An Open Letter to the American People (signed by 61 Nobel Laureates )

[ananag112]

http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nobelists-for-obama.pdf

An Open Letter to the American People
September 25, 2008

This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

Signed,


Alexei Abrikosov
Physics
2003

Roger Guillemin
Medicine
1977

Peter Agre
Chemistry
2003

John L. Hall
Physics
2005

Sidney Altman
Chemistry
1989

Leland H. Hartwell
Medicine
2001

Philip W. Anderson
Physics
1977

Dudley Herschbach
Chemistry
1986

Richard Axel
Medicine
2004

Roald Hoffmann
Chemistry
1981

David Baltimore
Medicine
1975

H. Robert Horvitz
Medicine
2002

Baruj Benacerraf
Medicine
1980

Louis Ignarro
Medicine
1998

Paul Berg
Chemistry
1980

Eric R. Kandel
Medicine
2000

J. Michael Bishop
Medicine
1989

Walter Kohn
Chemistry
1998

N. Bloembergen
Physics
1981

Roger Kornberg
Chemistry
2006

Michael S. Brown
Medicine
1985

Leon M. Lederman
Physics
1988

Linda B. Buck
Medicine
2004

Craig C. Mello
Medicine
2006

Mario R. Capecchi
Medicine
2007

Marshall Nirenberg
Medicine
1968

Stanley Cohen
Medicine
1986

Douglas D. Osheroff
Physics
1996

Leon Cooper
Physics
1972

Stanley B. Prusiner
Medicine
1997

James W. Cronin
Physics
1980

Norman F. Ramsey
Physics
1989

Robert F. Curl
Chemistry
1996

Robert Richardson
Physics
1996

Johann Diesenhofer
Chemistry
1988

Burton Richter
Physics
1976

John B. Fenn
Chemistry
2002

Sherwood Rowland
Chemistry
1995

Edmond H. Fischer
Medicine
1992

Oliver Smithies
Medicine
2007

Val Fitch
Physics
1980

Richard R Schrock
Chemistry
2005

Jerome I. Friedman
Physics
1990

Joseph H. Taylor Jr.
Physics
1993

Riccardo Giacconi
Physics
2002

E. Donnall Thomas
Medicine
1990

Walter Gilbert
Chemistry
1980

Charles H. Townes
Physics
1964

Alfred G. Gilman
Medicine
1994

Daniel C.Tsui
Physics
1998

Donald A. Glaser
Physics
1960

Harold Varmus
Medicine
1989

Sheldon L. Glashow
Physics
1979

James D. Watson
Medicine
1962

Joseph Goldstein
Medicine
1985

Eric Wieschaus
Medicine
1995

Paul Greengard
Medicine
2000

Frank Wilczek
Physics
2004

David Gross
Physics
2004

Robert W. Wilson
Physics
1978

Robert H. Grubbs
Chemistry
2005

lol. Elitists

[homeland]

All I can imagine is someone trying to read that out loud and being washed out from the chants of "U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A".

[Ikohn4ever]

all you will hear from the right is that its a bunch of elitist trying to look out for themselves and not America

[HotShotX]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX

[freakyzeeky]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX

Well said! :)

[thrustbucket]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX

Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?




@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/irena-sendler-of-poland-nobel-peace-prize-a-real-winner/) to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.

[ananag112]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX

Agreed.

The US needs to be on the cutting edge of scientific research again. The LHC was built in Europe, other countries are doing much more research in stem cell research then we are, and now China is doing space walks. Our government really needs to make more money available for pure scientific research if we want to reclaim our spot.

[Xevious]

Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?


George Bush has a number of failed businesses under his belt before he became Governor of Texas...

[Koggit]

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/malayan-sun-bear.jpg

If you elect McCain, we'll never know who the father is.

[Liquid 2]

I like how they think Obama will change things.

[Chase]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX


I wholeheartedly agree.

[RedvsBlue]

Dear Nobel Laureates,

Thanks, but no thanks.

Signed,
Barack Obama

Point being? The endorsement of a list of Nobel prize winners isn't going to help much, possibly just hurt really. Using the term "Laureates" further pushes the elitist mindset on top of the fact that just because you've made significant contributions to science doesn't mean you know dick about politics. Hell, there's even a handful of that list that aren't even from America.

Now to be fair their point is that George Bush's administration didn't do much in the way of supporting science research. HOWEVER, John McCain is not George Bush so really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...

[HotShotX]

I like how they think Obama will change things.

I like how you think you know whether either candidate will fulfill their campaign promises, particularly with the economy shitting a brick right now.

I'm not going to presume to know someone I've never met in my life (unlike some voters), but based on what they hope to do as President, I'm ordering the Obama package of promises over the McCain package, because regardless of whether they get fulfilled or not, on the chance that they are, I want the package that I agree with more.

Now to be fair their point is that George Bush's administration didn't do much in the way of supporting science research. HOWEVER, John McCain is not George Bush so really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...

After 8 years of little and stifled government support for technological advancement, the country needs a major dedication to the respective fields. I'm not saying John McCain hates science, I'm just saying someone else can do it better, and they need to be running the country for the next 4 years.

~HotShotX

[thrustbucket]

I like how you think you know whether either candidate will fulfill their campaign promises, particularly with the economy shitting a brick right now.

I'm not going to presume to know someone I've never met in my life (unlike some voters), but based on what they hope to do as President, I'm ordering the Obama package of promises over the McCain package, because regardless of whether they get fulfilled or not, on the chance that they are, I want the package that I agree with more.

~HotShotX

And what if you think both packages, in many ways, are going the completely wrong direction? Any advice?

[camoor]

Screw McCain, let's elect Huckabee.

Then we can target all of our research money on the dead sea scrolls, how those weird big-lizard bones fit in the theory of creationism, and why the ten commandments is the ultimate constitution.:whee:

Science is nice, but at the end of the day I'll just be glad if we don't have a complete embarrassment (IE Republican) in the White House.

[HotShotX]

And what if you think both packages, in many ways, are going the completely wrong direction? Any advice?

Find a third party candidate that works for you, and pray for the best.

Other than that, start researching the senate and house candidates for your state, and find out when their elections are, or shoot your current representative an email.

~HotShotX

[elprincipe]

@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/irena-sendler-of-poland-nobel-peace-prize-a-real-winner/) to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.

The Nobel name lost credibility with me when Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize. The selection of Al Gore only strengthened that opinion.

really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...

Well, to be fair, Republicans do hate science. They hate science when it contradicts their political positions, just as Democrats hate/dismiss it when it contradicts their political positions. The bullshit stereotype is that only Republicans dismiss science, just like the one that says only Republicans run sleazy campaign ads.

[mykevermin]

Hands Up! Who Hates Science?

[ananag112]

@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/irena-sendler-of-poland-nobel-peace-prize-a-real-winner/) to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.

The Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine have not lost their credibility IMO.

[mykevermin]

I hate things I'm told not to like by people who have little credibility to begin with.

[camoor]

@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/irena-sendler-of-poland-nobel-peace-prize-a-real-winner/) to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.

Your sour grapes over one choice = lost all credibility?

Wow, with your black-and-white way of thinking it's amazing you'll be voting in the Presidential election. After watergate it lost all credibility :whee:

[Koggit]

If you don't have immense respect for them something is fundamentally wrong with you.

It's not even worth discussing.

[bmulligan]

1st draft of the recent letter to the American People:



Dear American People,
September 23, 2008

We are smart people and you are not.

We urge you to join us in supporting Barak Obama because he will make sure he diverts as much taxpayer money to our pet projects in the form of government grants.

If you don't support Obama, your TV will break, your kids will be stupid, we'll run out of oil, the economy will fail, the world will erupt in a giant fireball, and your entire family will die a slow agonizing death - all because of George Bush.

We love Senator Obama. We would like to suck his balls dry in return for money. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – like giving us lots of money so we can meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs, like studying the mating habits of the Didymops transversa.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership includes giving us lots of your hard earned money because we don't make anything productive to get your money by legitimate means.

You should listen to us because we are smart, and you are not smart enough to make decisions like funding science on your own.

Signed,

Smart people who have all gotten a million dollar nest egg - so fuck all the rest of you idiots

[Koggit]

A million dollar nest egg is not much at all -- especially after taxes. I assure you at least 90% of that list is under compensated. To pretend they're motivated by self-interest is absolutely asinine.

[bmulligan]

A million dollar nest egg is not much at all -- especially after taxes. I assure you at least 90% of that list is under compensated. To pretend they're motivated by self-interest is absolutely asinine.

It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.

You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.

[JolietJake]

Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?




@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility (http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/irena-sendler-of-poland-nobel-peace-prize-a-real-winner/) to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.
I love how that article calls Gore the "gentleman in the tin foil hat."

That's fine, i'm sure if she'd won instead, nobody would think it in bad taste to call her the "woman in the wheelchair."

[Koggit]

It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.

You're adding a meaning to my words that isn't there. Everyone is motivated by self-interest. You're asserting that these scientists want increased funding so that they financially prosper, and that is definitely not the case.

You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.

This would be fair, were it possible to exclude you from their work's positive effect. Science advances society -- the cost is society's to bear.

[camoor]

It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.

You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.

I'll never know why you sweat the small stuff so hard. Money-wise this is a pittance - it's amazing to me how consistently you stand on the side of absolute ideology in the face of practicality.

Can't we ever debate the policies based on their results, rather then always returning to the same swashbuckling ideology farce?

[mykevermin]

Does the US even *fund* the Nobel Peace Center?

Or is it mostly the fucking Norwegians?

[Koggit]

Pretty sure the funding we're talking about here is the difference between Obama's scientific funding and McCain's scientific funding -- federal grants for scientific research and scholarship.

[mykevermin]

Which I'm sure is right up there with $10B a month in Iraq.

Or probably higher.

[GuilewasNK]

I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen.

I don't know about that. That's like choosing bewteen a punch in the stomach or a kick in the ass. Both are out of touch with the middle class.

If after 4 years of either McCain or Obama things still suck ass in the USA(by USA standards, not third-world hell hole standards), I say let some other group take a crack at things.

[Msut77]

I love how that article calls Gore the "gentleman in the tin foil hat."

That's fine, i'm sure if she'd won instead, nobody would think it in bad taste to call her the "woman in the wheelchair."

I like it how thrust uses the word many the way a three old uses it i.e. more than he can count.

[Koggit]

out of touch with the middle class.

Am I the only one really sick of hearing this?

[GuilewasNK]

Am I the only one really sick of hearing this?

Truth is truth.

The second that phrase proves to be otherwise, I'll stop using it.

[SpazX]

Truth is truth.

The second that phrase proves to be otherwise, I'll stop using it.

Well yeah, but it seems the second that one becomes qualified to lead the country is the same second they become out of touch with the "middle class." I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."

[dmaul1114]

I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."

Exactly. Some people lose touch, or never had it as they were born wealthy. But it's not like having an advanced education and earning wealthy all of a sudden makes one not understand the middle class.

[GuilewasNK]

Well yeah, but it seems the second that one becomes qualified to lead the country is the same second they become out of touch with the "middle class." I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."

I disagree. Bill Clinton IMO related to the middle-class well for the most part, but I think his humble beginnings made him the exception to the rule.

[evanft]

I'll lay it out:

1. People say they want change or they're sick of being lied to, but they continue to fall for it and voting in the same shit over and over again.

2. People don't vote on issues. They vote on who they like more.

3. To expand on #2, voting on the issues would require actual knowledge of the issues, which people clearly don't have. It's not that there aren't resources out there, or that it's impossible to gleam anything on the issues from the media, it's that people simply make up their minds and don't care about it after that. They possess no critical thinking ability at all.

4. The issues people actually do care about are mostly bullshit and really meaningless to them, like gay marriage, sex scandals, etc.

5. People don't want to work hard or sacrifice today in order to have a much better tomorrow.

6. In an odd counterpoint to #5, people will vote against their own self-interest because of their feelings towards issues in #4. They will throw away better education, better infrastructure, and just to get someone who says they wanna ban gay marriage.

Honestly, democracy really hinges on the ability of the electorate to make informed decisions. This is obviously compromised by their utter laziness and disinterest in having anything other than a superficial conversation about the issues. Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.

