Which is more important: academia or common sense?

liah

I'm sure we've all seen examples of street smarts versus academic smarts. There's a lot of incredibly clever, smart people who are dropouts and a lot of seemingly thick people who have degrees.

Do you judge someone when they tell you they didn't complete school or go on to university or college? Do you automatically assume that because someone has a degree, they are more competent at a job than a person who doesn't?

I ask this because I'm a high school dropout. I dropped out at the age of 16. I'm not ashamed of it, but a lot of people hear that and automatically assume the worst.

As a child I was a perfect straight-A student. I participated in 2 years of French Immersion (all classes except English and Maths in French) from the ages of 10-12. I chose French Immersion over going into a gifted program that was also offered to me. Once I hit high school I lost interest for a variety of reasons-- I was a bookworm as a kid and had pretty much educated myself. There wasn't a whole lot in school I was actually learning that I hadn't already managed to figure out myself. Around the age of 14 I started skipping classes, and sometimes I skipped for days at a time. I was in and out of the detention hall pretty much weekly, was suspended a few times. My teachers hated me because I refused to hand in homework, but aced all in-class tests and year-end exams. I failed a lot of classes due to this. At 15 I learned I could complete an equivalency test instead of wasting more time in high school, and at 16 I officially was a high school dropout.

I'm not stupid. I've got a great deal of common sense from life experience and am well able to work at an academic level (having completed several assignments for friends who were in university at the time and receiving high marks on subjects I was no expert at). The fields in which I'm interested tend to value hands-on experience over the piece of paper (horses and computers). School just did not suit me, I work and learn better at my own pace, and I wanted to travel while I was young enough to enjoy it.

Unfortunately I have met one major drawback out of this: people refuse to take me seriously, regardless of how well-versed I am on a subject, if they know I dropped out of school. It costs me friends, potential relationships, etc.

Do you think some people do get a degree simply because they're afraid of how they'll be seen if they don't? Do you think people who are not suited to the current method of education but are equally or more intelligent than those who are should continue with it just to avoid potential relationship breakdowns in the future?

Do you think this type of pre-judgement is correct?

What do you believe true intelligence comes down to: academia, or common sense?

Eliot Rosewater

I think that people do consider going to college and engaging in academic learning to be somehow better than, say, doing an apprenticeship. I think this stems from the fact that our school system primarily rewards academic work. Thus children who are very good at English are seen as more successful than children who are talented with electronics. Or "better" than children who are exceptionally good dancers.

I don't agree with it, much as I don't agree with any neat classification of diverse people. I generally judge people singularly, though I am susceptible to prejudices, like any person. But the best thing to do is engage with them and see how passionate and knowledgeable they actually are and not simply fall for the contents of their curriculum vitae.

I could reel off loads of comparisons here. I have an electrician friend who reads classics in his spare time; I'd place his opinion of literature higher than that of the average university English student who, it seems to me, doesn't really care. Ditto with lots of things. Computing is a very good example. Lots of people doing computer science courses aren't even interested and are worse programmers/sys admins that those who are self taught.

In these cases those people who are engaging with a subject in their spare will be more passionate about it, and thus more interesting and knowledgeable.

So, to answer your question, I think intelligence comes down to neither, but is rather due to the individual nuances of each individual character.

Earthhorse

Which is more important for what?

For the most part, neither is more important than the other. After that, it depends on the field in question and the context. You better believe I want the surgeon whose knife I go under to have some formal training and as many certs hanging from his wall as possible. If I'm hiring someone for a programming position I may go with the guy who has the degree over the guy who doesn't; it is a sort of proof, if a poor one, in this instance, of ability. The informal candidate will often be at a disadvantage in this regard; they will need some other form of proof that they excel in the field which may exist but be difficult to provide e.g. code written for a proprietary application.

Outside of these formal meetings, though I do like to be around people I consider intelligent, I don't tend to value one over the other. A person may be intelligent but uninteresting and vice versa. So I can't understand the mentality that allows a potential friendship or relationship go over someone's academic performance if you get on well with the person in question.

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

I'm sure we've all seen examples of street smarts versus academic smarts. There's a lot of incredibly clever, smart people who are dropouts and a lot of seemingly thick people who have degrees.

Do you judge someone when they tell you they didn't complete school or go on to university or college? Do you automatically assume that because someone has a degree, they are more competent at a job than a person who doesn't?

I ask this because I'm a high school dropout. I dropped out at the age of 16. I'm not ashamed of it, but a lot of people hear that and automatically assume the worst.

As a child I was a perfect straight-A student. I participated in 2 years of French Immersion (all classes except English and Maths in French) from the ages of 10-12. I chose French Immersion over going into a gifted program that was also offered to me. Once I hit high school I lost interest for a variety of reasons-- I was a bookworm as a kid and had pretty much educated myself. There wasn't a whole lot in school I was actually learning that I hadn't already managed to figure out myself. Around the age of 14 I started skipping classes, and sometimes I skipped for days at a time. I was in and out of the detention hall pretty much weekly, was suspended a few times. My teachers hated me because I refused to hand in homework, but aced all in-class tests and year-end exams. I failed a lot of classes due to this. At 15 I learned I could complete an equivalency test instead of wasting more time in high school, and at 16 I officially was a high school dropout.

I'm not stupid. I've got a great deal of common sense from life experience and am well able to work at an academic level (having completed several assignments for friends who were in university at the time and receiving high marks on subjects I was no expert at). The fields in which I'm interested tend to value hands-on experience over the piece of paper (horses and computers). School just did not suit me, I work and learn better at my own pace, and I wanted to travel while I was young enough to enjoy it.

