Academic study...siiigh

parc

I'm talking about certain (though not all) academic disciplines..mostly the humanities I suppose. This could be law, philosoophy, politics etc.

So you're reading a pretty difficult paper, tons of new words and esoteric philosophical terms, trying to grasp the underlying concept. Eventually you do and it is..quite frankly.. ridiculously obvious and almost common knowledge.

For instance, recent papers I've had to decipher come down to the following ideas:

• Governments should take the public views into account when tackling crime
• Governments/organisations have become too obsessed with protecting themselves which stop themselves from functioning properly.
• Governments should inform the public better about various issues

etc...but anyway, all this in frustratingly clouded writing and complex "conceptualisations" but when you get down to the bones of it, it's common sense stuff and often quite trivial.

People dedicate years getting a PhD writing this kind of stuff and then continue on when they're eventually a Dr.

Seems almost soul destroying to me, f-knows deciphering it and realising that you could sum it up in a few bullet points is

FatherLen

so...... whats your point?

brummytom

I'm currently studying politics. Went on a visit to the local City Council building yesterday.

In a seminar earlier, the lecturer said 'well what you saw yesterday is real politics, we can't teach you that'. So what am I studying for the next three years for, then?

marketty

Thats humanities for ya.should have gone into science or engineering

davet82

i'm not clever enough to take part in this thread

Thrill

Eh.....yeah.

kneemos

davet82 wrote: »

i'm not clever enough to take part in this thread

It's simple really.

Spiritual

Basically it is that if you cut away the crap the detail is fairly obvious or at least should be.

davet82

kneemos wrote: »

It's simple really.

ye mean i'm simple...







ye bollix

fasttalkerchat

It prepares you for real life in another way. In work its not what you say, its how you say it.

whitewave

I've learned to never, ever trust what's written in a journal paper unless you know the author is reputable. It could just be the equivalent of me in another college published it, and f**k knows my stuff isn't accurate!

franktheplank

It's just so only middle class folk with certain qualification can do certain jobs.

It's not about ability, it's protectionism. Keep out any who can't speak the right type of BS.

Pilotdude5

Its all filler to justify the authors own existence.

biko

The difference is that the authors of those books actually did the research in a scientific fashion.
That science arrive at the same conclusion as common knowledge is not really surprising, that's how science works.

Question "I think this is the way it is - is this really the way it is?"
science
science
science
science
Answer "yes."


But it could be the opposite, or not quite the way you thought it was.
I heart science.

AnonoBoy

Conversely to the presupposed normality of the underlying prejudices that one perceives as an ad hominem attack by those in opposition to one's argument one could fact be inclined to presuppose that any attack is in fact a defence of said person's naturalistic tendencies towards self aggrandisement and of course we all know that all self aggrandisement comes from an inherent but oft-overlooked lack of confidence in one's own arsenal of subconscious weaponry..... y'know?

brummytom

biko wrote: »

But it could be the opposite, or not quite the way you thought it was.
I heart science.

We're told that if that happens (e.g. your hypothesis is 'I think the higher this variable, the higher this outcome' and it's actually a negative correlation), you just change your hypothesis so it looks like you were right all along. Typical politicians.

parc

biko wrote: »

The difference is that the authors of those books actually did the research in a scientific fashion.
That science arrive at the same conclusion as common knowledge is not really surprising, that's how science works.

Question "I think this is the way it is - is this really the way it is?"
science
science
science
science
Answer "yes."


But it could be the opposite, or not quite the way you thought it was.
I heart science.

I get what your saying but your confusing what I'm getting at with scientific study...

Like:
"My hypotheses is X or my question about something is Y?"
Literature review/Data collection/testing/result
Answer or conclusion

I was gonna write that there's some really interesting and informative studies out there. Concisely written too.

This ones I'm talking about are simple and often quite vague in the end. Its a case of "publish or perish" really I suppose

franktheplank

biko wrote: »

The difference is that the authors of those books actually did the research in a scientific fashion.
That science arrive at the same conclusion as common knowledge is not really surprising, that's how science works.

Question "I think this is the way it is - is this really the way it is?"
science
science
science
science
Answer "yes."