[GuilewasNK]

Exactly. Some people lose touch, or never had it as they were born wealthy. But it's not like having an advanced education and earning wealthy all of a sudden makes one not understand the middle class.

Money and status has changed many a person that originally was humble. If that wasn't the case Washington wouldn't be the morass it is now.

[dmaul1114]

Money and status has changed many a person that originally was humble. If that wasn't the case Washington wouldn't be the morass it is now.

It changes some people. Not all.

It doesn't automatically render anyone who achieves success unable to understand the middle class they came from.

One could argue that the lower and middle classes just have a harder time of seeing the bigger picture since many can only see paycheck to paycheck due to their life circumstances.

A leader can understand that, while also knowing they have to do what's best for society in the grand scheme.

I disagree. Bill Clinton IMO related to the middle-class well for the most part, but I think his humble beginnings made him the exception to the rule.

Both Obama and McCain have humble beginnings. Obama worked hard and got a great education, and recently got wealthy from his books. McCain married into wealth.

[camoor]

Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.

Aiaiai. What, in the long historical record of the world, led you to this idea?

[GuilewasNK]

Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.

Kim Jong-il agrees.

The closest thing to that is royal bloodlines, and most of those are gone in modern times because people realized their interests weren't being met.

Yeah, people aren't up on all issues and it can be tough to get anything postive done, but you can blame that on the complexity of the government as much as anything. All you have to do is look at a tax form. There is no reason taxes can't be simplified beyond what they are now.

[GuilewasNK]

It changes some people. Not all.

It doesn't automatically render anyone who achieves success unable to understand the middle class they came from.

One could argue that the lower and middle classes just have a harder time of seeing the bigger picture since many can only see paycheck to paycheck due to their life circumstances.

A leader can understand that, while also knowing they have to do what's best for society in the grand scheme.



Both Obama and McCain have humble beginnings. Obama worked hard and got a great education, and recently got wealthy from his books. McCain married into wealth.


I honestly don't care if Obama or McCain wins. They better show and prove regardless.

[Koggit]

The point is that there's no need to relate to the middle class. It should never be used as a reason to vote for/against a politician.

I can't relate to pregnant women, but I know how to take care of one every bit as well as a woman who has been pregnant. This is no different.

If you want to say ___'s proposals don't solve the issues of America's middle class, fine, but to say they're out of touch... maybe they are, but who cares?

[dmaul1114]

That's an interesting point.

Government is hampered by being elected by people who are largely under educated, unable to see the big picture and swayed more by pointless hot button social issues than things that really matter. Thus those elected aren't necessarily the best for the job in the grand scheme of thing.

But history has no examples of another system of goverment that works any better at putting qualified people in office.

Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.

[evanft]

Kim Jong-il agrees.

I wasn't actually throwing my support behind the idea, merely laying out an argument for it.

The closest thing to that is royal bloodlines, and most of those are gone in modern times because people realized their interests weren't being met.

Well, now you'd have to start defining "elites." I was simply using it as those who are much more knowledgeable and able than average. I'd compare it to a company being run by professionals with experience whose goals are directly in line with the company's vs. someone who got there because of who they knew, who they were, or how good they were at kissing ass.

Yeah, people aren't up on all issues and it can be tough to get anything postive done, but you can blame that on the complexity of the government as much as anything. All you have to do is look at a tax form. There is no reason taxes can't be simplified beyond what they are now.

If people wanted things to change, why do they continue to vote the way they do? If they are dissatisfied with both major parties, why not vote for one of the many third party candidates? If they care about real issues, why do they only make noise about the stupidest ones?

Oh, and you might as well throw religion into the discussion as to why people lack critical thinking ability, are unwilling to listen to new information or change their mind, and generally make decisions based on how they feel rather than on fact. When it's acceptable to belief that there is an all-seeing deity who created everything and he will send you to a very hot place when you die if you don't listen to him, swallowing the bullshit in a political ad isn't much of a stretch.

Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.

And that won't happen with the current voter base. It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. You need a smarter electorate to get better education, but you need better education to get a smarter electorate.

[GuilewasNK]

The point is that there's no need to relate to the middle class. It should never be used as a reason to vote for/against a politician.

I can't relate to pregnant women, but I know how to take care of one every bit as well as a woman who has been pregnant. This is no different.

If you want to say ___'s proposals don't solve the issues of America's middle class, fine, but to say they're out of touch... maybe they are, but who cares?

Alrighty then.

That's an interesting point.

Government is hampered by being elected by people who are largely under educated, unable to see the big picture and swayed more by pointless hot button social issues than things that really matter. Thus those elected aren't necessarily the best for the job in the grand scheme of thing.

But history has no examples of another system of goverment that works any better at putting qualified people in office.

Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.


The problem with improving education in regards to politics is the assumption that everyone can be educated to the same level. No Child Left Behind proves that isn't a logical assumption. It's no different than assuming everyone can be taught to fly or taught to play an instrument. Some just can't.

[dmaul1114]

And that won't happen with the current voter base. It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. You need a smarter electorate to get better education, but you need better education to get a smarter electorate.

True to a degree. But I more just meant getting more people with college degrees, advanced degrees etc. That's already been increasing over time, and is likely a reason why Obama is doing so well as he has such strong support among the highly educated, younger demographic.




The problem with improving education in regards to politics is the assumption that everyone can be educated to the same level. No Child Left Behind proves that isn't a logical assumption. It's no different than assuming everyone can be taught to fly or taught to play an instrument. Some just can't.

Again, I more just meant getting more people with college degrees. More people with advanced degrees.

Just going through the process requires learning to critically think about things. It's not going to work for everyone, but again there's a pretty decent correlation between education and knowledge of issues, current events etc. etc.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a Rhodes Scholar to be aware of the issues and vote on more than silly hot button social issues like abortion.

But of course, there are people without degrees who aren't like that, and plenty of educated folks who still vote based on frivolous shit. But the former is much more common as education increases, and the latter much more common with the less education a person has.

[GuilewasNK]

If people wanted things to change, why do they continue to vote the way they do? If they are dissatisfied with both major parties, why not vote for one of the many third party candidates? If they care about real issues, why do they only make noise about the stupidest ones?

Because people keep drinking the (D) and (R) Kool-Aid thinking that a third-party vote won't make a difference or is wasted. In general independents haven't made as much of an impact as they could, but I think the next four years will be telling to see if things really will change.

[elprincipe]

Because people keep drinking the (D) and (R) Kool-Aid thinking that a third-party vote won't make a difference or is wasted. In general independents haven't made as much of an impact as they could, but I think the next four years will be telling to see if things really will change.

Here's some info to back you up:

http://www.wnd.com/files/noneoftheabove/Poll1one.pdf

9. Would you like to see more viable political choices and political parties competing for your vote in the future?

Yes = 62.4%
No = 34.1%

People just think they have to choose Demlicans or Republicrats because nobody else can possibly win. They don't realize that if everyone who wanted another choice was brave enough to vote that way, we could actually have another choice (or a few hopefully).

Which of course reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVW3-PQ0tFU&feature=related

[Koggit]

The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases.

That's such a ridiculous, short-sighted conclusion. Statistics are useless unless you consider causation.

That's like saying the average IQ of chess players is higher than non-players, so if we want to increase humanity's average IQ we should get everyone to play chess.

[JolietJake]

:lol: I love that clip, Perot looked so pissed.

[dmaul1114]

That's such a ridiculous, short-sighted conclusion. Statistics are useless unless you consider causation.

That's like saying the average IQ of chess players is higher than non-players, so if we want to increase humanity's average IQ we should get everyone to play chess.

Bored, so I hit view post....

There's not a 1:1 causal relationship per se. But it's hard to argue that the process of getting a college education leads to being exposed to a multitude of ideas, issues, viewpoints etc. and thinking critically about them if you're going to graduate.

Such a person is more likely to think more critically about politics than someone that never got out of their rural small town or urban ghetto and hear nothing but conservative/liberal talking points.

It's not a matter of becoming smarter, just of being exposed to new things and being forced to think about things more critically that matters IMO.

[thrustbucket]

I'm liking GuilewasNK more and more.

Also, I agree with those saying that education is the real key to change. But I also believe there is a huge difference between intellectualism and intelligence. The more people did get educated on our past, the worlds past, the constitution, etc., the more likely we are to break out of the two party shit-cycle.

Conversely, I guess you could also say the reason we have what I like to call the 1.2 party system for so long is lack of education.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Both Obama and McCain have humble beginnings.

John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, had a humble beginning?

Born humble aside from being born naked and screaming? No.

Would McCain be the nominee if he wasn't a legacy?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Since nobody has used it, I will.

"When has Science kissed a girl?"

...

Education? That's a sucker's bet I took. What's smart about taking yourself out of the workforce for years, saddling yourself with loans and having a starting salary less than a construction worker, electrician or a plumber?

Education is not the key. Self-sufficiency is. Grinding personal finance into a person's head would help this country a lot more than English Lit or Womens' Studies.

[dmaul1114]

Education? That's a sucker's bet I took. What's smart about taking yourself out of the workforce for years, saddling yourself with loans and having a starting salary less than a construction worker, electrician or a plumber?

Education is not the key. Self-sufficiency is. Grinding personal finance into a person's head would help this country a lot more than English Lit or Womens' Studies.

That's a very negative view from your poor experiences.

1. Many people make more than that, particularly with advanced degrees.

2. The advantage is that it isn't manual labor which many people don't want to do.

3. You don't have to take a ton of debt. Go to a state school, plus these days many people's parents saved up for their college or can just afford to pay state school tuition. Many people in grad school get a free ride and paid to go. I have for all but my first year of my masters (so paid for last 2 years of Masters and for all 4 years of Ph D so far--should be my last year).

4. The overall point is to better yourself, not just to earn a paycheck. I'd agree such people should probably just learn a trade and work with their bodies rather than their brains. College isn't for everyone for sure. But I'd respect someone with a liberal arts degree who struggles to make ends meet more than the construction contractor with a high school diploma (if that) making six figures. Money isn't everything, and shouldn't even be the main thing IMO.

[winterice]

Since nobody has used it, I will.

"When has Science kissed a girl?"

...

Education? That's a sucker's bet I took. What's smart about taking yourself out of the workforce for years, saddling yourself with loans and having a starting salary less than a construction worker, electrician or a plumber?

Education is not the key. Self-sufficiency is. Grinding personal finance into a person's head would help this country a lot more than English Lit or Womens' Studies.

Damz straight!! Us internet people know grammers for them Nazi and the only thing you need to know about women is in front of their chest and between their thighs.

[thrustbucket]

Education? That's a sucker's bet I took. What's smart about taking yourself out of the workforce for years, saddling yourself with loans and having a starting salary less than a construction worker, electrician or a plumber?

Education is not the key. Self-sufficiency is. Grinding personal finance into a person's head would help this country a lot more than English Lit or Womens' Studies.

I should have been more clear.

I don't equate the word "education" with institutionalized money sinks that are these entities we call universities, handing out papers for lots of memorization, busy work, and in exchange for your family savings or debt.

What I meant by Education, was we need to find a way to get people to "wake up" to certain realities, issues, and key facts. We need to find a way to get the majority of Americans to develop a healthy cynicism for being puppets in the dog and elephant show for the past several decades. We need to get people to see past the illusion of big differences between the two parties.

If we find a way to do that through the school system, great, but I certainly am not married to the notion that it's the only way.

[Koggit]

the process of getting a college education leads to being exposed to a multitude of ideas, issues, viewpoints etc.

Such a person is more likely to think more critically about politics than someone that never got out of their rural small town or urban ghetto and hear nothing but conservative/liberal talking points.

No, that's an awful conclusion, again. You completely missed the point.


People who are more likely to be interested in current events (politics) are also more likely to be interested in pursuing an education. Conversely, people who aren't interested in devoting 4+ years to academics are less likely to be interested in spending their time learning about politics.

The demographics are self-selective. You can't just look at the statistic and conclude education makes a voter more responsible. That's ridiculous. The more logical conclusion is that the type of people interested in higher education are the type of people interested in being informed voters.


I don't know why I ever try to explain logical reasoning to you... much like political interest, a person is either going to have it or they won't. I should learn to let you live oblivious...