Unfortunately I have met one major drawback out of this: people refuse to take me seriously, regardless of how well-versed I am on a subject, if they know I dropped out of school. It costs me friends, potential relationships, etc.

Do you think some people do get a degree simply because they're afraid of how they'll be seen if they don't? Do you think people who are not suited to the current method of education but are equally or more intelligent than those who are should continue with it just to avoid potential relationship breakdowns in the future?

Do you think this type of pre-judgement is correct?

What do you believe true intelligence comes down to: academia, or common sense?

I dont know how to answer that. I know people with "common sense" who are difficult to have conversations with because they don't have broader knowledge or the language or conceptual experience in their background to talk about things with.

At the same time I know people who didn't finish highschool or didn't go to college and are incredibly self educated. My father was like that. In fact he would often say to me "and they gave you a degree?" if he thought I said something stupid.

I also know people, with several degrees, doctorates, etc who are idiots in both the ivory tower and on the street.

What degree give you, at least theoretically is access and privilege. And the right university gives you the right connections. It also gives you a foot in the door into a lot of jobs, even if it is starting out in the mailroom.

But... if Im honest, unless I knew the circumstances I would see a drop out as a quitter or someone who didn't have the right parents to kick them in the ass.

If my son dropped out of school, I would see myself as a failure of a mother. No one in my family has ever dropped out and most on my mother's side have numerous degrees. My grandmother had a masters, which is unusual for her generation, so it would be a shock to the system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

^ A college drop out is different from a high school drop out no?

There could be any number of reasons for dropping out of college, financial ones being the biggy.

Waking-Dreams

Unfortunately, many people look at academic degrees and diplomas as a truer indicator of intelligence, because it demonstrates that one has applied herself and has an aptitude for advanced learning. However, all humans are somewhat irrational and prone to dubious logic. For instance, someone who does a degree in some advanced subject yet believes in homoeopathy or tarot cards. You might question someone's level of intelligence if they seriously believed in either of those things yet, very smart people do (for not so smart reasons). One of the quirks of the brain.

I do think we overestimate how much other people actually care about our academic record, except when it comes to say, job interviews for obvious reasons. But we have spent years evolving effective ways to display our mental and moral traits to one another, and I think most people care less about the achievements you display than the natural traits you possess through normal conversation and cooperation. Whether you have a diploma on the wall or just display intelligence through interaction with others, is to me, all the same. It becomes problematic when you have a job in mind that has some critera for assessing applicants. But job interviews aren't as accurate as people think for assessing how good someone will actually be on the job.

I think people spend money on status symbols to seem more reputable, so maybe people who flaunt their academic achievements are doing the same thing? You can even purchase fake diplomas from websites these days.

I myself was a lazy student throughout primary and secondary school, just barely getting average grades. But I took up reading lots of great books from the age of 17 onwards and after ten years of educating myself through reading, watching documentaries and listening to other informed speakers, I would say I have gained plenty of valuable knowledge. It just hasn't been certified by an institution.

If you think about it, we have more access to info today than ever before. People can use the internet to read up on things and educate themselves unlike before.

The other thing is that some colleges have an element of prestige to them, unrelated to grades. For instance, someone who just makes it through Harvard may have an easier time getting a job over someone who graduated at the top of their class at a lesser college, because of Havard's reputation.

Zen65

liah wrote: »

Do you judge someone when they tell you they didn't complete school or go on to university or college? Do you automatically assume that because someone has a degree, they are more competent at a job than a person who doesn't?
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
Do you think this type of pre-judgement is correct?

Taking these three question in turn:
* Yes, I do (initially)
* Yes, I do (initially)
* No, it isn't, but it's a great approximation.

The problem with life is that it's potentially too short, and we are increasingly in a hurry. This means that when we meet people we make value judgements to determine whether or not they are compatible as friends, as lovers, as employees. We know that it takes time and effort to make this assessment more accurately, but we can speed up the process and be more efficient by making quick value judgements to eliminate the unlikely.

So:

* That woman you see smoking outside the pub, you can discount her as a possible mate because you hate smoking. It does not matter that she may be about to give up tomorrow, and never smoke again. To know that about her I would have to talk to her, get to know her, and that takes time. I may miss out because I'm making a value judgement, but I'm willing to take that risk because just playing the percentages I'm probably right.

* That man who's staggering around drunk in Grafton Street in dirty clothes probably isn't a guy to ask for directions. He may in fact know exactly what I want to know, and may be well able to tell me without any hassle at all, but I'll play the percentages and ask somebody else.

* That guy who applied for a job but does not have the relevant experience, you can save time by not shortlisting him for interview. It may be that he would be ideally suited and has shown himself well capable of taking on any number of other jobs and excelling, but I'll play the percentages (because I have 300 applicants for this one job) and leave him out.

* That woman who has applied for a job as a manager (internal company vacancy) but does not have third level education, you can eliminate her from further consideration because 7 other applicants do have degrees so that's enough people to interview. She may be exactly the right type of person, but I'll play the percentages and make it easier to do the interviews.

Life is cruel. We are short of time, under pressure, and to speed up the selection process we often look at external factors like qualifications & education level to help us to make quick decisions with a high probability of being right.

But it's not always right, and some rare diamonds get missed in the process.

OP, some advice if I may? Look at going to university as a mature student, get a degree in something you love to study, and put yourself in a better position (percentage wise) to get the job you want, or the life you want.