But it could be the opposite, or not quite the way you thought it was.
I heart science.

Which is all well and good if you believe research that has people as it's subject can actually be scientific.

Regardless, I still don't believe the type of language used in academic papers is necessary. It's just cocksnot to make the writer look clever and justify their privileged position.

AnonoBoy

brummytom wrote: »

We're told that if that happens (e.g. your hypothesis is 'I think the higher this variable, the higher this outcome' and it's actually a negative correlation), you just change your hypothesis so it looks like you were right all along. Typical politicians.

That sounds like they're teaching you real politics after all there Tom!

Shryke

parc wrote: »

I'm talking about certain (though not all) academic disciplines..mostly the humanities I suppose. This could be law, philosoophy, politics etc.

So you're reading a pretty difficult paper, tons of new words and esoteric philosophical terms, trying to grasp the underlying concept. Eventually you do and it is..quite frankly.. ridiculously obvious and almost common knowledge.

For instance, recent papers I've had to decipher come down to the following ideas:

• Governments should take the public views into account when tackling crime
• Governments/organisations have become too obsessed with protecting themselves which stop themselves from functioning properly.
• Governments should inform the public better about various issues

etc...but anyway, all this in frustratingly clouded writing and complex "conceptualisations" but when you get down to the bones of it, it's common sense stuff and often quite trivial.

People dedicate years getting a PhD writing this kind of stuff and then continue on when they're eventually a Dr.

Seems almost soul destroying to me, f-knows deciphering it and realising that you could sum it up in a few bullet points is

If certain disciplines were laid out simply then any pleb could go at them.

Rubber_Soul

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Conversely to the presupposed normality of the underlying prejudices that one perceives as an ad hominem attack by those in opposition to one's argument one could fact be inclined to presuppose that any attack is in fact a defence of said person's naturalistic tendencies towards self aggrandisement and of course we all know that all self aggrandisement comes from an inherent but oft-overlooked lack of confidence in one's own arsenal of subconscious weaponry..... y'know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccoj5lhLmSQ

Aoifey!

If we simply tell the government that peoples views should be taken into account when tackling crime they probably won't listen.

If you show them detailed and complex studies and papers which say the same thing there is (slightly) more chance that they will.

Mardy Bum

whitewave wrote: »

I've learned to never, ever trust what's written in a journal paper unless you know the author is reputable. It could just be the equivalent of me in another college published it, and f**k knows my stuff isn't accurate!

You do know articles are peer reviewed? You can't just publish an article if you feel like it.

whitewave

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You do know articles are peer reviewed? You can't just publish an article if you feel like it.

Oh I know that, but I also know that work done in labs etc. isn't always as accurate as claimed in results. When it's one person working on their own, who's to say they haven't altered their results, lied about procedures etc. I'd imagine same goes for data collection in other disciplines - lies can be told.

Not saying it should be done, just that it can be!

franktheplank

Do yourself a favour OP and change track. If you think these kind of papers are irritating rubbish, you're gonna hate whatever job comes from studying them. Trust me, I learned this the hard way. :mad:

It's very frustrating if you enter a career because you want to work with people or contribute something, only to get this kinda waffle thrown at you over and over and over by people only interested in their own careers.

parc

Aoifey! wrote: »

If we simply tell the government that peoples views should be taken into account when tackling crime they probably won't listen.

If you show them detailed and complex studies and papers which say the same thing there is (slightly) more chance that they will.

It's not necessarily about being against a complex detailed study...

Like:
we review literature and concepts
we have a theory...
we test it using gathered data..
here are our analysed data and the results..
conclusions/suggestions for further study

It's more about the academic wankery papers that are very long winded and often pointless.

I remember we had a tutorial in 1st year and our tutor gave us a paper to read. It's basic theme was "the difference between secondary and college education, and how they shouldn't be treated the same."

We all had an absolute nightmare reading (and rereading) it. So boring and so longwinded. When we got into the tutorial, the tutor (a well respected professor himself) says "ohh actually I shouldn't have recommend that, it was a bit overblown, wish academics wouldn't write like that"

kowloon

Had a lecturer who told us that some academics don't want to be understood and that other academics are afraid to call them on their BS. They're afraid of looking stupid. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

If you're in the business of learning and spreading ideas you should be writing as clearly as possible and to as many people as possible.