[dmaul1114]

I don't equate the word "education" with institutionalized money sinks that are these entities we call universities, handing out papers for lots of memorization, busy work, and in exchange for your family savings or debt.


And that's a pretty poor characterization of a university education (do you have one?).


I agree knowledge is fairly pointless if you just memorize it and don't learn the big picture. But I disagree that that characterizes the University experience in general.

Rote memorization is usually only in the introductory 100 level courses--and at a good school, in a good class, with a good professor even those have a lot of work on applying knowledge (papers, essay exams, in class debates etc.) rather than just memorization.

Upper level courses are much more centered on applying knowledge, and of course grad school is all on applying knowledge (masters level) and creating new knowledge (Ph D level).

Again, college isn't for everyone, but I don't like these kind of baseless generalizations about its usefulness.

[bmulligan]

You're adding a meaning to my words that isn't there. Everyone is motivated by self-interest. You're asserting that these scientists want increased funding so that they financially prosper, and that is definitely not the case.

This would be fair, were it possible to exclude you from their work's positive effect. Science advances society -- the cost is society's to bear.

Please tell me, and the rest of the class, how any of these scientists have "advanced" society. And before that, you may kindly explain what "advancing" society means.

[dmaul1114]

No, that's an awful conclusion, again. You completely missed the point.


People who are more likely to be interested in current events (politics) are also more likely to be interested in pursuing an education. Conversely, people who aren't interested in devoting 4+ years to academics are less likely to be interested in spending their time learning about politics.

The demographics are self-selective. You can't just look at the statistic and conclude education makes a voter more responsible. That's ridiculous. The more logical conclusion is that the type of people interested in higher education are the type of people interested in being informed voters.


Of course there is a self selection bias. But I've also seen plenty of people (both people I knew in high school, to students I've had in classes as a TA or instructor) go to college as disinterested and/or ignorant to those types of things become interested in them as they go along.

Also, voter turnout is usually pretty low among college students, so I wouldn't say most people who go to college are already responsible citizens, much less informed voters.

Anyway, my point was that Joe Six Pack redneck, or his equivalent in the ghetto, are never going to gain any perspective on the world if they never get out of hick town or the ghetto and learn to see the world more critically. Stereotypes and shallow thinking rule in those environments, thus they will seldom get past hot button issues or straight party line voting.

College is a great way to change, as it exposes people to a diversity of viewpoints and forces them to think critically about it. Thus, for the few of these type of people that go to college, it's a great avenue for change. As such, I think a great way to get a more responsible electorate is to improve public education and get more of these people into college.

That's all my point is. Not that college the college experience explains totally why college graduates are more informed. Just simply that it is one mechanism for improving the odds a person will care and be an informed citizen.



I don't know why I ever try to explain logical reasoning to you... much like political interest, a person is either going to have it or they won't. I should learn to let you live oblivious...

See, this is why I don't usually read your posts. For being a blow hard that always touts how great your school is, you're just as ignorant as the unwashed masses and can never have a discussion without resorting to petty insults that would get your ass kicked if you said them to someones face.

Anyway, back to not reading them as it's not worth the time to attempt to have discussions with people that have nothing to offer but insults. I'm sure UW is proud to have students like you.

[dmaul1114]

Please tell me, and the rest of the class, how any of these scientists have "advanced" society. And before that, you may kindly explain what "advancing" society means.

I'm not looking through that last, but do you really think science doesn't advance society?

Medical advances? Understanding the world? The solar system? What works and what doesn't in preventing crime (my area)?

The world is full of questions, science attempts to provide answers. To argue that it doesn't advance society is one of the more ignorant viewpoints I've ever heard espoused. I'd go so far as to say that humanity is pointless without science. Without our intellectual ability to understand the world we live in we're not better than any other species on the planet.

[gindias]

I wonder how many millions or billions of dollars obama bin laden promised to earmark for this letter.

[Koggit]

I've also seen plenty of people (both people I knew in high school, to students I've had in classes as a TA or instructor) go to college as disinterested and/or ignorant to those types of things become interested in them as they go along.

Also, voter turnout is usually pretty low among college students, so I wouldn't say most people who go to college are already responsible citizens, much less informed voters.

Anyway, my point was that Joe Six Pack redneck, or his equivalent in the ghetto, are never going to gain any perspective on the world if they never get out of hick town or the ghetto and learn to see the world more critically. Stereotypes and shallow thinking rule in those environments, thus they will seldom get past hot button issues or straight party line voting.

Again, short-sighted. Let's break it down. There are two demographics.

More education -> More informed voter
Less education -> Less informed voter

The fact of the matter is those who seek education are more likely to seek information regarding current events. Because of that fact you cannot use any unadjusted correlation between education and voters to form conclusions about the effects of the education itself. You're asserting that an education results in being a responsible voter, and there is absolutely nothing for you to base that on.

You're like a humanities or social science major, right? You should know this crap. It's common sense, but your bullshit courses surely railed on it for weeks at a time. It's pretty ironic how little you've learned.

Please tell me, and the rest of the class, how any of these scientists have "advanced" society. And before that, you may kindly explain what "advancing" society means.

You really want to ask this? Through a computer, on the internet, after the space race, you think this is a good question to ask? You honestly don't know the answer?

[dmaul1114]

The fact of the matter is those who seek education are more likely to seek information regarding current events. Because of that fact you cannot use any unadjusted correlation between education and voters to form conclusions about the effects of the education itself. You're asserting that an education results in being a responsible voter, and there is absolutely nothing for you to base that on.

You're like a humanities or social science major, right? You should know this crap. It's common sense, but your bullshit courses surely railed on it for weeks at a time. It's pretty ironic how little you've learned.


Again with the insults. :roll:

Of course I know that stuff, I do social science research for a living and have been quite successful at it so far in terms of publications etc.

Read my post agove, I was talking from anecdotal evidence of seeing first hand the change in people who were pretty ignorant politically going into college. Not statistics--though I'll admit I confounded that a bit by mentioning the fact that polls showed college students to be more informed in an early post.

But I wasn't meaning to use that to argue that those stats prove that college causes people to be more informed. My point was that if you send an ignorant person into an environment of fellow students and professors who tend to be pretty informed and they're likely to emerge in 4 years caring more about being informed than they would if they had not gone to college. You read too much into what I was saying and/or I just worded it poorly.

College exposes students to a diversity you find in few other places and forces you to think critically about things. There's pretty much no way that cannot help shed ignorance. It's would be kind of like taking a racist and making them live with African-Americans for 4 years would be pretty likely to reduce their racism. People are social animals and can't help but be influenced by those around them, especially in a learning environment.

It's not guaranteed that college will make people give a shit about staying informed, and you're right that the polls prove nothing in that regard, but it's one of the best environments for change and intellectual development and I've seen first hand how the experience can show people the importance of being informed about the world around us--including current events/politics.

Thus I think getting a larger portion of the population to go through that experience can only help. Just my opinion from 10 years in academia, not something I can, or meant, to prove with statistics.

It would be an interesting study though. Poll outgoing high school seniors on knowledge of current events/politics etc., then poll the same sample again in 4 years and see if those who went to college had more improvement in knowledge over that time than those who didn't. Then the self selection thing is controlled for since you have a baseline measure of everyone's knowledge to control for pre-existing differences before college.

[Koggit]

Your proposed study proves you're still missing the point entirely. Wow. That would do absolutely nothing to prove anything about what we're discussing. Nothing at all. The only way it would be relevant is if those seniors were randomly split into two groups -- force one of those groups to go to college and force the other group not to go to college.

I could point out how your observations of friends do not apply to your argument, but I'd rather just marvel at your ability to get everything so completely wrong.

Maybe bmulligan's right... maybe it is a waste of taxpayer's money to fund people like you.

[mykevermin]

It's would be kind of like taking a racist and making them live with African-Americans for 4 years would be pretty likely to reduce their racism.

Some blacks, yes. All blacks? That's pretty likely to exacerbate their racism. contact hypothesis and all that, y'know?

People are social animals and can't help but be influenced by those around them, especially in a learning environment.

Won't disagree with that tho'.

Can't say I've read much else in this thread. I saw someone post "show me how these scientists have advanced society" and I think I'm outta here.

FWIW, though, here's some selected people on the list that I'm sure will be summarily dismissed by the sourpusses among us who feel the need to maintain "philosophical consistency" to the point of rolling in their own incorrect filth like a fat sow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2005/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_D._Kornberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Smithies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cohen_(neurologist)

Fuckin' chumps, man. Buncha do-nothings. Lazy pricks. Makin' vinegar-and-baking-soda volcanoes all day long, I bet.

[dmaul1114]

Your proposed study proves you're still missing the point entirely. Wow. That would do absolutely nothing to prove anything about what we're discussing. Nothing at all. The only way it would be relevant is if those seniors were randomly split into two groups -- force one of those groups to go to college and force the other group not to go to college.

I could point out how your observations of friends do not apply to your argument, but I'd rather just marvel at your ability to get everything so completely wrong.

Maybe bmulligan's right... maybe it is a waste of taxpayer's money to fund people like you.

Again with the insults. Why can you not discuss things without insulting people?

Of course a randomized study would be the most powerful design, but it's impossible as you can't randomly assign people to college or not.

What you do is match people based on current knowledge and see who's knowledge changed the most after 4 years. i.e. take people who scored say 50%-60% on the knowledge test and who are similar on demographics (sex, race, SES etc.) who went to college and see how post college scores compare to those who scored 50-60% who didn't go to collge after 4 years.

It's far from perfect, as other things could happen in those four years (the maturation effect as it's called in longitudinal research, try to measure and control for other variables but it's tough), but in social science such quasi-experiments with matched control groups are often the best we can do as randomized experiments are often neither practical or ethical. No doubt they're the best design, I'm running one now, but they just can't be done in social science for many topics.

It's just a problem of social science, unlike the hard sciences, you can never get irrefutable answers to most research questions. You just do what you can to maximize the internal validity of your studies to the best that you can with your question and resources for the study.

As for my personal observations not being relevant....I'm just discussion my opinions on a video game board, not trying to scientifically argue something here. Lighten the fuck up.

Some blacks, yes. All blacks? That's pretty likely to exacerbate their racism. contact hypothesis and all that, y'know?


Of course. I thought about putting "middle class blacks" or something like that, but didn't want to come across as racist! But my point was just you put people in a positive environment where your exposed to diversity and it's hard for at least some ignorance not to be shed.

[camoor]

Please tell me, and the rest of the class, how any of these scientists have "advanced" society. And before that, you may kindly explain what "advancing" society means.

Maybe advancing society means funding the search for a cure to AIDS instead of simply funding the search for a better way to give a rich old guy a stiffy.

Or funding research of stem cells to hopefully one day cure debilitating diseases instead of simply funding research on a better brand of face-lift botox.

Because you know, leaving it all up to the short-term profit-driven markets has some pretty ugly consequences.

[Koggit]

Again with the insults. Why can you not discuss things without insulting people?

Of course a randomized study would be the most powerful design, but it's impossible as you can't randomly assign people to college or not.

What you do is match people based on current knowledge and see who's knowledge changed the most after 4 years. i.e. take people who scored say 50%-60% on the knowledge test and who are similar on demographics (sex, race, SES etc.) who went to college and see how post college scores compare to those who scored 50-60% who didn't go to collge after 4 years.

It's far from perfect, as other things could happen in those four years (the maturation effect as it's called in longitudinal research, try to measure and control for other variables but it's tough), but in social science such quasi-experiments with matched control groups are often the best we can do as randomized experiments are often neither practical or ethical. No doubt they're the best design, I'm running one now, but they just can't be done in social science for many topics.

It's just a problem of social science, unlike the hard sciences, you can never get irrefutable answers to most research questions. You just do what you can to maximize the internal validity of your studies to the best that you can with your question and resources for the study.

As for my personal observations not being relevant....I'm just discussion my opinions on a video game board, not trying to scientifically argue something here. Lighten the fuck up.

Your proposed study proves you're still missing the point entirely.

And still, wow.