Be at peace,

Z

looksee

I left school at 16 (but it was fairly standard then) but have a lifetime's experience and practical skills. I am literate and have loads of common sense. I am now teaching (practical subjects) and am very happy with that. However if I were at the beginning of my career I would have problems in not having academic ability.

I think the true academic ability is quite subtle, and it is necessary for an academic career. I don't think you can say one is more important than the other, it depends on what you want to do. Common sense is more useful in everyday life, but academic ability is needed to take reasoning and argument to it's logical conclusion.

I have a friend studying for a doctorate, which would be way beyond me, but I have on a couple occasions been able to offer advice in solving a practical problem that underpinned academic research.

I don't think it is an 'either/or' situation.

Valmont

For anyone who is interested in this topic, Keith E. Stanovic has an excellent book about the main differences between the traditional conceptualisation of intelligence (which includes academic success, in one sense) and common sense (rationality) and how modern methods used to "measure" one's general intellectual capacities fall massively short. Here's another link. This is a really enlightening book and I fully recommend it!

looksee

That looks interesting Valmont. I fully agree about IQ tests - all they prove is that you are good at IQ tests. My husband has 4 degrees including a Masters but I could always beat him in an IQ test.

Tefral

The way I look at it, Academia will get you through the door of a job, where common sense will keep you there.

Long Term Louth

Unfortunately common sense if often, not that common!

Fremen

College degrees are a little "meh" to my mind. Students sit in class and get spoon-fed information. In theory, university classes teach you critical thought, but what really happens is that you learn to regurgitate someone else's insights in your own words. I can only really speak from my experiences in science/engineering- an arts degree might be different, but I suspect not.

Not having a leaving cert or the equivalent would probably cause me to raise an eyebrow though. I wouldn't see it as a lack of intelligence so much as an indicator that the person went through a difficult time as a teenager. I come from a middle-class Dublin background, where everyone is expected to finish school regardless of academic aptitude. If someone didn't finish, I would suspect that they went through some pretty heavy depression or something similar when they were younger.

Not that I'd think any less of them for it. As I've said, college- meh. School- meh. If there's one thing that does impress me, though, it's self-motivated learning. Someone who can pick up a subject from scratch or near scratch will earn my respect every time.

Long Term Louth

liah wrote: »

I'm sure we've all seen examples of street smarts versus academic smarts. There's a lot of incredibly clever, smart people who are dropouts and a lot of seemingly thick people who have degrees.

Do you judge someone when they tell you they didn't complete school or go on to university or college? Do you automatically assume that because someone has a degree, they are more competent at a job than a person who doesn't?

I ask this because I'm a high school dropout. I dropped out at the age of 16. I'm not ashamed of it, but a lot of people hear that and automatically assume the worst.

As a child I was a perfect straight-A student. I participated in 2 years of French Immersion (all classes except English and Maths in French) from the ages of 10-12. I chose French Immersion over going into a gifted program that was also offered to me. Once I hit high school I lost interest for a variety of reasons-- I was a bookworm as a kid and had pretty much educated myself. There wasn't a whole lot in school I was actually learning that I hadn't already managed to figure out myself. Around the age of 14 I started skipping classes, and sometimes I skipped for days at a time. I was in and out of the detention hall pretty much weekly, was suspended a few times. My teachers hated me because I refused to hand in homework, but aced all in-class tests and year-end exams. I failed a lot of classes due to this. At 15 I learned I could complete an equivalency test instead of wasting more time in high school, and at 16 I officially was a high school dropout.

I'm not stupid. I've got a great deal of common sense from life experience and am well able to work at an academic level (having completed several assignments for friends who were in university at the time and receiving high marks on subjects I was no expert at). The fields in which I'm interested tend to value hands-on experience over the piece of paper (horses and computers). School just did not suit me, I work and learn better at my own pace, and I wanted to travel while I was young enough to enjoy it.

Unfortunately I have met one major drawback out of this: people refuse to take me seriously, regardless of how well-versed I am on a subject, if they know I dropped out of school. It costs me friends, potential relationships, etc.

Do you think some people do get a degree simply because they're afraid of how they'll be seen if they don't? Do you think people who are not suited to the current method of education but are equally or more intelligent than those who are should continue with it just to avoid potential relationship breakdowns in the future?

Do you think this type of pre-judgement is correct?

What do you believe true intelligence comes down to: academia, or common sense?

Now that you have a bit more life experience which is pivotal in relation to both academia and common sense, perhaps now would be a good time for a return to education, obviously your ability is apparent.

I do agree "some people do get a degree simply because they're afraid of how they'll be seen if they don't" or perhaps are forced into preconcieved study choices by parents etc. The most important thing to do IMO is a course which you above all, like and would consider pursuing as a career and not just do a degree because other members of your family have one.

What do you believe true intelligence comes down to: academia, or common sense?

IMO from the people I have met thus far on lifes path that a mixture of both plays a vital role. As for people not accepting you in a relationship sense, if people cannot accept you for what you are, then such people are neither complete in common sense or in an academic nature.

Turtwig

Ideally there is no difference. (Although if this were to delve into science I would have great contentions with the idea of common sense being of value. )

In reality though there is a huge difference. Generally speaking on a local level you go with the electrician you trust. However, if it's your first time you generally go for the chap with the C2. Even if it turns out the guy without the C2 is way more skillfull (and cheaper!). When we get to know people we usually appreciate their skills a heck of a lot more. In this case, we would choose the more trustworthy and skillfull electrician. However, if we don't know the person then the safest was for us to "gauge" their skills is to see what awards/past experiences they have*. After all anyone without a qualification can claim to be the next Einstein. One person might indeed be him, we just have no way of discerning him from the thousands of others false imitators.