This isn't just a problem with humanities though, I've read engineering stuff that was pretty dense with wankery. That said, the worst stuff I've had to read was a series of Psychology texts. When someone doesn't get to the point I get very pissed off.

Jezek

Everyone is trying to sell themselves and their ability. If the average joe could do what someone who has studied for 4 years could do, then the skilled gained by spending that time and money in uni would be useless.

Basically this protects the knowledge.

However there are cases, i.e. in medicine, or in law, or physics etc where if you wrote down everything in simplistic language then the resulting piece of research would be highly inaccurate -because generalizations and simplifications change the meaning slightly.

Celly Smunt

That's why i love engineering,straight to the point with no bollocks.

Shryke

Jezek wrote: »

Everyone is trying to sell themselves and their ability. If the average joe could do what someone who has studied for 4 years could do, then the skilled gained by spending that time and money in uni would be useless.

Basically this protects the knowledge.

However there are cases, i.e. in medicine, or in law, or physics etc where if you wrote down everything in simplistic language then the resulting piece of research would be highly inaccurate -because generalizations and simplifications change the meaning slightly.

That goes so far. A reliable qualifier of knowledge is that if someone really understands something then they will be able to explain it in a relatively simple fashion. That's why Brian Cox and the likes are appreciated so much. They comprehend fully and can thus relate well.

Jezek

Shryke wrote: »

That goes so far. A reliable qualifier of knowledge is that if someone really understands something then they will be able to explain it in a relatively simple fashion. That's why Brian Cox and the likes are appreciated so much. They comprehend fully and can thus relate well.

Well, that's one part of it. What about all the boffins who don't have any communication skills but are great scientists? I have worked with people like this - no gift o' the gab, but a lot of hard work and determination. Unfortunately, these people are not nurtured enough and their communication skills are not honed at all during their science courses.

Mardy Bum

Chomsky pinpoints it quite well in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

parc

pmcmahon wrote: »

That's why i love engineering,straight to the point with no bollocks.

The thing I like about straight science when I did it in secondary school is that it is pretty cut and dry. You work you ass off to understand it and you get top marks (correct me if I'm wrong)

Essay writing marks can be subjective. If you follow the right procedures in essay writing you'll get a good mark, but because it's subjective, the same essay following the correct format could get a 2.1 or a high first depending on who's marking it.

I enjoy learning a few new words and concepts when reading a paper but when the author is using run on sentences to describe their underlying (fairly weak) point, that's what pisses me off.

The fact that they use this writing style to convey their underlying (fairly week) argument/point reinforces the fact that the point is weak imo

Pilotdude5

pmcmahon wrote: »

That's why i love engineering,straight to the point with no bollocks.

Its why I love flying. No reports about implementation of strategies blablabla.....

franktheplank

Jezek wrote: »

However there are cases, i.e. in medicine, or in law, or physics etc where if you wrote down everything in simplistic language then the resulting piece of research would be highly inaccurate -because generalizations and simplifications change the meaning slightly.

I'm with you on the medicine and physics but not law. It's just BS legelese to justify charging a helluva lot of money and protect the 'profession'.

There's nothing very complicated about law. Otherwise we couldn't be expected to obey it

Jezek

franktheplank wrote: »

I'm with you on the medicine and physics but not law. It's just BS legelese to justify charging a helluva lot of money and protect the 'profession'.

There's nothing very complicated about law. Otherwise we couldn't be expected to obey it

I don't know about this, I think I'd always like someone with a lot of experience and deep understanding representing me legally.

The Snipe

Pilotdude5 wrote: »

Its why I love flying. No reports about implementation of strategies blablabla.....

Thats why I love photography.. I just take pictures!

franktheplank

Jezek wrote: »

I don't know about this, I think I'd always like someone with a lot of experience and deep understanding representing me legally.

Well of course your best to go with someone with all the tricks and smokescreens if you need. Play the game. Doesn't make it valid knowledge though, or socially beneficial or anything like that.