Please explain to me how, in any way at all, your proposed study would be any different than the statistic you originally based your argument on. You admit the original statistic is useless, then say "Sure, but the results would be interesting if it were done this way: blah blah" and explain a study that, for all intents and purposes, is faulted by the exact same point as the original statistic.

Neither accounts for the disproportionate intellectual curiosity of either group so neither the original statistic nor your proposed study would be pertinent to this conversation. Both are completely meaningless with respect to what we're discussing.

I was being a dick earlier because I'm a bad mood: weather sucks, my roommate's moving out because her friend's a bitch and my EE homework is hell. Now I'm less of a dick because I finished my EE homework but you're still pretty wrong.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

That's a very negative view from your poor experiences.

No, it is a honest interpretation of what has happened in my life. Get over it.

1. Many people make more than that, particularly with advanced degrees.

Yes, the double down strategy. Spend 4 years getting a degree. Not making enough? Get a Masters. Still not making enough? Get a PhD.

Let's take where I work as an example. Does my BS in Computer Science help anything? Not really. If I want a promotion, will a MS or PhD help? No. Will a CCNA? Yes. Do I need a BS in Computer Science to get a CCNA? No. Does it help with the prep? Maybe. I hear there is some router programming involved.

Let's take my employer out of the equation. When I look at jobs in my field, employers are looking for <drum rollllllll/> experience. Interships might have helped. A MS or PhD wouldn't.

2. The advantage is that it isn't manual labor which many people don't want to do.

One of my friend's professors in law school often lamented he hadn't become a plumber. Nobody wants to deal with literal shit until they deal with all of the figurative shit in most jobs. Manual labor is honest labor. The only real problem with some manual labor is that it can wear your body down to a nub by the age of 50. Of course, a lot of desk jockeys have significant health problems from obesity and inactivity by the age of 40.

3. You don't have to take a ton of debt. Go to a state school, plus these days many people's parents saved up for their college or can just afford to pay state school tuition. Many people in grad school get a free ride and paid to go. I have for all but my first year of my masters (so paid for last 2 years of Masters and for all 4 years of Ph D so far--should be my last year).


And ... some parents such as mine didn't/don't save shit for their kids' college bills. When I went to college for my first degree, I had three choices. Choice 1: the cheap unaccredited school for $10K in student loans. Choice 2: Mizzou for $20K in student loans because I wasn't a valedictorian. Choice 3: Wash U in St. Louis for $21K in student loans.

At the end of four years, I was spending a lot of time around Post-Docs. People with PhDs making $18,000 a year and working 50 hours a week for up to 9 years until some university blessed them with a teaching position. After that, the rest of their lives would involve begging for money aka grants. It seemed like a waste.

4. The overall point is to better yourself, not just to earn a paycheck. I'd agree such people should probably just learn a trade and work with their bodies rather than their brains. College isn't for everyone for sure. But I'd respect someone with a liberal arts degree who struggles to make ends meet more than the construction contractor with a high school diploma (if that) making six figures. Money isn't everything, and shouldn't even be the main thing IMO.

Money isn't everything unless you want to eat something, have health insurance, drive a car, own a house, send kids to college or retire.

Better yourself? There are other and cheaper ways to do that besides higher education.

[dmaul1114]

Neither accounts for the disproportionate intellectual curiosity of either group so neither the original statistic nor your proposed study would be pertinent to this conversation.


You missed my point.

You're assuming that everyone who goes to college is more intellectually curious than those who do not. That's not true, plenty are not curious at all and just go because their parents want them to, or they just want a degree to try and get a paycheck, they just want to get out of home and go party on their parents dime etc. etc. etc.

What my idea would do is have a survey of high school seniors that measured things like knowledge of current events, intellectual curiosity etc. etc. That's your baseline. Then you do another survey in 4 or 5 years of the same people.

What you then do is match similar people and compare change. Person A got a 50 on the pre-test and went to college, and person B got a 50 on the pre test and did not go to college. So for our purposes that means they're assumed to be the same on knowledge of current events, intellectual curiosity etc. Person A and B have similar demographics.

Finally, once you have the second wave of post data collected, you compare how much scores changed from the pre test to the post test for the the two matched groups, assuming that college/no college is the main explanation since they have similar demographics and had similar pre test scores. Essentially the pre-test and matching are controls for pre-existing differences in things like intellectual curiosity etc. so you can say with more confidence that any differences between the college/non-college group are at least partly do to the college experience since you controlled for such differences.

That's a matched design quasi-experiment and generally considered the next best thing to a randomized experiment, and it's the best you can do in situations where you can't randomize. You've matched people (or groups of people) to be as similar as possible on the variables of interest so you can try to isolate the effect of the "treatment"--college in this case.

It's a far cry from a randomized experiment in terms of internal validity, but there are tons and tons of papers published in top social science journals with that kind of methodology and tons and tons of papers with weaker designs published as well.

Now you can poo poo the methodology if you want, plenty of out social science do and that's why it gets belittled as a "soft" science. But such a study design is quite solid in the social science realm.

[dmaul1114]

No, it is a honest interpretation of what has happened in my life. Get over it.

Doesn't make it true for everyone. Or every field.



Yes, the double down strategy. Spend 4 years getting a degree. Not making enough? Get a Masters. Still not making enough? Get a PhD.

Fair point. Those things should mostly be done for the sake of knowledge, rather than money. Other than things like MBAs, law degrees, MDs etc. that are more financially motivated.


Let's take where I work as an example. Does my BS in Computer Science help anything? Not really. If I want a promotion, will a MS or PhD help? No. Will a CCNA? Yes. Do I need a BS in Computer Science to get a CCNA? No. Does it help with the prep? Maybe. I hear there is some router programming involved.

Again, doesn't mean it's true for all fields. You made the mistake of going to school in one of the most over-saturated majors/fields at a time when it was where everyone thought the quick money was. There are too many people in the field, so it's hard to get started with or without a degree as you're up against people with more experience.


Let's take my employer out of the equation. When I look at jobs in my field, employers are looking for <drum rollllllll/> experience. Interships might have helped. A MS or PhD wouldn't.


Again, varies by field. If you want to do, say many kinds of research jobs, degrees are usually required for even the entry level jobs, sometimes even MS required.


One of my friend's professors in law school often lamented he hadn't become a plumber. Nobody wants to deal with literal shit until they deal with all of the figurative shit in most jobs. Manual labor is honest labor. The only real problem with some manual labor is that it can wear your body down to a nub by the age of 50. Of course, a lot of desk jockeys have significant health problems from obesity and inactivity by the age of 40.


Nothing wrong with manual labor. I'm just saying it's not for everyone and getting a degree is a good way to avoid it. I prefer intellectual work and hit the gym 4 days a week along with hiking and some sports and a healthy diet, so my fitness is covered.

But I have total respect for people that choose to learn a trade.



And ... some parents such as mine didn't/don't save shit for their kids' college bills. When I went to college for my first degree, I had three choices. Choice 1: the cheap unaccredited school for $10K in student loans. Choice 2: Mizzou for $20K in student loans because I wasn't a valedictorian. Choice 3: Wash U in St. Louis for $21K in student loans.


Fair enough. It can be worth it for some. I had no loans for undergrad, but around $50K for grad school. Financially, not a good investment at I'll probably start at $60-70K when I finish. But I love my work, all the options I have with my degree, especially the chance to be a professor and be able to do whatever research work I choose to focus on. For other fields (law school, med school etc.) the degrees are needed and they make high salaries so it's financially worth the debt for some. Not for everyone by a long shot, but I have no regrets.



At the end of four years, I was spending a lot of time around Post-Docs. People with PhDs making $18,000 a year and working 50 hours a week for up to 9 years until some university blessed them with a teaching position. After that, the rest of their lives would involve begging for money aka grants. It seemed like a waste.

Again, not all fields. Everyone that's graduated from my program got a good job straight out of the Ph D program here. Most as professors (post docs aren't common in my field, and if they are they usually pay $40-50K) and a few other in research firms or government positions that pay more than Academic positions (a couples started at $80K, one is making $100 K after 4 years).

Money isn't everything unless you want to eat something, have health insurance, drive a car, own a house, send kids to college or retire.

You know that's not what I meant. You of course have to pay the bills, I just meant amassing wealth shouldn't be one's only goal. And college is a good way to make a decent living assuming you get a degree in a well paying field with high demand--not a saturated field like computer science.

But yes, if one just cares about paying the bills, then they should say fuck college and just learn a trade as they'll make enough money for a decent lower middle class to middle class living faster that way.


Better yourself? There are other and cheaper ways to do that besides higher education.

True, but a good college is a unique learning opportunity do to the exposure to leading scholars and the general exposure to a wide diversity of ideas.



In short, I have no problem with your experience with education. But I don't like when people shit on the whole value of college just because it didn't work out for them. You're situations sounds like it sucked, but you choose a major in an oversaturated field where there are so many people in the field with years of experience that coming out with a degree and no experience isn't much help these days. In other field a degree is a huge help and for some jobs is a requirement.

And aside from that, I just think there's great value in the college experience. It's a unique opportunity to learn a ton of stuff you'd never bother learning otherwise through required courses and just the sheer diversity you're exposed to.

[dmaul1114]

Getting back to the elitist part, there's a good column (2 actually, one slamming Palin and a rebuttal column) that hits this issue on the head in last weeks Newsweek. Doesn't look like the column is up on the website at the moment, just a few excerpts from it it. The column is "When Atheists Attack" by Sam Harris. A lot of it is slamming Palin's religious beliefs, and bashing the role of religion in government lately in general, but he makes a great point about the negativity towards elitism in politics.


Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talents and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to dveote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth--in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

[bmulligan]

... do you really think science doesn't advance society?

Medical advances? Understanding the world? The solar system? What works and what doesn't in preventing crime (my area)?

The world is full of questions, science attempts to provide answers. To argue that it doesn't advance society is one of the more ignorant viewpoints I've ever heard espoused. I'd go so far as to say that humanity is pointless without science. Without our intellectual ability to understand the world we live in we're not better than any other species on the planet.

Claiming science "just does" isn't an answer worthy of a highly edumacated person such as yourself. Such a grandiose proposal that science advances society with no basis in fact is more than ignorance, it's laziness.

After you can tell me what advancing society means, you can then move onto specifics and explain how they would never have come into existence were it not for government sponsorship. Surely your eminent doctorial intelligence can tackle this problem. In fact, I'm sure your intelligence is so highly trained in societal advancement, it should be mere child's play for you.

Please, let's not leave that last advancement - your father's sperm donation some twenty or so years ago - as the only legacy for posterity when there are so many more questions to be answered about the universe.

[dmaul1114]

It's really as simple as I stated it. There are questions to be answered. Science answers them. Be them questions related to solving health problems, putting men in space, or understanding social issues. If you can't understand that I'm not going to waste my "doctorial intelligence" trying to explain the concept to you.

Definition of advancing society= expanding human knowledge. As I said, knowledge is what makes us human, and expanding our knowledge/understanindg of ourselves, the world and universe around us is advancing society and all of humanity in my view.

Could they be done without government funding? A lot probably couldn't. Take the space program. Look at how much money it consumes. It's unlikely private funders would or could shell out that amount that's went into it. Now it's your own perogative if you think it's worth while, or if exploring space is advancing society, but it is in my view.

You could make similar arguments about medical research. Where would our already bad state of knowledge on cancer be without the NIH funding from the Nixon era on? Would drug companies support it when it's not leading to successful drugs when they could fund more profitable things like Botox and viagra? How about the social science research I do. People want less crime in communities, but they're not going to shell out money to study how effective say various police strategies are in preventing crime or how various rehab programs work in preventing recidivism.

There are lots of important issues out there which need research to improve knowledge, many of them are not profitable for corporations or people to fund, thus government funding is needed and donations would never cover the needed costs. In many areas, even government funding is drastically too low to do much needed research.

And that's all I'll say on that as we'll never agree on the topic given our 100% polar opposite views on the way society and government should function.

[bmulligan]

It's really as simple as I stated it. There are questions to be answered. Science answers them. Be them questions related to solving health problems, putting men in space, or understanding social issues. If you can't understand that I'm not going to waste my "doctorial intelligence" trying to explain the concept to you.