The problem occurs most though when people start applying this reasoning to their everyday lives. Time and again, some people will scoff at others because of their educational/skills background. This doesn't just apply to people with tonnes of experience, degrees or qualifications. It also applies to folks with absolutely no informed opinion on a subject but will choose to scoff at those who do and simply declare that it is impossible for any person have an opinion on the matter.

Just because someone has more money, is in a higher position, or has a better qualification than you doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter or better than you. Likewise, it does not mean you should expect them to be arrogant or behave ignorantly towards them. It's that little tiny piece of info that many people tend to forget.

* Of course there is still the chance that the person may be incompetent and just slipped through the net by a mistake or flaw in the system. Either way we are still more inclined to put our faith in an established system rather than placing it blindly in the hands of strangers. At the very least we can report the unqualified electrician to the relevant authorities.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

stovelid

I don't think that a university eduction is any way indicative of intelligence and my friends have a wide spectrum of educational achievement: from little or none to a lot.

That said, there was never a question of me not going to university. Without being twee, I'm from a extremely "working class" background: from two areas (England and here) that are very well-represented in the most-worst lists (and the jibes and prejudice of many boardsies) and I wasn't prepared to take the chance of missing out on the professional career I wanted because of a lack of qualifications or prejudice. For me, a career was a safer guarantee of a particular life, not only for me but for my kids.

I think for me, I also viewed the idea of getting a degree/masters as some kind of worthwhile attainment (or gainsaying the negative expectations of some of my peers and most of my teachers) because of my background. It also bestowed a certain confidence in my own worth and ability that I felt that my "middle-class" fellow students took for granted - even when it was unfounded. It's easy to laugh at as a grown man now but it was true then.

I also enjoyed University because it was eye-opening in many ways: social and cultural; negatively and positively. Even the simple pleasures of something like access to the vast TCD library or meeting new people is something worthwhile in itself, no matter what your view of academia is.

I do, however, agree with the criticism of academic snobbery here and indeed my own definition of intelligence (whether intellectual or artisan) is obviously far broader and nuanced now.

ChocolateSauce

Whatever about disagreeable notions of class and prejudice, I think it is of paramount importance that everyone is educated first to a minimum standard, which should be to complete second level, and then that everyone should be educated to the highest level which they are able/interested in, as far as is practical.

I see what you mean, liah, but there has to be some sort of criteria- it's impossible to find out how much someone knows or how intelligent they are in an interview. Having a degree shows that you have most likely learned relevant skills and developed critical thinking. Degrees have become what the LC/A-Levels/high school diplomas were 20 years ago, a minimum requirement. The way I see it, you need to find some way to prove what you're capable of doing. I also did loads and loads of reading, music, web design and languages outside of the school curriculum, but I don't see that stuff as a substitute for formal education. There are plenty of people who have tons of hobbies and teach themselves skills and have tons of life experience from volunteering/travelling/whatever AND do well academically. It's not really an either/or situation.

Sleepy

Had an interesting conversation about this recently whilst on holidays with one of my best friends, a guy I've known for nearly a decade at this stage who was stunned when I said that looking back at college, careers etc. I reckon I'd possibly have been happier had I done an apprenticeship in auto-mechanics or something along those lines. Why? Because when I'd first met him I'd made a derogatory remark about lads doing apprenticeships not being smart enough for college or something along those lines not know his father was a tradesman. Something which he'd considered a black mark on my personality all the years we'd known each other but never commented on.

Over a few beers I explained that what I'd been mouthing at the time was the prejudices my socially aspirational mother (whose own father was, incidentally, a tradesman) had instilled in me as a child. Coming from a poor background and not wanting her children to have the same life, she pushed us into academia. I can remember her teaching us at a very young age that the phrases 'does be' or 'do be' were for stupid people and, perhaps unwittingly, teaching us that we were "better" than (non academic?) people who said these things.

Having completed a degree and post-graduate diploma and been disappointed by the standard of them and spent 7 years in the "real world" I can see that, while my qualifications have helped me somewhat, I could have learnt most of my skills 'on the job' and that the notion of a University education providing one with an ability to critically evaluate thing is, at least in the Irish system, farcical. Whether that says more about the standard of our third level education or the importance of academic learning in general I'm not sure... I do feel that a heavier workload and more challenging degree would have helped me career-wise though I've never gotten the impression that any of the options for further academic learning in Ireland would offer me this and moving abroad to pursue it further isn't an option for me.

Do I judge someone for not having an academic education? Not any more. Would I take a college grad over someone self-taught when hiring? It'd depend very much on the position tbh. I know guys who could code in 12 languages when starting college and Computer Science grads who'd still struggle with C. Assuming the technical side of the job in question could be tested as part of the selection criteria, the degree holder would hold the initial advantage purely because I'd expect someone who'd attained a degree to have a minimum standard of at least written communication but that advantage could easily be lost in the room.

Eliot Rosewater

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I think it is of paramount importance that everyone is educated first to a minimum standard.

But why? I know people who have to be dragged tooth and nail through things like Irish and English literature for two years even they're not one bit interested. These people are wasting their time in the final two or three years of secondary school.

