People With Lots of Academic Qualifications

pickarooney · 04-05-2010 12:45pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65715073]I haven't as much personal experience in France but my friends there were saying this. Now, they did go to the Sorbonne and other grandes écoles so there is that prestige. [/QUOTE]

The Sorbonne is not a grande école; it's "just" a university.

As for walking into a job, what field are you in? Was it a good job?

I.T. It was the late 90s. Everyone was walking into an overpaid job.

Well, it's not really fair to look at current statistics as the country is a mess for everyone right now. I don't think experience vs education is the issue.

These stats are over a 10 year period to 2008. General unemployment has been around the 10% mark there for the last decade.

I knew people who did economics, business, foreign languages and still walked into jobs. That's true about the practical application, but I'm doing a practical course here and people still think it's a doss just because it isn't science related.

What people? Potential employers or random punters on the street? Are you comparing like with like?

Where were you working? If it was somewhere that needed a degree, then of course everyone was a graduate but there are still plenty of jobs where a degree isn't necessarily required, but would come in very handy.

Degrees rarely come in handy. Outside of very specific fields they're no more than a modicum of proof that you have some intelligence and staying power. I had collegues in my I.T. job with degrees in philosophy, geography and agricultural science who were all in senior positions.

In the place I worked, a recent graduate with a solid degree in modern languages could have learned that woman's job in a week and done a much better job.

Call centre managers, again in my experience, tend to be those with brass necks or good people management skills or very often those who were promoted just to get them away from the phones. The people who 'could' do a much better job generally are, but on the front lines, and getting low pay and abuse from all quarters. This goes for all three countries I've worked in for extended periods.

Gang of Gin · 04-05-2010 12:49pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'm BCorpL, LLB, LLM, AITI,

And I'm 27

I think it was that kind of boasting that got you in trouble in another thread:rolleyes: There was talk of paying tax, if I recall. And you're the consultant.

04-05-2010 12:57pm

meditraitor wrote: »

You dont see it then, I would hire the 24 year old with 7 years experience every time before some spannish or italian with a degree in language/literature/arts.
Just because you have a degree doesnt make you the right person for the job, graduates in Ireland should know that experience will trump your piece of paper everytime.. but experience and a degree trumps experience. Your collegues obviously didnt have it.

That said I'm all for academia, if your so inclined then by all means get yourself educated to educate...... Ive a couple of mates in their 30's still studying and thats what they do, fair play.....

Neither does having some sort-of-relevant experience make you the right person for the job. Having someone in charge of a multilingual team who only speaks English is ridiculous. Having someone trying to tell you stuff about marketing who never studied it is ridiculous, especially when several of my colleagues had marketing degrees and knew way more about it than the boss. It's a hell of a lot easier for a languages graduate to pick up team leading skills than someone who has spent 7 years in a call centre try to understand what the team are saying about her and send e-mails about stuff she doesn't understand. Yes, a degree AND experience is the ultimate winner, but how can graduates get experience if nobody will give them jobs in their field?

ejmaztec · 04-05-2010 1:00pm

The internet's great for degrees. One day you're as thick as sh1t, and the next you're a genius. The level of smartness just depends on how many multiples of $10 you can afford.

genericguy · 04-05-2010 1:03pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65715422] Yes, a degree AND experience is the ultimate winner, but how can graduates get experience if nobody will give them jobs in their field?[/QUOTE]

i once applied for a job cleaning up rubbish in a block of flats in the south inner city. i had recently finished my undergrad and wanted anything that would help me get on my feet, but the prick rang me back and said

"sorry genericguy, we'd be more looking for someone that can pick up the rubbish, not clone it."

ejmaztec · 04-05-2010 1:08pm

genericguy wrote: »

i once applied for a job cleaning up rubbish in a block of flats in the south inner city. i had recently finished my undergrad and wanted anything that would help me get on my feet, but the prick rang me back and said

"sorry genericguy, we'd be more looking for someone that can pick up the rubbish, not clone it."

It'll look good in your memoirs.

Pittens · 04-05-2010 1:09pm

I had collegues in my I.T. job with degrees in philosophy, geography and agricultural science who were all in senior positions.

I actually do have a big problem with that. The real problem is when these guys interview people for technical positions.

stovelid · 04-05-2010 1:14pm

Pittens wrote: »

I actually do have a big problem with that. The real problem is when these guys interview people for technical positions.

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

I work in IT (software) and I've known one or two capable people with non-technical qualifications.

PK2008 · 04-05-2010 1:14pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65715422]Neither does having some sort-of-relevant experience make you the right person for the job. Having someone in charge of a multilingual team who only speaks English is ridiculous. Having someone trying to tell you stuff about marketing who never studied it is ridiculous, especially when several of my colleagues had marketing degrees and knew way more about it than the boss. It's a hell of a lot easier for a languages graduate to pick up team leading skills than someone who has spent 7 years in a call centre try to understand what the team are saying about her and send e-mails about stuff she doesn't understand. Yes, a degree AND experience is the ultimate winner, but how can graduates get experience if nobody will give them jobs in their field?[/QUOTE]

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.

pickarooney · 04-05-2010 1:27pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65715422]Neither does having some sort-of-relevant experience make you the right person for the job. Having someone in charge of a multilingual team who only speaks English is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

Why? The lingua franca of any call centre in an English-speaking country is English.

It's a hell of a lot easier for a languages graduate to pick up team leading skills than someone who has spent 7 years in a call centre try to understand what the team are saying about her and send e-mails about stuff she doesn't understand.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there. Some people are naturally given to leading teams, others are not. There is a certain amount of training that can improve it, but experience is of far more use.

If a manager's employees are talking about her behind her back in languages she doesn't understand, the problem there is not one of qualifications, but respect.

