I would hope people learn on the job in all jobs. What I am talking about is real technical expertise, down to and below the API level, or hardware level, and hiring such people. The idea that someone learns on the job what a guy with a masters in electronic engineering, or OS design, is part of the fallacy of the day and not, in fact, universally followed. Most silicon valley companies are degreed ( engineers mostly) all the way up the tree to the CEO.


  • Options
    #86
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    There is this myth that a philosohy degree opens the door to a wide range of career choices, but it doesn't really.

    All depends on how you apply yourself tbh. Philosophy graduates range from top Hollywood directors to CEO's of massive corporations and leading business people.


  • Options
    #87
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    They probably got their careers through talent for those spheres. Having a degree in philosophy didn't open the door for them. I am not saying that you cannot get a good job if you have a philosophy degree, I am saying that a philosophy degree on its own is of no added use in getting a job. The point I am trying to make is that unless you become a philosophy teacher, a philosohy degree will have no direct relevance on the work you go on to do, and scientific subjects provide more benefit to society at large, therefore more places are willing to fund science students.


  • Options
    #88
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    Wudyaquit wrote: »
    How silly of me. Can you help me think of a less ridiculous one to prove my point? I'd appreciate that.
    Intellectual snobbery, I'd thought, was reserved for people with intellect, but I may have been mistaken.

    I didn't prove any point... you picked something that would never be researched to prove that some research is pointless, why don't you pick one that has been researched?


  • Options
    #89
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    StormWarrior wrote: »
    The point I am trying to make is that unless you become a philosophy teacher, a philosohy degree will have no direct relevance on the work you go on to do...

    Not at all a given, who says that their background in philosophy hasn't influenced people in their later careers?


  • Options
    #90
    StormWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭StormWarrior


    IzzyWizzy wrote: »
    I worked in a multilingual call centre for a few months after finishing my degree. Most people there were highly educated, spoke several languages, yet our boss was a 24 year old woman with a Leaving Cert who spoke only English. She got the job because she'd been working in that call centre since she was 17. Almost all the foreign staff said that would never happen at home and they all thought it was quite ridiculous. They expected the boss to be as educated as they were if not more so and they said that in Ireland, people who didn't go to college are rewarded for it and those who did treated like idiots who wasted their time. While I don't agree completely, I think they had a point.

    Maybe the years of experience made her much better at the job than anyone else? Having a degree in a particular subject is not necessarily going to make you better at your job in the real world. With a degree and a professional qualification, I worked in a call centre part time for a year. My 2 bosses, my manager and his manager, both spent most of their time doing the same as me, trying to persuade people to agree to a quote. Neither of them had any qualificatins at all, but they had years of experience and were brilliant at their jobs. I wouldn't expect to be given a higher position than them just because I had more (totally irrelevant) qualifications. They were better at the job than me, end of.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Wudyaquit wrote: »
    I would if my using the internet for non-essential services was excluding someone else from using it more productively.
    How do you know its not?

    How silly of me. Can you help me think of a less ridiculous one to prove my point? I'd appreciate that.
    Intellectual snobbery, I'd thought, was reserved for people with intellect, but I may have been mistaken.

    I reserve my snobbery for people who create giant strawman arguments with imaginary phd titles to prove a point that doesn't exist and doesn't make sense.


Advertisement