And in my experience always have somebody trustworthy with you when you meet a lawyer. Even (especially) your own lawyer.

humbert

My current pet peeve is:

1)Find statistical correlation
2)Make up highly subjective theory to suit this correlation
3)Draw desired conclusion
4)Call it science

kowloon

humbert wrote: »

My current pet peeve is:

1)Find statistical correlation
2)Make up highly subjective theory to suit this correlation
3)Draw desired conclusion
4)Call it science

5)Gets reported as established fact by eager journalist.

Shryke

Jezek wrote: »

Well, that's one part of it. What about all the boffins who don't have any communication skills but are great scientists? I have worked with people like this - no gift o' the gab, but a lot of hard work and determination. Unfortunately, these people are not nurtured enough and their communication skills are not honed at all during their science courses.

Sorry but it's not up to any course to teach someone how to be a human being capable of communicating. Boffin is a bit of a silly word. I've spoken to plenty of highly qualified people that can get their point across. If someone is socially retarded in any field then they're going to have problems... hmm. I bet I'm sounding insensitive or something now.

Davidius

You think that's bad? I've yet to come across a mathematical proof that wasn't trivial.

steddyeddy

You could spend years studying the amino acid sequence of one enzyme which might be nanometres across but still as long as it adds something to collective knowledge it cant be a bad thing.

steddyeddy

Shryke wrote: »

Sorry but it's not up to any course to teach someone how to be a human being capable of communicating. Boffin is a bit of a silly word. I've spoken to plenty of highly qualified people that can get their point across. If someone is socially retarded in any field then they're going to have problems... hmm. I bet I'm sounding insensitive or something now.

No you'r right. One of our lecturers will walk to the other side of the lab if someone asks him a question.

Wompa1

Psychology

Simpsons Quote - "Stop doing that please, most of those books haven't been discredited yet"

A profession which pays people to manipulate people into certain answers to discredit some other persons findings and it goes on and on for years and our dickhead governments pay these people handsomely to do a study to back up their own assumptions and to influence the policies which impact on some of our lives.

Australian study states men enjoy seeing womens exposed breasts.

Small print: Study took 2 years and cost 150k to the tax payers.

Don't even get me started on Philosophy....Oh me, Oh My!

Shryke

Wompa1 wrote: »

Psychology

Simpsons Quote - "Stop doing that please, most of those books haven't been discredited yet"

A profession which pays people to manipulate people into certain answers to discredit some other persons findings and it goes on and on for years and our dickhead governments pay these people handsomely to do a study to back up their own assumptions and to influence the policies which impact on some of our lives.

Australian study states men enjoy seeing womens exposed breasts.

Small print: Study took 2 years and cost 150k to the tax payers.

Don't even get me started on Philosophy....Oh me, Oh My!

You're a bit cuckoo about your taxes aren't you? Every post, raging about where tax is going. Education, welfare, psychology..

steddyeddy

A lot of times you will also get lecturers who are sh1t at lecturing but are valuable to the college for their ability to attract funding.

Wompa1

Shryke wrote: »

You're a bit cuckoo about your taxes aren't you? Every post, raging about where tax is going. Education, welfare, psychology..

Shouldn't everybody be concerned about where their taxes are going? If you work overtime and come away with jack sh!t because it's being taken by the government or you bust your balls to get a raise and then they take 42%

Everybody should question what their taxes get spent on

Shryke

Wompa1 wrote: »

Shouldn't everybody be concerned about where their taxes are going? If you work overtime and come away with jack sh!t because it's being taken by the government or you bust your balls to get a raise and then they take 42%

Everybody should question what their taxes get spent on

I wouldn't argue with that at all.

9959

Don't know much about history, don't know much biology, don't much about a science book, don't know much about the French I took, but I do know that I love you, and I know that if you love me too, what a wonderful world this would be.

Madam_X

"Don't be shtudyin' antin' high-fallutin' - do business studies to get a job!"

A very Irish attitude I can't stand. So glad I did humanities/arts due to it being something I enjoyed, rather than business/engineering, which I'd hate/be sh1t at.