It comes back to thing I mentioned in my first post here, this idea that academics are valued above all other things. A guy in my estate is interested in baking, and absolutely hates school, yet he's going to be denied realising his chosen field for another two years because we insist on teaching him academic things he does not care about.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Its what you do in your spare time that defines you. I know someone who is a eucharistic minister who didn't know what 'transubstantiation' was until I asked her what she thought about it, and I also know someone who has a masters degree in economic policy who had never heard of Friedrich Hayak. Your 'qualifications' really are a rather worthless piece of paper - for example, you cannot 'teach' someone to excell at something like journalism. Take Robert Fisk, probably one of the most talented journalists at work in the last half century, who graduated with a linguistics degree. Am I being mean about those poor souls who sat the journalism course in DIT? Probably. Frankly I think its a complete waste of time. Spend those years working with a newspaper at an apprentice level while reading, writing and drinking in your leisure time.

We live in a society that is based on illusion - and all too often on delusion, but we sometimes lose sight of the precious and mystical individuality in every human soul that consistently refuses bland categorisation.

Leaving aside what people get from an academic education... which a lot of posters have articulated very well here...

What finishing secondary school and/college says is that a person can set goals for themselves and can finish what they started, which in the world of work is of paramount importance.

Every one should finish secondary school in my opinion if your not in anyway academic do the LCVA.

metrovelvet

Hard to answer really. It depends on the university too and the graduate. I've met buffoon Yale graduates who went there on sports scholarships and UCD graduates who have a degree but never attended a class.

Eliot Rosewater

In a way it's like the alpha and epsilon classification in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World.

On the one hand you've the alphas (academics) who have intellectual interests and have explored the world in some kind of depth, and who look down on the epsilons (tradesmen, say) for being shallow and dumb.

Then you've the epsilons who look down on the alphas because they consider them boring, snobby and prudish. They condemn their lack of practical skills.

Both groups are saying "I love being me and I'd hate to be them."

AngryBadger

I think it's actually a mistake to even think about "intelligence" in terms of whether it's "academic intelligence", or "street smarts", really they're both different sides of the same coin.

You're not actually measuring proper "intelligence" based on whether someone has their leaving/degree/diploma/masters/etc., too much of a persons real intellect depends on their own personality, whether or not they bother to ask questions, or just go with the flow, and a lot of that is related to their background and upbringing. So what you actually wind up doing is taking whatever experience/qualifications a person has and viewing them completely out of context in an utterly vacuous attempt to determine whether someone is intelligent or not.

I suppose for me someone having a degree or an apprenticeship or not isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, it's more important that they actually have some ability to think rationally and there's no way to assess that based solely on someone having a degree or not.

Besides we've all met people with and without degrees/leaving/etc. and my own experience has been that most people are fools regardless of their level of education, going to college simply exposes you to things that you would probably have been exposed to in the fullness of time anyway, but it happens earlier thanks to college, and heading straight out into the real world, that exposes you to a bunch of other experiences that you very often won't find in college. In effect you're comparing almost polarised people in respect of their development.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jesus Wept

In my experience and from my observations, it is nigh on impossible to progress in most companies without a degree (even if it is irrelevant to the job).
While there are plenty of intelligent capable people who have worked harder and attained degrees, there are also plenty of space cadets who have done similar.

Most companies will still hire or promote a space cadet with a degree rather than promote a very capable employee who hasn't got a degree. That or they will give the capable employee all the duties and tasks of someone in an elevated position but without the title and wage increase it should bring.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I knew it! A city of London burnout. It all makes sense now

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wow. I wish I had found the kind of experience you did at college.

I don't think anybody is suggesting an end to academia; it would survive without being the certification mill it has become for employment, indeed the kind of academics you enjoy may even thrive in such an environment.

Dudess

Generally speaking, common sense - in my opinion.

But when it comes to the individual: it really depends on what a person wants/needs in life.

metrovelvet

Well, I dunno. If I see my doctor I want to know he went to med school and doesnt have common sense, but rather specialised sense that passed alot of exams.

CokaColumbo

I would put my confidence in the unarticulated and mundane wisdom of the masses over a small core of academic, intellectual elites any day.
The common, hard working people together have a much deeper and fruitful contribution to make to the shape and direction of a country than the college educated idiots we elect and the unaccountable intellectual hacks they rely on.

That's my point of view anyway.

Dudess

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, I dunno. If I see my doctor I want to know he went to med school and doesnt have common sense, but rather specialised sense that passed alot of exams.

I'm taking the term "academia" to mean theory rather than practical skills though.

metrovelvet

Hmnn Im still not convinced. My grandfather was a scientist and had a number of advanced degrees. He was a professor and academic in his field. However, had also worked for a very well known Irish food company and was lead developer on several very well known chocolates and sweets.

When making toffee, there was my grandmother in the kitchen, making it. There was my grandfather with three fat notebook stacks of chemical equations for the toffee and looking silly. However, many of us here would not enjoy many of the chocolates and sweets he developed while working for this food company without his theory and academic sense.

I have an uncle who is a very prominent academic research doctor. He deals in theory and academia. He does not see patients. However, a lot of doctors on the ground would not be able to treat their patients had my uncle not accomplished what he has in academia. Don't ask him to make spaghetti though or fill the dishwasher. But he has prevented a lot of sufferring with his research.

I see the value in both. I like abstract thinking and I appreciate it in others. I also like someone who can fix a car or put up a shelf, things I am useless at.

Math is abstract. But where would architects and builders be without it?

It's not either/or it's both/and.

FreudianSlippers

I think people with more academic intelligence generally have more common sense.

