Just imagine for a second that when you give an advice you actually had to invest real money into the outcome.
Would you invest into [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION] 's HISTORY PHD and expect to get your money back ? Really ?
I would gladly invest in history degrees. Whether [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION] is a suitable candidate for such a program, I cannot tell. I would want the positions reserved for the best and most motivated students.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a real job.
a) that cliched line about how "we need historians because of some hypothetical situation", yeah sure, it'd be nice to have a handful of these - easily covered by hobbyists. what do you do with the other tens of thousands of people with useless degrees? Let tax payers 'take care of it'? because nothing says useful to society like confusing marketable skills with hobbies.
Clearly, it does speak of good judgment, we should totally trust the views of people who can't figure out what university / college is for and elevate them as wise men and women in the public consciousness. yeah. right.
What other strawmen do you guys use to prop up your egos ? Imagine that the rest of us philistines just can't possibly understand the depth of your non-existent accomplishments? I've studied plenty of topics at PHD levels - in my free time - because they are hobbies. I don't expect to be paid for it because I'm a grown up.
What other ad hominem attacks do you have up your sleeve for when you cannot muster a coherent reply? Sure, you may recognize my example from a Tom Clancy novel, but we have been there already in many real life situations. Cuban missile crisis comes to mind, also the elusive "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, and now what N Korea is up to. I guarantee physicists are not the ones to provide insight into what that regime is up to, though we might help with some intel gathering technology. It will be those who have followed the history of that region that have the best chance of providing useful info, other than direct witnesses (e.g. defectors).
As for the highlighted, it is off-topic, borders on more ad hominem, and does not merit reply.
I provided [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION] with the insight I have gained from my study and life experience. He can balance that with the input of others, including yourself, in deciding what is the best course of action.
I think if we're going to have college professors acting like an elite intellectual family, that contributes nothing except an aura of intellectualism, they shouldn't do it on public money. I believe that was his point.
I do think alot of academic culture is about showing how smart you are, sure there is nothing wrong with being smart, nor with showing it off but mental gymnastics should be financed by private money, what does it contribute to the taxpayer to see their money invested in some professor publishing his research on X topic which will have no connection to his life. I'm pretty into intellectual stuff myself and I respect people who are well read and can debate with me, but those are my personal interests.
Where are you getting your information on academic professions and accomplishments? In other words, what leads you to write the highlighted? I see what look like quite a few significant assumptions being made in this thread, not all by you.
...It does look like academia needs better PR, but ... Meh. Every layman seems to think they know about academia and their "ivory towers". And nobody considers the fact that we don't actually NEED to have every aspect of society governed by some outdated economic theory from the 1700s.
Academia may need better PR, and may need to realign their research priorities. I can tell you, though, that those priorities are already 95% determined by funding. If anyone thinks that what academics research is irrelevant, they need to go after the sponsors, not the researchers. I changed my dissertation topic at the last minute due to a change in sponsor. No big deal, I learned many of the same things and applied many of the same methods. Don't think, though, that any of us got to research just what we felt was important. It has been a long time since it worked that way, if ever it did.
You really believe that gathering information via Google is equivalent to going to college? This is statement is precisely why I feel teaching critical thinking skills is crucial, because working in a structured environemt with other people who often have more experience helps you challenge your blind spots. Also, since we live in an information age, not being able to distinguish between quality information and poor information, even misinformation, is key.
This cannot be overemphasized. It is a main reason why my main volunteer activity is science outreach with school students. The younger they are introduced to these concepts and skills, the better.
I think there should be different options for people to pursue. Apprenticeships should focus solely on professional training. Associate and bachelor's degrees should focus more on teaching professional skills, with critical thinking being a secondary priority. A masters degree should focus on developping critical thinking, with professional skills a secondary priority, and PhD level should be all about research and critical thinking, the degree for "philosopher kings", if you will.
I disagree here. Critical thinking should be taught before college, to everyone. Yes, PhD work is for true scholarship, for those advancing the field itself. Much job training, though, can be accomplished better on the job, though apprenticeship programs. We should have far more of those. Not everyone needs to go to college, and not going to college should not be viewed as a sign of laziness, lack of intelligence, or poor job prospects.