Definition of advancing society= expanding human knowledge. As I said, knowledge is what makes us human, and expanding our knowledge/understanindg of ourselves, the world and universe around us is advancing society and all of humanity in my view.

Could they be done without government funding? A lot probably couldn't. Take the space program. Look at how much money it consumes. It's unlikely private funders would or could shell out that amount that's went into it. Now it's your own perogative if you think it's worth while, or if exploring space is advancing society, but it is in my view.

You could make similar arguments about medical research. Where would our already bad state of knowledge on cancer be without the NIH funding from the Nixon era on? Would drug companies support it when it's not leading to successful drugs when they could fund more profitable things like Botox and viagra?

There are lots of important issues out there which need research to improve knowledge, many of them are not profitable for corporations or people to fund, thus government funding is needed.


How is our society, i.e. our inter-personal relationships, our politics, our villlages, our government, more advanced than ancient Greece, Rome, Medieval England, or Ancient Egypt? Science? Are we that much more advanced because we have velcro on our shoes instead of leather laces? Or that we've seen the moon close up? How are we that much more advanced becuase we now know radiological cures for certain cancers? Your tautological arguments of advancement are moot. Science may advance, but it does not mean society is advancing. Comforts and leisure are growing, but if anything, I might argue that it has been to its detriment.

It's a poor argument to claim societal advancement rests upon scientific discovery. Clearly, our advancement has come primarily from philosophy, or advancement in thought, not in how many transistors my radio has today compared to 50 years ago. What a shallow, superficial view of mankind you have. You live on the backs of others' achievements, claim them as your own, and offer yourself as an advanced human being because of them. We have many more toys than the first ape-man, but I daresay we are any more advanced.

[dmaul1114]

I didn't say it was the sole method to advancement. It is just a major one, and one I place great value on as there's nothing I desire or value more in life than knowledge.

Advances in philosophy of course matter. Changes in how we think about the world first allowed science to develop and continue to inform the types of science we do and how we do science. But in the end of the day, ways of thinking matter little if not backed up by hard evidence--and science exists to test theories derived from philosophical thought and see if the evidence backs them up. Unless your a religious buffoon who just turns to spirtual explanations for everything.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree because I'm not wasting more time arguing with someone who has such a poor view of science. Reminds me of how happy I am that everyone in my current circle of friends at minimum has a Master's degree....and reminds of why I had stopped reading or responding to your posts in the first place. I won't make the mistake of doing so again.

[mykevermin]

How is our society, i.e. our inter-personal relationships, our politics, our villlages, our government, more advanced than ancient Greece, Rome, Medieval England, or Ancient Egypt? Science? Are we that much more advanced because we have velcro on our shoes instead of leather laces? Or that we've seen the moon close up? How are we that much more advanced becuase we now know radiological cures for certain cancers? Your tautological arguments of advancement are moot. Science may advance, but it does not mean society is advancing. Comforts and leisure are growing, but if anything, I might argue that it has been to its detriment.

It's a poor argument to claim societal advancement rests upon scientific discovery. Clearly, our advancement has come primarily from philosophy, or advancement in thought, not in how many transistors my radio has today compared to 50 years ago. What a shallow, superficial view of mankind you have. You live on the backs of others' achievements, claim them as your own, and offer yourself as an advanced human being because of them. We have many more toys than the first ape-man, but I daresay we are any more advanced.

I hope you require an organ transplant at some point in your life. See how far Descartes gets ya.

[thrustbucket]

Reminds me of how happy I am that everyone in my current circle of friends at minimum has a Master's degree.....

That's almost sig material.


Edit: Conversely, now that I think it over, I feel much happier now that I limit my circle of friends to those with LESS than masters degrees. I have only one friend, now, that has a Masters, and he's fine as long as it's fine doses.

[dmaul1114]

I hope you require an organ transplant at some point in your life. See how far Descartes gets ya.

:applause:

[Chase]

Look around you, bmulligan. Science and technology form the basis of all human activity, from the houses we live in, the food we eat, and the cars we drive.

I do understand your thoughts on how technology has made some people complacent and lazy, but certainly we could assume it's equivalent to how some people became "lazy" when light bulbs or wheels became common.

[Koggit]

You missed my point.

You're assuming that everyone who goes to college is more intellectually curious than those who do not. That's not true, plenty are not curious at all and just go because their parents want them to, or they just want a degree to try and get a paycheck, they just want to get out of home and go party on their parents dime etc. etc. etc.

What my idea would do is have a survey of high school seniors that measured things like knowledge of current events, intellectual curiosity etc. etc. That's your baseline. Then you do another survey in 4 or 5 years of the same people.

What you then do is match similar people and compare change. Person A got a 50 on the pre-test and went to college, and person B got a 50 on the pre test and did not go to college. So for our purposes that means they're assumed to be the same on knowledge of current events, intellectual curiosity etc. Person A and B have similar demographics.

Finally, once you have the second wave of post data collected, you compare how much scores changed from the pre test to the post test for the the two matched groups, assuming that college/no college is the main explanation since they have similar demographics and had similar pre test scores. Essentially the pre-test and matching are controls for pre-existing differences in things like intellectual curiosity etc. so you can say with more confidence that any differences between the college/non-college group are at least partly do to the college experience since you controlled for such differences.

That's a matched design quasi-experiment and generally considered the next best thing to a randomized experiment, and it's the best you can do in situations where you can't randomize. You've matched people (or groups of people) to be as similar as possible on the variables of interest so you can try to isolate the effect of the "treatment"--college in this case.

It's a far cry from a randomized experiment in terms of internal validity, but there are tons and tons of papers published in top social science journals with that kind of methodology and tons and tons of papers with weaker designs published as well.

Now you can poo poo the methodology if you want, plenty of out social science do and that's why it gets belittled as a "soft" science. But such a study design is quite solid in the social science realm.

You're still wrong -- it's not disagreement, you're simply wrong. Seriously, I challenge you email this thread to a scholar you respect in your field and request their opinion. I'm serious. We've done this little exchange three times and you're still missing the point entirely, in the field you're pursuing a graduate degree in... it's sad, it's disheartening.

[dmaul1114]

**Rant deleted** Wasn't worth the effort to type it or have it distracting from the topic I apologize to everyone but Koggit. :D


At any rate, it's ridiculous that I'm pissed off by some random, ignorant shit posted by someone on the internet that I already had on my ignore list. So shame on me for reading his posts and getting riled up. I won't make that mistake again. And I'm going to take another break from the Vs. forum as I've been getting to fed up with posts here in general lately and it's just not worth it.

[camoor]

Look around you, bmulligan. Science and technology form the basis of all human activity, from the houses we live in, the food we eat, and the cars we drive.

I do understand your thoughts on how technology has made some people complacent and lazy, but certainly we could assume it's equivalent to how some people became "lazy" when light bulbs or wheels became common.

I take comfort that the world will never reflect bmulligan's professed political and economic ideals. He is utterly alone in his beliefs, he is a prime example of ivory tower thinking.

[docvinh]

**Rant deleted** Wasn't worth the effort to type it or have it distracting from the topic I apologize to everyone but Koggit. :D


At any rate, it's ridiculous that I'm pissed off by some random, ignorant shit posted by someone on the internet that I already had on my ignore list. So shame on me for reading his posts and getting riled up. I won't make that mistake again. And I'm going to take another break from the Vs. forum as I've been getting to fed up with posts here in general lately and it's just not worth it.

I feel your pain, that's why I stopped posting in here.

[Chase]

I take comfort that the world will never reflect bmulligan's professed political and economic ideals. He is utterly alone in his beliefs, he is a prime example of ivory tower thinking.


Mmm, ivory tower. That reminds me of cake. Now I want cake. :drool:

http://i38.tinypic.com/34qjmud.jpg

^there's my ivory tower. yum.

[Koggit]

I'm going to take another break from the Vs. forum

*wins*

[docvinh]

*wins*

You're still quite the asshole I see.

[Koggit]

When a self-proclaimed expert is wrong on the exact same point 6 - 7 posts in a row, yes, I get a little spiteful... especially when that expert put me on ignore for disliking Dave Mathews

[docvinh]

When a self-proclaimed expert is wrong on the exact same point 6 - 7 posts in a row, yes, I get a little spiteful

Eh, you proclaim to know everything, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Koggit]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Thank you. If only dmaul were capable of admitting this and learning from my brilliance we wouldn't have a problem here.

[docvinh]

Eh, you proclaim to know everything, so I don't know what you're talking about.

There you go, since you didn't know how to quote correctly, I helped you out.

[dmaul1114]

Fuck it. I can't sleep.

When a self-proclaimed expert is wrong on the exact same point 6 - 7 posts in a row, yes, I get a little spiteful... especially when that expert put me on ignore for disliking Dave Mathews

1. I'm not wrong. You're just an undergrad engineering student who thinks you know everything about every field. The study I described is a perfectly valid example of a panel design survey research that is very often done in the social sciences. If you don't buy it, fine. But it's a fairly rigorous study as far as non-randomized survey research designs go.

As I said earlier, ther'e's plenty of people who don't buy into most social science research since we can seldom get at clear causality the way the hard sciences can. That view point is fine, but you need to quit trying to talk about things you know nothing about. And especially quit belittling people who actually work in those fields and know what they're talking about when it comes to saying what is or isn't reasonable quality work in their field.

I'm not going to talk down to you about engineering as I know nothing about it. Grow up and quit trying to be a pompous know it all behind a computer screen posting anonymously on internet forums. Let's see you talk that way to my face in person, tough guy.


2. Again, I didn't put you on ignore for disliking Dave Matthews. I could care less what music you like and would prefer not to have anything in common with you.

I put you on ignore as, like the complete asshole you are, you posted rude remarks bashing people for liking Dave Matthews band in a thread where people were posting condolences ABOUT THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE BAND MEMBERS. That was one of the most classless posts I've seen on these forums, and par for the course from you unfortunately.


Thank you. If only dmaul were capable of admitting this and learning from my brilliance we wouldn't have a problem here.

No. Your a pompous moron who just thinks he knows everything when I've yet to see you make a single valid point in any thread on any topic on CAG. All you do is spout off ignorant bullshit and insult people. When it boils down to it you're likely just a troll who does nothing but post inflammatory shit to get people riled up (and I'm embarrassed to have fallen for it).

You must be a truly pathetic in real life to have to pretend to be such a wanna-be genious tough guy on the internet.

[Koggit]

I seriously laughed out loud at that post, haha. Man... okay, I'll respond more than a couple lines this time. Hopefully we can put this issue to rest.



I'm not trying to say I know how to conduct a social science experiment better than you. I'm just saying there's something here that, after many posts, you still seem to be missing. Let's recap:

(1) You quoted the statistic that Better Education -> Better Voter and concluded that, in order to get better voters, we should better educate people.

(2) I replied saying that statistic does not necessarily support that conclusion, because the people who get better educations likely do so as a result of having the personality traits that cause a person to be a more informed voter (intellectual curiosity & capacity).

(3) You conceded this point, and said that a better study to determine college's effect on voters would be to poll students as they leave high school, then again after four years, comparing those who went to college and those who did not.

(4) I replied stating that your proposed study would be skewed by the exact same bias, in the exact same magnitude, as the original statistic.

Several posts back and forth since then and it still seems like you don't understand the problem with the study -- underscored by the fact that you think your proposed study is an improvement over the quoted statistic. In the study you proposed, absolutely nothing is different -- the problem remains the same: those who choose to go to college are likely to differ in intellectual capacity & curiosity from those who choose not to go to college, so those who go to college are likely to be better voters. You cannot use the results of such a study to conclude the effects of college because there's no control and no means to correct the bias.

That's what really just baffled me. In response to the invalidity of the original study, you proposed a study that was invalid for the exact same reason... you may think that, by assuming you didn't understand, I'm a condescending asshole... but you have to admit, assuming you don't/didn't understand is the rational conclusion. When you propose to fix a flawed study with a study that has the exact same flaw, it's definitely a rational conclusion.

Also, two other things need to be clear on the record:

(1) I'm a piss-poor engineer.
(2) My post in that Dave Mathews thread was funny, not disrespectful.

[dmaul1114]

(4) I replied stating that your proposed study would be skewed by the exact same bias, in the exact same magnitude, as the original statistic.