The idea that some people can get by on just common sense is a mixed bag. Many people believe that only having common sense is all you need to get by, but I disagree.
Many things cannot be known through street smarts or common sense.

nozzferrahhtoo

liah wrote: »

What do you believe true intelligence comes down to: academia, or common sense?

I think you need both, but I would not say academia or common sense. I would say Education and Common Sense. Not all education has to come from our Universities.

Any common sense, natural skill or ability can work well for you. You can wield it like a sharp piece of metal can be wielded as a weapon and you might even kill many people in "battle" with it.

This does not change the fact that tempering it with the right forge to make it a sword does improve it and in any battle you would chose the sword over a sharp lump of metal.

So both are important, but if you ask me which one I find more valuable I would say the latter... because education can always be found, but natural ability stays essentially the same from day 1.

Enough of 1 can always make up eventually for a lack in the other.... but I think making up for lack of education... lack of tempering of your skills.... is a lot easier to repair.

drkpower

Strange that the question is an either/or between academia and common sense, while one thing which is at least, if not more important as either is experience. Experience of an area of work, of life, of hardship, of all the other things we experience.

Ive always found that X amount of time experiencing something is worth about 3X of learning about it.

But on the OP, if I had to choose one or the other, it would be common sense every time. When you dont know much about something, common sense will usually enable you to realise that, and will ensure you go and learn about it or ask others who do. Academia rarely gives you common sense.

liah

It's funny, donegalfella (and others who've mentioned the social aspects of academia), but I've managed to have much the same experience as you through self-education and travel and I seriously doubt I would have had the same experience trapped in a school for four years, and I put that up to my personality type.

I can safely assume I will never be attending university despite my unrelenting thirst for general knowledge and discovery. With the vastness of the internet and my innate curiosity and desire to see the world it would more likely slow me down than anything. I'd feel stifled, frustrated and restless.

I think those saying that you only can learn certain things by going to school are oversimplifying a lot and forgetting that we do have the internet at our disposal. Almost anything can be found on there, and citation can be done quite easily if you understand the importance of a credible source, not to mention you can engage in debate with people and solidify or completely change your viewpoint via that. Sites like boards have done wonders for opening my mind up in a way that I'm not sure would happen in a real life setting as some things just don't get talked about in company, or if they are it's much more carefully and formally, occasionally in lieu of simple blunt honesty.

I like the grit of learning outside of school. I like that I don't have to be worried about my opinion being moulded by the possible bias of a professor. I'm not confined to the people I meet in a course-- I meet all kinds of people who differ vastly to my own type and I take every opportunity to learn from them. Learning is much more fluid and organic and since I can learn at my own pace and in whichever direction I please, my ability for actually understanding things has increased compared to situations in which I was "taught" by having pre-defined outlines thrown at me that I just parroted back and forgot as soon as school was out.

I can't be the only one like this, either. I just think that there needs to be another option for people like me, or at least less of a stigma to those who aren't suited to the conventional method.

Earthhorse

liah wrote: »

I think those saying that you only can learn certain things by going to school are oversimplifying a lot and forgetting that we do have the internet at our disposal.

Sure, but everyone, college educated or not has it at their disposal, so it doesn't really put you at an advantage over them. Degrees are a form of proof (albeit a poor one in my estimation) that something has been learned. People have always been able to learn outside of the college system but the truth is that today, for many employers, the burden of proof is on the prospective candidate.

...not to mention you can engage in debate with people and solidify or completely change your viewpoint via that.

You can do that in real life too, often far more dynamically and with less noise.

I like the grit of learning outside of school. I like that I don't have to be worried about my opinion being moulded by the possible bias of a professor.

All learning is prejudiced by the source from which we learn it.

I'm not confined to the people I meet in a course-- I meet all kinds of people who differ vastly to my own type and I take every opportunity to learn from them.

Ah, but neither are the people who take a course! Their life doesn't begin and end with their classmates. You are kind of making a lot of assumptions about people who attend college here.

I can't be the only one like this, either. I just think that there needs to be another option for people like me, or at least less of a stigma to those who aren't suited to the conventional method.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "another option" here. Another option to what?

Another option in seeking employment? It's already there. Plenty of college and school dropouts like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson have made good despite their lack of qualifications. The senior developer I work most closely with has no degree and is only a year older than me but he has the proof of his whole working life to justify his position in the company along with any number of professional exams. You can study for them whatever way you like, all anyone cares is that you pass them. So unless you're talking about a particular closed shop here I can't see the problem.

If you mean another option in education, whilst I think the system could be improved and could take more personality types into account I also think there is only so far you can go with the scope of a curriculum that must be taught to everyone.

liah

Earthhorse wrote: »

Sure, but everyone, college educated or not has it at their disposal, so it doesn't really put you at an advantage over them. Degrees are a form of proof (albeit a poor one in my estimation) that something has been learned. People have always been able to learn outside of the college system but the truth is that today, for many employers, the burden of proof is on the prospective candidate.

Missing my point a little. For those with the inclination to learn on their own the information is there now in large amounts. I'm not saying I'm special for being able to use it. I'm just saying that, previously, it was much harder to come across information-- you'd have to find the right books or recordings and a lot of the time that just wasn't feasible.

Nothing to do with me as a person, more of an acknowledgement that it is more than possible to receive and absorb the same amount of information in school as out of one.

You can do that in real life too, often far more dynamically and with less noise.

Course you can. Never said you couldn't. But in real life, your environment is far more likely to be controlled, as well as the language used and the actual opinion put out may be more censored. Anonymity on the internet is an interesting way to get to the heart of a lot of subjects because, due to it, people are more willing to voice their legitimate opinions as there's little to no direct consequence. Chances of social consequences (or others) increase significantly when face-to-face.