Yes, a degree AND experience is the ultimate winner, but how can graduates get experience if nobody will give them jobs in their field?

It can be a vicious circle, but often you have to accept that once you finish college you will have to gain experience any way you can. Your education and natural ability should benefit you in working your way up but shouldn't be, and generally can't be, used as a free pass to a better position.

Look at it this way - if you start off in a low level position and interview for a promotion against someone with fewer qualifications and a similar level of experience, you should be successful provided you're able to convince the interviewer that your individual attributes make you deserving of the job.

nyarlothothep · 04-05-2010 1:39pm

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?

PK2008 · 04-05-2010 1:46pm

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.

soundsham · 04-05-2010 1:49pm

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 ??

melekalikimaka · 04-05-2010 1:58pm

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

Pittens · 04-05-2010 2:41pm

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.

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 2:43pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65712929]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

melekalikimaka · 04-05-2010 2:45pm

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...

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 3:17pm

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?

InReality · 04-05-2010 3:18pm

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.

melekalikimaka · 04-05-2010 3:22pm

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

pickarooney · 04-05-2010 3:29pm

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.

star.chaser · 04-05-2010 3:35pm

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:

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 3:51pm

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?

melekalikimaka · 04-05-2010 3:54pm

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

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:16pm

--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.

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 4:20pm

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?

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 4:21pm

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.

prinz · 04-05-2010 4:22pm

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.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:23pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65714147]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:26pm

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.

Pittens · 04-05-2010 4:28pm

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.

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 4:29pm

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.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:29pm

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.

Pittens · 04-05-2010 4:30pm

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.

prinz · 04-05-2010 4:31pm

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.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:36pm

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.

melekalikimaka · 04-05-2010 4:37pm

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?

prinz · 04-05-2010 4:43pm

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?

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:45pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65714625]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 4:46pm

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.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 4:47pm

prinz wrote: »

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

I am not saying a knowledge of philosophy doesn't influence someone, but it
a. doesn't directly qualify you for any specific job other than teaching philosophy
b. doesn't give as much benefit to society as, for example, someone involved in furthering scientific research.

04-05-2010 4:51pm

Wudyaquit wrote: »

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.

I don't agree. This is where I think people don't respect education and academia. Sure, research into cancer cures and whatnot is very useful, but practically ALL research is worthwhile, not just scientific research. I don't think people realise just how much work and study goes into developing things they take for granted. Not every student is going to produce something that can be used in the 'real world' directly but that's such an incredibly short sighted view. People build on other people's research.

I'm in an 'arts' field but I still do practical research. I've done a lot of work on how to reduce foreign accents when speaking English and now I'm working on localization strategies for European produced software. No, it's not the cure for cancer, but the results together with other students' results have a high chance of being pretty damn useful for the people they're aimed at. Don't knock theory based research either, all practical stuff has mountains of theory behind it.

prinz · 04-05-2010 4:55pm

StormWarrior wrote: »

I am not saying a knowledge of philosophy doesn't influence someone, but it
a. doesn't directly qualify you for any specific job other than teaching philosophy.

As with a huge array of courses to be honest. It all depends how you apply the knowledge you do have.

StormWarrior wrote: »

b. doesn't give as much benefit to society as, for example, someone involved in furthering scientific research.

As above. It all depends what you do with it. One person could spend their lives studying the genes of lab rats and have no scientific breakthroughs whatsoever, or you could study philosophy and become world famous for a new way of thinking that affects and shapes society and humanity in general.

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 4:56pm

melekalikimaka wrote: »

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?

Pedantic maybe, but if you agree that that research I mentioned would be pointless, the point was proved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6223831/Pointless-research-top-10-Ig-Nobel-award-winners-for-silly-science.html- if you want some pointless research topics and don't feel like bothering google.

None of this is the point I was trying to make anyhow, which was people who endlessly change fields of study are a drain, because what's gone into the earlier fields of study has been lost for the most part. Something existing in someone's head or on a research paper that will never be read isn't a benefit to anyone of itself.

StormWarrior · 04-05-2010 5:01pm

prinz wrote: »

As with a huge array of courses to be honest. It all depends how you apply the knowledge you do have.

As above. It all depends what you do with it. One person could spend their lives studying the genes of lab rats and have no scientific breakthroughs whatsoever, or you could study philosophy and become world famous for a new way of thinking that affects and shapes society and humanity in general.

Well, let's be realistic, how often does that happen? It's far more likely that the scientific research will be of more, and direct use. And of course it applies to a huge array of courses, media studies, history, RS (which I also have a degree in, so speak from experience here too). We are churning out tons of students with degrees in these subjects, when what we really need is more science and IT graduates.

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 5:02pm

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you know its not?

Cosmic. Thanks for proving the second part of my post

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 5:03pm

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Cosmic. Thanks for proving the second part of my post

You haven't proven anything I'm afraid.

Wudyaquit · 04-05-2010 5:12pm

brianthebard wrote: »

You haven't proven anything I'm afraid.

No, you did.
Your enormous intellect with your incisive arguments.

pickarooney · 04-05-2010 5:23pm

[quote=[Deleted User];65719481]
I'm in an 'arts' field but I still do practical research. I've done a lot of work on how to reduce foreign accents when speaking English [/QUOTE]

So your research is actually counterproductive? Please don't take away ze seckseh foreign accents!

brianthebard · 04-05-2010 5:24pm

Wudyaquit wrote: »

No, you did.
Your enormous intellect with your incisive arguments.

The above sentence does not make sense grammatically.
All you've done is make up an imaginary PhD topic and claim that you could get funding for it without a shred of evidence, then when people challenged you you've just kept shouting 'I'm right!' Well go ahead, but you won't become right just because you say you are.

People With Lots of Academic Qualifications

Comments