I understand that, what you miss is how I say we address such biases, as best we can in social sciences, and how the study design I proposed would get at that by trying to reduce that bias. As this comment shows.


(3) You conceded this point, and said that a better study to determine college's effect on voters would be to poll students as they leave high school, then again after four years, comparing those who went to college and those who did not.



I never said that the study would simply poll people before and after college and simply compare the results. You poll them before college and create matched groups. By matched groups I mean people who are demographically simlar and have similar scores the the variables of interest as they're leaving high school (i.e. similar knowledge of current events, similar levels of intellectual curiosity).

What you then do is take that big sample, and pare it down to matched groups of equal sizes, who went to college and who didn't. You seem to think that everyone who goes to college is more intellectual curious and knowledgable than those who don't. On average, that's true. But at the individual level, that's not the case, some are, some aren't and just go to party, because their parents make them etc.

So you take a big sample so you can get X number of people who are low on intellectual curiousity who went to college, and match them up with an equal number of people who scored similarly and did not go to college.

With this sampling and matching strategy you can create groups with similar levels of curiosity/knowledge of current events etc. who went to college and who did not.

Then after 4-5 years you survey these groups again and see how they score on curiosity/current event knowledge etc., as well as collecting data on life experiences they have had over that time to control for other things that could cause change besides college vs. no college.

Run a multivariate statistical model and see what impact college has on knowledge of personal events controlling for other factors.

That's how we deal with bias in these type of social science studies. It's far better than just doing a poll one time and seeing how knowledgeablle college grads are vs. people who never when to college as it at leasts make some effort to control for self selection bias through matching on the high school scores on curiosity/knowledge and demographics, rather than just supidly trying to make causal statements from descriptive statistics from a cross sectional survey that has no controls for pre-existing differences etc.

It's of course not as strong as a randomized experiment. That's the gold standard. But they're not practical/ethical in many cases, including this one as you can't randomly assign high school students to college or not. Thus studies like this are how we use research design and statistical methods to try to control for biases in social science.

You're free to feel that social science is a bunch of horseshit as a result. Plenty of people do, as we generally just can't get at causality like the hard sciences can. The social world is messy, and human behavior is very complex, most of the time the best we can do is use these types of quasi-experimental designs, along with multivariate statistics, to try sourt out this mess by controlling for biases as best we can.

But don't presume to tell me that I don't know how to design a rigourous study by social science standards when you know nothing of social science research design and methodology. That's the only explanation I can think of for your posts, aside from just wanting to troll and get a rise out of me.

You simply don't understand how social science research design and advanced multivariate statistics are used to control for biases so you haven't grasped my points.

Hopefully this post makes it clear. Again, you're free to disregard them as most outside of social science think the bulk of our studies are horseshit. But hopefully you'll at least have a better understanding of what we do in social science and how studies like the one I outlined are the best we can do when randomized experiments aren't feasible, and at least quit presuming that you know how to design research in my field better than I do.


I'm not trying to say I know how to conduct a social science experiment better than you.


And to clarify this again, this hypothetical study is not a social science experiment. It's a panel design survey study, using a quasi experimental design (the matched groups). Again, experiments are often not practical in social sciences. They are the gold standard (and I'm conducting one related to policing currently) but many times they aren't practical.

Quasi-experiments are the next best things, particularly if the matching is strong. And many studies are weaker than that relying on simple pre-post designs.

Social science isn't medicine where only randomized experiments are accpetped. In social science, and especially criminology, they aren't even the norm--much less the standard.



(2) My post in that Dave Mathews thread was funny, not disrespectful.

No it was not. It was classless.

Fans were mourning the death of a muscian they respected and enjoyed. That's not a place for bashing peoples musical tastes, even in jest.

[Koggit]

You're too stubborn to admit how wicked right I am. At this point, that's the only explanation I can think of for your posts.

[dmaul1114]

You're too stubborn to admit how wicked right I am. At this point, that's the only explanation I can think of for your posts.

If that didn't clear it up, you simply have no concept of how social science works and this is a lost cause.

Biases exist as the social world is complex, we use research design and statstical methods to control for it as best we can. And I outline above how that works very clearly for the hypothetical study. Randomized experiments are the gold standard, but their impractical for many/most social science/criminology research questions, so we turn to such methods to address the causality issue as best we can.

Again, you can poo poo it and say you don't buy into such methods and research design, but such studies are considered quite rigorous in the social sciences, and especially in criminology.

[thrustbucket]

And I'm going to take another break from the Vs. forum as I've been getting to fed up with posts here in general lately and it's just not worth it.

Well you should know better, there aren't that many graduate degrees in here. So you have few equals ;)

[RAMSTORIA]

Well you should know better, there aren't that many graduate degrees in here. So you have few equals ;)

i lold

[bmulligan]

1. I'm not wrong. You're just an undergrad engineering student who thinks you know everything about every field. The study I described is a perfectly valid example of a panel design survey research that is very often done in the social sciences. If you don't buy it, fine. But it's a fairly rigorous study as far as non-randomized survey research designs go.

As I said earlier, ther'e's plenty of people who don't buy into most social science research since we can seldom get at clear causality the way the hard sciences can. That view point is fine, but you need to quit trying to talk about things you know nothing about. And especially quit belittling people who actually work in those fields and know what they're talking about when it comes to saying what is or isn't reasonable quality work in their field.

I'm not going to talk down to you about engineering as I know nothing about it. Grow up and quit trying to be a pompous know it all behind a computer screen posting anonymously on internet forums. Let's see you talk that way to my face in person, tough guy.


2. Again, I didn't put you on ignore for disliking Dave Matthews. I could care less what music you like and would prefer not to have anything in common with you.

I put you on ignore as, like the complete asshole you are, you posted rude remarks bashing people for liking Dave Matthews band in a thread where people were posting condolences ABOUT THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE BAND MEMBERS. That was one of the most classless posts I've seen on these forums, and par for the course from you unfortunately...

No. Your a pompous moron who just thinks he knows everything when I've yet to see you make a single valid point in any thread on any topic on CAG. All you do is spout off ignorant bullshit and insult people. When it boils down to it you're likely just a troll who does nothing but post inflammatory shit to get people riled up (and I'm embarrassed to have fallen for it)...

You must be a truly pathetic in real life to have to pretend to be such a wanna-be genious tough guy on the internet.

You give new vigor to the term "elitist." Between that and your exclusive masters' degree club pomposity, I for one am joining the "good riddance" club.

It's just shameful that a supposed higher-educated person could be so short tempered and intolerant to veiwpoints other than his own. You epitomize neo-intellectualism. Luckily, you have your circle of similarly educated comrades to prop up your ego.

And I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face, tough guy.

[SpazX]

You give new vigor to the term "elitist." Between that and your exclusive masters' degree club pomposity, I for one am joining the "good riddance" club.

It's just shameful that a supposed higher-educated person could be so short tempered and intolerant to veiwpoints other than his own. You epitomize neo-intellectualism. Luckily, you have your circle of similarly educated comrades to prop up your ego.

And I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face, tough guy.

Really? From that quote? During that drawn-out exchange with Koggit?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Really? From that quote? During that drawn-out exchange with Koggit?

Well, you can read some of his responses to my posts.

A person with a liberal arts degree struggling to make ends meets being greater than a person with a trade skill supporting a family and saving for retirement isn't a view I share with dmaul.

[camoor]

I think the game Civilization was on to something with their concept of the "great person"

Sometimes great people do monumentally advance our scientific understanding and technology. I find it a bit absurd (and somewhat communist) to pretend that society does not value these people higher then the average ditch digger.

[mykevermin]

It's just shameful that a supposed higher-educated person could be so short tempered and intolerant to veiwpoints other than his own.

Oh, please. He has a far longer temper than I do. You know that.

You epitomize neo-intellectualism.

Define "neo-intellectualism" such that separates it, clearly, from "intellectualism." Or admit that you're fluffing your words for the hell of it.

And I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face, tough guy.

Lookit Macho Man Randy Savage over here! Better not end up needing to go a hospital after that fistfight. I hear they're all trained in medicine and hard sciences over there. No philosophy whatsoever.

"What the fuck is a Sartre? You need an enema, stat!"

[dmaul1114]

Sometimes great people do monumentally advance our scientific understanding and technology. I find it a bit absurd (and somewhat communist) to pretend that society does not value these people higher then the average ditch digger.

Yep. That's all my comment to FoC meant. I don't look down on regular folks who work a trade and raise a family.

I simply personally have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually and don't settle for just earning a paycheck and supporting a family.

I didn't say I don't respect such people at all, I simply have more respect for people who have loftier goals than just making ends meet and raising a family.

One can have those goals and also choose to get educated and work in a career that advances something rather than just providing a service. Of course all these trade services are needed by society so I do respect people who do them. I just simply value more people who have loftier goals. That's all.


As for the other crap above, what can I say. Even us highly educated folks have tempers, especially when making the mistake of getting in debates with people like Koggitt over stuff they know nothing about.

[depascal22]

And I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face, tough guy.

Which means you probably wouldn't say a damn thing.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yep. That's all my comment to FoC meant. I don't look down on regular folks who work a trade and raise a family.

I simply personally have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually and don't settle for just earning a paycheck and supporting a family.


But I'd respect someone with a liberal arts degree who struggles to make ends meet more than the construction contractor with a high school diploma (if that) making six figures.

Say this around a bunch of construction workers.

I simply personally don't have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually, but can't earn a decent paycheck to support a family.

I gambled with college twice. It didn't pay off. Colleges are to career improvement as casinos are to wealth improvement.

[thrustbucket]

Great. Just what America needs; it's citizens that chose to put in long years at university endorsing yet another way to divide and segregate America.


If our so-called "Learned folk" can't progress past the divisive nature of human beings to bring us together, who can? And now we see the folly in the argument that we should be voting for our elites. They are no better at overcoming our basic human problems than anyone else and possibly are worse.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Great. Just what America needs; it's citizens that chose to put in long years at university endorsing yet another way to divide and segregate America.


If our so-called "Learned folk" can't progress past the divisive nature of human beings to bring us together, who can? And now we see the folly in the argument that we should be voting for our elites. They are no better at overcoming our basic human problems than anyone else and possibly are worse.

Obviously, only someone without an advanced degree would think that way.

If you simply got an advanced degree in anything, you would start thinking correctly.

It is like gay men. They aren't actually gay. They haven't had sex with the right woman yet.

[dmaul1114]

I simply personally don't have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually, but can't earn a decent paycheck to support a family.

And that's fine. We just disagree there. But I'd agree that the struggling person shouldn't start a family. People shouldn't start families until they are financially independent. Regardless of whether they work a trade or have an intellectual job are an artist or whatever. You shouldn't make children suffer because you can't earn a living--irrespective of what you educational/occupational background is.


I gambled with college twice. It didn't pay off. Colleges are to career improvement as casinos are to wealth improvement.

Again, you over generalize your negative experience. Degrees in good fields open a lot of doors. Degrees in the wrong fields and the wrong time (like computer science for you) do little to no good and just waste 4 years.

I feel you pain, as I was nearly there. I started my first semester of undergrad in 1998 as a computer science major as that was the thing to do to make money out of college back then.

Luckily, I HATED programming and switched majors in my second semester to Journalism. Did well in that but didn't like working for the local paper much and got interested in Criminology through my minor in sociology, and the rest is history.

So college has been hugely valuable for me, both in growing intellectual and for my financial situation.

But I'll definitely say college isn't for everyone and it's by no means the only way (or the best way for some) to earn a good living and support a family. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't poo poo the whole college system just from your personal experiences. Just because it didn't work out for you doesn't mean it isn't a very valuable part of society--particularly for people with loftier life goals that just supporting a family.

Even if that's one's only goal, people can vastly increase their life time earnings ceiling with
a degree (and especially advanced degree) in fields that pay well and have high demand for employees. You just had the shitty luck (as I nearly did) of picking a field that looked lucrative but had bottomed out and became over saturated by the time you graduated.

Great. Just what America needs; it's citizens that chose to put in long years at university endorsing yet another way to divide and segregate America.