All learning is prejudiced by the source from which we learn it.

I would say there's a massive difference between researching online and cross-checking references among a variety of sites with different bias and being in a classroom being exposed to only one professor's particular point of view.

In a classroom setting there's also more pressure to conform to the opinions of those around you. When you're on your own you're more likely to follow your own path and probably take a wholly different direction to those around you despite receiving much the same information, but without the single bias.

Ah, but neither are the people who take a course! Their life doesn't begin and end with their classmates. You are kind of making a lot of assumptions about people who attend college here.

I'm not saying they aren't, but presumably most people take courses in university because that's what their interests are. Of course you meet different people and blah blah blah-- but it's still a controlled environment of people with at least one major consistent shared interest and you're still stuck with the same predestined group of people in the same classes for however many years you're in for.

I'm not too sure what you mean by "another option" here. Another option to what?

Another option in seeking employment? It's already there. Plenty of college and school dropouts like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson have made good despite their lack of qualifications. The senior developer I work most closely with has no degree and is only a year older than me but he has the proof of his whole working life to justify his position in the company along with any number of professional exams. You can study for them whatever way you like, all anyone cares is that you pass them. So unless you're talking about a particular closed shop here I can't see the problem.

If you mean another option in education, whilst I think the system could be improved and could take more personality types into account I also think there is only so far you can go with the scope of a curriculum that must be taught to everyone.

I'm really not sure what I'd ideally like to see happen, I just wish there was another option, or at least a removal of this stigma about dropouts and a removal of the idea that school is the ONLY way you can get along in the world and that if you don't go through it you're a failure.

Ideally kids would be filtered according to their own interests and skills, and there would be basic courses to run along side in English (or their native tongue), and other courses to do with just plain surviving, like how to effectively manage money, basic outline of human rights and laws in your country, etc.

But that's not particularly practical and I've not been able to think up a legitimate solution-- all I know is that the current system is excluding a lot of people.

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

Missing my point a little. For those with the inclination to learn on their own the information is there now in large amounts. I'm not saying I'm special for being able to use it. I'm just saying that, previously, it was much harder to come across information-- you'd have to find the right books or recordings and a lot of the time that just wasn't feasible.

Nothing to do with me as a person, more of an acknowledgement that it is more than possible to receive and absorb the same amount of information in school as out of one.




Course you can. Never said you couldn't. But in real life, your environment is far more likely to be controlled, as well as the language used and the actual opinion put out may be more censored. Anonymity on the internet is an interesting way to get to the heart of a lot of subjects because, due to it, people are more willing to voice their legitimate opinions as there's little to no direct consequence. Chances of social consequences (or others) increase significantly when face-to-face.



I would say there's a massive difference between researching online and cross-checking references among a variety of sites with different bias and being in a classroom being exposed to only one professor's particular point of view.

In a classroom setting there's also more pressure to conform to the opinions of those around you. When you're on your own you're more likely to follow your own path and probably take a wholly different direction to those around you despite receiving much the same information, but without the single bias.




I'm not saying they aren't, but presumably most people take courses in university because that's what their interests are. Of course you meet different people and blah blah blah-- but it's still a controlled environment of people with at least one major consistent shared interest and you're still stuck with the same predestined group of people in the same classes for however many years you're in for.




I'm really not sure what I'd ideally like to see happen, I just wish there was another option, or at least a removal of this stigma about dropouts and a removal of the idea that school is the ONLY way you can get along in the world and that if you don't go through it you're a failure.

Ideally kids would be filtered according to their own interests and skills, and there would be basic courses to run along side in English (or their native tongue), and other courses to do with just plain surviving, like how to effectively manage money, basic outline of human rights and laws in your country, etc.

But that's not particularly practical and I've not been able to think up a legitimate solution-- all I know is that the current system is excluding a lot of people.

When you say "classroom setting" what do you mean? Primary? Secondary? or third level?

I think you are making huge generalisation tbh.

There are a lot of different settings.

liah

metrovelvet wrote: »

When you say "classroom setting" what do you mean? Primary? Secondary? or third level?

I think you are making huge generalisation tbh.

There are a lot of different settings.

A huge generalization about what? Where have I even made a generalization? Hell, most of my posts even indicate that I'm only talking about me-- "my personality type," "I'd get restless," etc.

I've also never said it happens all the time. I'm just saying it's a likely scenario, especially considering some of the conversations I've had with students, that's all. To say bias and societal pressure is not present is a bit naive, and to say that it's impossible to have a similar experience without the requirement of schooling is equally as naive imo.

For the majority of the post I'm referring to post-secondary, but I have the same discrepancies with all levels of the current system.

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

A huge generalization about what? Where have I even made a generalization? Hell, most of my posts even indicate that I'm only talking about me-- "my personality type," "I'd get restless," etc.

I've also never said it happens all the time. I'm just saying it's a likely scenario, especially considering some of the conversations I've had with students, that's all. To say bias and societal pressure is not present is a bit naive, and to say that it's impossible to have a similar experience without the requirement of schooling is equally as naive imo.

For the majority of the post I'm referring to post-secondary, but I have the same discrepancies with all levels of the current system.

How do you know that if you havent been there?

It varies so much, I dont think its possible to comment on pressure to conform, what you mean ideologically or what? Do you mean in political classes, art classes, writing classes?

Do you mean in seminars or in huge lecture halls?