If our so-called "Learned folk" can't progress past the divisive nature of human beings to bring us together, who can? And now we see the folly in the argument that we should be voting for our elites. They are no better at overcoming our basic human problems than anyone else and possibly are worse.

That's just silly. I wasn't divisive IMO. I said I respect people who learn trades.

However, I want the people making huge decisions to be very intelligent and very well educated. Be them my surgeons or the president of the United States. I respect plumbers, electricians, and military veterans (not talking McCain, he has the Senate experience). But that doesn't mean I think they're cut out to have the reserve, judgment and intelligence that should be required to hold the most powerful position in the world, especially with rapidly increasing globalization.

The country was founded by people like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who were some of the most intelligent and most highly educated people in the world at the time. We need to go back to choosing such people as our leaders.

[thrustbucket]

That's just silly. I wasn't divisive IMO. I said I respect people who learn trades.

However, I want the people making huge decisions to be very intelligent and very well educated. Be them my surgeons or the president of the United States. I respect plumbers, electricians, and military veterans. But that doesn't mean I think they're cut out to have the reserve, judgment and intelligence that should be required to hold the most powerful position in the world, especially with rapidly increasing globalization.

The country was founded by people like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who were some of the most intelligent and most highly educated people in the world at the time. We need to go back to choosing such people as our leaders.

Where you and I differ, is I think it is fallacy to use years spent in institutionalized schools as a gauge of intelligence; memorization ability, perhaps, and a measure of diligence, maybe. Education and schooling are two different things. Intelligence and formal education are mutually exclusive.

It's worth pointing out that of those people you mentioned, the majority of their education was outside of a school system, and self taught. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were lawyers, but in that day, you became a lawyer after studying/working directly under one for a while. Benjamin Franklin didn't have any formal education, and was almost entirely self taught.

Something tells me you would be unable to vote for anyone, today, that claimed to be self educated, like Franklin. In fact, you would probably be very hesitant to get to know someone like that, listen to what they have to say, or befriend them from what you've said.

In other words, you are very likely to be in the "Who cares what they think, they never even finished college" club.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I could go for specific degrees as being a plus for the position, rather than degrees in general.

For instance, being a scholar of constitutional law when you want to be the head of the branch that enforces laws.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

So college has been hugely valuable for me, both in growing intellectual and for my financial situation.

Don't you rent a room?

[dmaul1114]

Where you and I differ, is I think it is fallacy to use years spent in institutionalized schools as a gauge of intelligence; memorization ability, perhaps, and a measure of diligence, maybe. Education and schooling are two different things. Intelligence and formal education are mutually exclusive.

It's worth pointing out that of those people you mentioned, the majority of their education was outside of a school system, and self taught. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were lawyers, but in that day, you became a lawyer after studying/working directly under one for a while. Benjamin Franklin didn't have any formal education, and was almost entirely self taught.

Something tells me you would be unable to vote for anyone, today, that claimed to be self educated. In fact, you would probably be very hesitant to get to know someone like that, or befriend them, from what you've said.

I vote for people based on the issues and my opinion of their intellect. Having advanced degrees from top schools helps, as I believe that is tied to intellect. It doesn't fully explain it as you have to have intellectual ability to get a degree, especially advanced degrees. I think McCain is very intelligent and considered voting for him in 2000 (or would have if he was the nominee). I just don't like his current stance on issues and how he's shifted much further to the right since 2000, nor how old he is this time around.

But you have a miguided view of college education at top universities (and especially of post graduate education) if you think it's all just memorization and diligence. That's a part of it, but the bigger part is learning to think about things critically and scientifically/philosophically. All that knowledge and intellect doesn't mean anything if you don't know how to analyze it and apply it in the real world.

And John Adams had an education from Harvard, which preceded his law firm understudy. Jefferson went to William and Mary and then later founded the University of Virginia. They were both extraordinary strong advocates of education and for the US having the leading University system in the world. Your point stands on Frankin though, though he was also a staunch supporter of education and universities despite having not attended himself.

Formal education isn't required for one to be brilliant as some of that is of course natural ability, but it is something I place great value on and view as the best and most efficient way to better one's self intellectually. Self learning is important, but a formal education gives you the tools to be productive in that aspect of your life as well as well as showing you how to apply your knowledge and intellect. I'll be done with formal education soon, but I'll be a life long learner so obviously I value self learning.

There are exceptions to everything, but the bulk of the world's great intellects who are doing ground breaking, award winning research and so on received, and benefited from, an outstanding education. Yes they have their own natural intelligence which preceded that as one can't succeed in top universities without underlying intellectual gifts and hard work, but I place great value in the role of advanced education in helping people who choose to do intellectual work be their best.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Also:
Colleges are to career improvement as casinos are to wealth improvement.
This is insane, and demonstratively false. I'm sure there are stats regarding this.

[dmaul1114]

Don't you rent a room?

I'm still a graduate student and a frugal person. That said I make over $30K (for 30 hours a week of work, and I often put in less than that on work stuff and more on my dissertation and personal publications etc.), plus having my tuition and fees fully paid for and having good benefits. So I'm pretty well off financially for a student.

When I graduate my first job will pay in the $60-80K range, that's pretty damn good for an entry level position in a field and for a job I love doing that gives me totally flexibility on what type of work I do and tons of flexibility on the hours I work each day. Raises are regular in the field, so going forward my financial situation will be very secure.

So yes, I have no regrets about my decision to pursue a Ph D, both for developing as a person and for my future career/financial stability. Factor in that I don't plan to have the money sinks and annoyances known as children and I'll be quite well off indeed.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm still a graduate student and a frugal person. That said I make over $30K (for 30 hours a week of work, and I often put in less than that on work stuff and more on my dissertation and personal publications etc.), plus having my tuition and fees fully paid for and having good benefits. So I'm pretty well off financially for a student.

When I graduate my first job will pay in the $60-80K range, that's pretty damn good for an entry level position in a field and for a job I love doing that gives me totally flexibility on what type of work I do and tons of flexibility on the hours I work each day. Raises are regular in the field, so going forward my financial situation will be very secure.

So yes, I have no regrets about my decision to pursue a Ph D, both for developing as a person and for my future career/financial stability. Factor in that I don't plan to have the money sinks and annoyances known as children and I'll be quite well off indeed.

Wow, $30K with a MS. A CCNA gets you $40K.

This $60-80K job ... is a guaranteed position, an interview for a position or less?

This $60-80K job ... What city will this be in and how much do 2 bedroom apartments cost there?

[thrustbucket]

However, I want the people making huge decisions to be very intelligent and very well educated. Be them my surgeons or the president of the United States. I respect plumbers, electricians, and military veterans (not talking McCain, he has the Senate experience). But that doesn't mean I think they're cut out to have the reserve, judgment and intelligence that should be required to hold the most powerful position in the world, especially with rapidly increasing globalization.
I guess this is my primary complaint - what you said here. Not only does it not sit well with me, it seems to somewhat contradict what you said here:

I vote for people based on the issues and my opinion of their intellect. Having advanced degrees from top schools helps, as I believe that is tied to intellect. It doesn't fully explain it as you have to have intellectual ability to get a degree, especially advanced degrees. I think McCain is very intelligent and considered voting for him in 2000 (or would have if he was the nominee). I just don't like his current stance on issues and how he's shifted much further to the right since 2000, nor how old he is this time around.


There are no education requirements for the position of President. There is a reason for that. It is a bit odd, though, that there are much higher education, background checks, and experience requirements for everyone that works for the President, all the way down to the little man in Langley.

Elected officials never have had requirements. I believe the reason for that is that you are, above all else, voting on their character and wisdom. Sure, you can argue that formal education helps shape character and wisdom, but it isn't crucial.

From what you said, would you be willing to amend the constitution and put educational requirements on elected officials, especially the President?

I guess it doesn't sit well with me that you would take someones chosen occupation such as plumber or electrician and automatically assume they did not have the intellectual capacity on par with presidential candidates. They are automatically written out, in your mind. Nevermind their social or economic situations.

I have two friends with Masters degrees that I can't discuss anything with, they can't hold an intellectual conversation to save their lives.
Conversely, I know two other guys that have never been to school, but are the smartest people I know. One of them could easily work for Nasa, he is so well read on engineering and advanced physics. But he could never afford school and had to take care of his sick father all his life. It's sad, to me, that he would clearly be such an asset to research and scientific development, but we've created a system that requires a piece of paper for those jobs. That's what I have against college.

[dmaul1114]

Wow, $30K with a MS. A CCNA gets you $40K.


Got to add on the paid tuition and fees, and having a job that is 100% flexible around classes, and dissertation work etc.

With my master's degree I've had offers to work at some local research firms that had salaries in the $50-55K range, but turned them down as I didn't want to juggle 40+ hour a week jobs and graduate school.

This $60-80K job ... is a guaranteed position, an interview for a position or less?

There's no such thing as guaranteed jobs. But there are a ton of openings in my field every year as it's a growing field. And I'm at the top doctoral program in our field. Every single Ph D graduate from the 6 years I've been here has gotten a job right out of school paying at least in that range starting out. A few went to government positions that paid more.

This $60-80K job ... What city will this be in and how much do 2 bedroom apartments cost there?

Lots of options. Can be a university or research firm in a big city, or can be a university in a small college town. Pay is generally in the same ranges as universities are all competing for the same scholars regardless of location.

But I really don't get the point of this discussion.

1. I've made clear money isn't the main reason I went this route. I like that the pay is decent and I can be financially secure. But I choose this route as I find the subject interesting, like the flexibility, like working to advance knowledge in an area and like teaching given the value I place on education.

The decent pay is just the icing on the cake. I just brought it up to challenge your naive assertion that college is a financially bad decision for everyone. It's not. Just depends on field and what your life and career goals are.

2. I've been clear that I don't think college is for everyone. For someone like you that only cares about making as much money as possible as quickly as possible and supporting a family college may not be the best path. It may be better to just learn a trade, make some money, invest it wisely etc. etc. That will set many people up financially faster than going to college.

[dmaul1114]

I guess this is my primary complaint - what you said here. Not only does it not sit well with me, it seems to somewhat contradict what you said here:


It isn't contradictory. It's just that a person without an outstanding education running for president has to do lot more to prove their intellectual worth to me than a person with advanced degrees from top universities.

Advanced degree's aren't required for a person to be intellectually qualified, but I believe degrees are a sign that shows it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt if they have them. A person without degrees can prove to be worthy, and a person with them can prove to be unworthy. It's just a matter of different first impressions I guess.


There are no education requirements for the position of President. There is a reason for that. It is a bit odd, though, that there are much higher education, background checks, and experience requirements for everyone that works for the President, all the way down to the little man in Langley.

Very true. I'd personally support educational requirements, though I know I'm in the minority there.


Elected officials never have had requirements. I believe the reason for that is that you are, above all else, voting on their character and wisdom. Sure, you can argue that formal education helps shape character and wisdom, but it isn't crucial.

My problem is that stuff is too easy to fake, and people shouldn't vote just on such things. They should study the issues and the persons qualifications and decide who they think will do the job best.


From what you said, would you be willing to amend the constitution and put educational requirements on elected officials, especially the President?

Absolutely. You have to have degrees to practice law, medicine etc. Why shouldn't the most powerful and important person in the world have similar requirements?


I guess it doesn't sit well with me that you would take someones chosen occupation such as plumber or electrician and automatically assume they did not have the intellectual capacity on par with presidential candidates. They are automatically written out, in your mind. Nevermind their social or economic situations.


Again, its a first blush thing. Those people can prove their intellectual worth. They just don't get the same benefit of the doubt as someone with degrees.


I have two friends with Masters degrees that I can't discuss anything with, they can't hold an intellectual conversation to save their lives.

What in? I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

Also, were they from good schools? Graduate education is a pretty large waste of time and money, IMO, if you're not at a top 10 (or at least top 20 in larger fields) program. The whole point is to learn from and work with the leading scholars in the field, not just get another piece of paper from any old institution. Unless you're just going to get a piece of paper to get a promotion at work or something.


Conversely, I know two other guys that have never been to school, but are the smartest people I know. One of them could easily work for Nasa, he is so well read on engineering and advanced physics. But he could never afford school and had to take care of his sick father all his life. It's sad, to me, that he would clearly be such an asset to research and scientific development, but we've created a system that requires a piece of paper for those jobs. That's what I have against college.