Even if it does, so what? That's life. Its up to you to brave eccentricity. No one will hold your hand through it.

liah

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you know that if you havent been there?

It varies so much, I dont think its possible to comment on pressure to conform, what you mean ideologically or what? Do you mean in political classes, art classes, writing classes?

Do you mean in seminars or in huge lecture halls?

Even if it does, so what? That's life. Its up to you to brave eccentricity. No one will hold your hand through it.

I don't get why people are getting defensive, but okay..

I understand all that. I'm just saying, logic dictates that if you only have one source of information-- your professor-- and your education consists of researching and submitting only the topics your professor gives you to work on, you're more susceptible to end up with your prof's bias than developing one of your own. I'm not sure why that's such a horrible thing to say, or how that's "making a generalization"-- I'm just saying that it is more likely to happen in a classroom setting (of ANY kind, at ANY level where you are being instructed by one person in a specific subject) than if you were to do your research and cross-checking of your own accord.

I really don't think that's unreasonable and not once have I implied that nobody can break way from that or even that all profs will attempt to turn you to the bias. All I said was it was "more likely."

As for the conformity issue, I also seriously don't understand why it's so unreasonable to assume that you're more likely to be subjected to societal pressure in a highly social environment rather than one in which you are basically alone in your education.

I'm kind of baffled at this reaction. Again, what generalizations am I making?

metrovelvet

liah wrote: »

I don't get why people are getting defensive, but okay..

I understand all that. I'm just saying, logic dictates that if you only have one source of information-- your professor-- and your education consists of researching and submitting only the topics your professor gives you to work on, you're more susceptible to end up with your prof's bias than developing one of your own. I'm not sure why that's such a horrible thing to say, or how that's "making a generalization"-- I'm just saying that it is more likely to happen in a classroom setting (of ANY kind, at ANY level where you are being instructed by one person in a specific subject) than if you were to do your research and cross-checking of your own accord.

I really don't think that's unreasonable and not once have I implied that nobody can break way from that or even that all profs will attempt to turn you to the bias. All I said was it was "more likely."

As for the conformity issue, I also seriously don't understand why it's so unreasonable to assume that you're more likely to be subjected to societal pressure in a highly social environment rather than one in which you are basically alone in your education.

I'm kind of baffled at this reaction. Again, what generalizations am I making?

Im not getting defensive. I think you are mistaken.

In my four years of undergraduate, I had five classes a semester, two semesters a year. I never had the same professor more than once. So it would be pretty hard to get brainwashed with the diversity of teaching I had. I did go to a highly liberal northeastern college in the height of PC fashion so of course that was in the air. But at the same time, any intellectual of half worth will not perform the kind of intellectual abuse you are talking about and part of my or anyone's development is to learn to take that on. That's what debate is all about.

Your classroom education is not limited to the classroom either. You do have to do research on your own and submit papers and a thesis as part of your course. You can also design independent studies where your professor helps you and guides you through your projects or studies. You also have peers and professor cross checking your ideas, testing them and criticizing them. You wont get this learning by yourself. A lot of people want to study psychology and yeah you might get the basics by yourself, but what about statistics, what about method and supervision, etc? Or how about art studio? You take a basic drawing class and you have your teacher and your fellow classmates their to other eyes to check your work and help you progress. Maybe you dont quite get perspective. That setting can really help you along in a way learning by yourself cant.

I think you are basing your opinion on a lack of knowledge.

liah

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not getting defensive. I think you are mistaken.

In my four years of undergraduate, I had five classes a semester, two semesters a year. I never had the same professor more than once. So it would be pretty hard to get brainwashed with the diversity of teaching I had. I did go to a highly liberal northeastern college in the height of PC fashion so of course that was in the air. But at the same time, any intellectual of half worth will not perform the kind of intellectual abuse you are talking about and part of my or anyone's development is to learn to take that on. That's what debate is all about.

Your classroom education is not limited to the classroom either. You do have to do research on your own and submit papers and a thesis as part of your course. You can also design independent studies where your professor helps you and guides you through your projects or studies.

I think you are basing your opinion on a lack of knowledge.

I'm basing my opinion on what I know of people I'm close to who've been in college/university or are currently there. I've lived with three exes while they were in university and in all three cases I could quite clearly tell they were mostly just parroting rather than actually absorbing and developing on their own ideas. But they also only had one prof per subject (say, the business prof would be the same throughout the semester-- not trying to imply that you only get one single prof for the entire time you're in school, but it's common to have one prof per subject per semester; for clarification, one was doing IT, one was doing photography, one was doing music; one in Canada, one in Ireland, one in the UK).

Not to mention doing thesis' and essays for friends and auditing classes with my exes. I'm not completely green going into this argument. Despite not going I do know a fair bit and I can contrast it quite well to my own experience without school.

On average I find that I'm as knowledgeable on a given subject as a university student doing a course for it (within reason, obviously I'm talking about things I've self-researched, I wouldn't be knowledgeable one tic about quantum physics or the like).

Basically the core of what I was saying was, it's likely to have more societal pressure and outside bias in a situation in which you are exposed to society than in a situation where you are alone in your research and driven only by your own interests like myself.

Simplified: More likely to be pressured by people when there's people than when there's none but yourself.

I'm not sure where the argument lies. I've never once said university was bad or that it doesn't work for a lot of people. All I've said is that I've managed to have similar experiences, growths and education without the actual institution. I never said my way was better for everyone, only that it was better for me, and I gave my personal reasons, and never once claimed they were the reasons for everyone.