Sad story, some peole have more obstacles to over come than others. But college is always affordable if one's willing take loans and work hard for scholarships in undergrad. Grad school should only be attended if you were competitive enough to get a funded position in a top program IMO.

[mykevermin]

$60-80K *starting* at the University level? Hardly. A shade under 60K is more likely, even for high institutions.

Now, the private sector? That's another story.

[SpazX]

Wow, $30K with a MS. A CCNA gets you $40K.

He's essentially getting paid $30k a year to get a PhD.

I don't see why you keep fighting this. There are obviously other ways to get money, and there are certainly other ways to get more money, but on average the more education you get the more you're going to get paid.

Whether it's worth it or not is your own choice.

[dmaul1114]

$60-80K *starting* at the University level? Hardly. A shade under 60K is more likely, even for high institutions.


That's not what my g/f and others who graduated from here the the past couple of years were offered starting out.

Now if you mean 9 month salary, then yes most were in the high 50s, but pretty much everyone got offered summer salary for the first 2 or 3 years (to give them time to get settled so they can start bringing in grant money to pay their summer salaries) which put their annual salaries up. The $80K is very high end, and just one student with an awesome CV got an offer of just under 80K. Most are in the mid 60's.

At my school the new junior faculty they've hired the past couple of years started in the high 50s to low 60s as well, some have gotten summer salary some haven't (probably depended on what other offers they had). Nearly all the senior faculty is over $100K. But again its the top program so they are pretty competitive salary wise since other schools are always making offers to many of our faculty that have to be countered.

[dmaul1114]

He's essentially getting paid $30k a year to get a PhD.

I don't see why you keep fighting this. There are obviously other ways to get money, and there are certainly other ways to get more money, but on average the more education you get the more you're going to get paid.

Whether it's worth it or not is your own choice.

Exactly. It's a damn good deal, and I get paid more than most as I'm project director on a $350K grant I co-wrote with my advisor. So I'm very happy.

I don't get his view either, other than it's just totally guided by his experience of college being a waste of time for him leading him to be jaded and spout that college is useless period.

It's not for everyone, but as you say on average it makes people more money, and as I've said maximizing profits quickly isn't necessarily everyone's goal and for people with that goal college may not be the best route to take.

[evanft]

Engineering interns make more than $30k scale as juniors. Lots of place pay more than that, though. I know GM is $24/hour, so nearly $50k.

[dmaul1114]

Engineering interns make more than $30k scale as juniors. Lots of place pay more than that, though. I know GM is $24/hour, so nearly $50k.

Yep, engineering is one of the better paying fields out there. Actually, I think it has the highest average starting salaries for people straight out of undergrad.

It's a great field for people into it who want to get a 4 year degree and make a nice paycheck as soon as they graduate.

You definitely don't get into the social sciences for the money. I'll be looking at 11-12 total years of college and grad school by the time I finish up my dissertation and have my Ph D in hand, so a starting salary of around $60K in academia (or 70-80+ in the private sector) isn't really so good when you factor in the time put in if money was your main goal.

It's something you do for love of the topic and/or wanting an academic job.

[depascal22]

Great. Just what America needs; it's citizens that chose to put in long years at university endorsing yet another way to divide and segregate America.


If our so-called "Learned folk" can't progress past the divisive nature of human beings to bring us together, who can? And now we see the folly in the argument that we should be voting for our elites. They are no better at overcoming our basic human problems than anyone else and possibly are worse.

Humanity divides itself on almost everything. Always have and always will. There's always been a big dream for everyone to sit around and sing Kumbaya but did anyone think how that would be possible?

EDIT -- "Learned folk" are no different than anyone else. They just have enough knowledge about a couple things to get a piece of paper that says their "learned". Plumbers, electricians, and carpenters have as much knowledge but usually don't have the fancy piece of paper from a university to say it. They let their hands do the talking.

EDIT 2 -- This reminds of why Sarah Palin got such a boost for the Republicans. You guys are all bashing dmaul for being a PhD that thinks he knows everything. I didn't really see that. I'd put someone with a PhD over a guy that drives buses all day also. I'm not saying that one person has to live or die because of it but society should place a premium on getting an education. Since when did PhD become a bad word?

[dmaul1114]

You guys are all bashing dmaul for being a PhD that thinks he knows everything. I didn't really see that.


And to be clear, I absolutely don't think I know everything. I'm reasonably informed in my field, and that's it. I don't go around like Koggitt telling people in other fields what is or isn't good research in their field etc. I'm a criminologist, and that's all I know. And I'm young in my field so I'm far from a leading expert even in my own field.

And I don't believe that having an advanced degree qualifies someone to be president. It's just an initial signal to me that the person is intelligent and well educated. It takes intelligence, rational thinking, patience, delayed gratification, ability to see the big picture etc. etc. to get advanced degrees. Those are qualities I want in my leaders.

But again, there are people without advanced degrees with those qualities, they just don't have the educational background to earn that first impression that somone with a Ph D, law degree etc. has. They have to show they have the ability to be a leader--as McCain has in his 26 or whatever years in congress/senate. I think he's very capable, I just disagree with him on the issues.



Since when did PhD become a bad word?

It's really depressing. And that was the main point of that newsweek column I linked to later.

I really think a lot of it has to do with how politics is dominated by social issues. People care only about things like abortion, religion (prayer in school, teaching intelligent design etc. etc.), gay marriage, not paying taxes, "lazy" people on welfare and on down the line.

Then you get the intelligentsia who tend to be liberal and theres a backlash against having well educated people in office as they "don't understand the middle class" as they support gay rights, are pro choice, support taxes for social programming etc.

Thus you have both the value of having "elites' in power being ignored, as well as the fact that there are plenty of highly educated conservatives.

It's sad, but those are the types of things that are inevitable when politics comes to be dominated by social issues.

[Koggit]

criminologist ... It takes intelligence

lol

[fatherofcaitlyn]

lol

Quiet. Batman is smart.

[dmaul1114]

Again with the petty insults.:roll:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

He's essentially getting paid $30k a year to get a PhD.

I don't see why you keep fighting this. There are obviously other ways to get money, and there are certainly other ways to get more money, but on average the more education you get the more you're going to get paid.

Whether it's worth it or not is your own choice.

Whoop-tee-doo.

My company will pay for me to get a Master's Degree. I just have to fill out paperwork. Will it get me a promotion? Nope.

Dmaul's first angle is that education will lead to a better job and advanced degrees even more so.

We've crushed that a few times over, right?

Dmaul's second angle is that education will expand your mind. I think there was something about being a more informed voter.

Koggit crushed that a few times over, right?

...

I'd argue you can reach financial independence (re: not having to work) faster by avoiding college if you manage money correctly.

If financial independence can be reached faster without college, one could argue intellectual expansion could be reached faster without college, too.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Again with the petty insults.:roll:

Jaded

1.dulled or satiated by overindulgence: a jaded appetite.
2.worn out or wearied, as by overwork or overuse.
3.dissipated: a jaded reprobate.

Were you complimenting me before?

[mykevermin]

Now if you mean 9 month salary

That's the more likely offer, yes?

That's what I meant then.

[depascal22]

Whoop-tee-doo.

My company will pay for me to get a Master's Degree. I just have to fill out paperwork. Will it get me a promotion? Nope.

Dmaul's first angle is that education will lead to a better job and advanced degrees even more so.

We've crushed that a few times over, right?

I personally work in the job placement field and find that statement retarded. More and more companies want people with advanced degrees. In fact, an advanced degree is quickly replacing experience as a primary criteria for hiring or firing.

Want examples??

I tried to get a woman hired over at Time Magazine for an HR Manager position. They wouldn't even look at her resume unless she had a Bachelor's. I don't know if you know much about HR but there are many qualified candidates that just have an Associate's. We also had a chemist that fit the exact needs for Genentech except he had a Master's in Chemistry instead of a PhD. On the flip side, I've had people denied for HR positions because they had too much experience. Yeah, that's right, too much experience.

If anything, professional America wants someone with an advanced degree (that's appropriate for the field and position), two to five years of experience, and one or two former employers. If you are one of those, you are golden and should be looking at any and all job opportunities. If not, hold onto that job with your dear life and work all the extra hours and extra projects you can to be more valuable to your company.

[SpazX]

Dmaul's first angle is that education will lead to a better job and advanced degrees even more so.

We've crushed that a few times over, right?

Do you honestly need to see the statistics? I know you know them, everybody does.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Median Weekly Earnings - Men - 25 years and older
Less than a high school diploma - 497
High school graduates, no college - 715
Some college or associate degree - 843
Bachelor’s degree and higher - 1,277
Bachelor’s degree only - 1,164
Advanced degree - 1,521

Does it depend on the degree? Of course it does. Does it mean that anyone with a degree will necessarily make more money then anyone without one? Of course not. That doesn't change the trend.

Dmaul's second angle is that education will expand your mind. I think there was something about being a more informed voter.

Koggit crushed that a few times over, right?

Koggit didn't crush dick. He made an assumption and then he and dmaul argued over a hypothetical study. "Expanding your mind" pretty much necessarily requires education - just not necessarily formal education.

I'd argue you can reach financial independence (re: not having to work) faster by avoiding college if you manage money correctly.

That depends on the degree, how much money it would cost to get that degree, the job market, your prospects in any given area without a degree, and how little you're willing to live on while you save money.

If financial independence can be reached faster without college, one could argue intellectual expansion could be reached faster without college, too.

If by "intellectual expansion" you mean knowledge of some kind, then you're probably just switching the order of things - rather than going to college and getting that knowledge in your 20s, you work, save money, and then when you don't have to work anymore you have free time for extra knowledge.

College generally isn't so expensive that you're in so much debt that the extra money you get with your degree is completely canceled out. Especially if you go for an advanced degree where your earnings can be over double that of no degree without too much added cost.

I still don't understand why you're making this argument.

[Koggit]

Don't lie to FoC -- I crush dicks all the time.

[Tybee]

Dear Nobel Laureates,

Thanks, but no thanks.

Signed,
Barack Obama

Point being? The endorsement of a list of Nobel prize winners isn't going to help much, possibly just hurt really. Using the term "Laureates" further pushes the elitist mindset on top of the fact that just because you've made significant contributions to science doesn't mean you know dick about politics. Hell, there's even a handful of that list that aren't even from America.

Now to be fair their point is that George Bush's administration didn't do much in the way of supporting science research. HOWEVER, John McCain is not George Bush so really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...

Because publicly expressing an opinion is GODDAMN UNAMERICAN!!!!!

Oh snap ... My Calvin pissing on stuff decals just came!

Exactly. Some people lose touch, or never had it as they were born wealthy. But it's not like having an advanced education and earning wealthy all of a sudden makes one not understand the middle class.

It is a indicator of the Republicans' ability to brainwash that they have successfully cast McCain as "a man of the people" when he owns 7-8 homes (the Obamas just bought their first and only home last year) and 13 cars (again the Obamas own one).

Further, despite his decades in Washington, Biden has the lowest or second lowest net worth of any member of the Senate. He still rides public transit everywhere, lives in a humble house. You know he's had ample opportunities to improve his circumstances by legal but dubious means over the years. He chose not to. I respect that. Meanwhile, Palin's billing taxpayers for travel expenses for 300-something days working from home. :roll:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Do you honestly need to see the statistics? I know you know them, everybody does.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Median Weekly Earnings - Men - 25 years and older
Less than a high school diploma - 497
High school graduates, no college - 715
Some college or associate degree - 843
Bachelor’s degree and higher - 1,277
Bachelor’s degree only - 1,164
Advanced degree - 1,521


Honest questions:

What is the date range of those statistics?

What is the geographic distribution of the statistics?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

College generally isn't so expensive that you're in so much debt that the extra money you get with your degree is completely canceled out. Especially if you go for an advanced degree where your earnings can be over double that of no degree without too much added cost.

I still don't understand why you're making this argument.

Does the advanced degree allow you to finish the rat race earlier?

[evanft]

Yep, engineering is one of the better paying fields out there. Actually, I think it has the highest average starting salaries for people straight out of undergrad.

It's a great field for people into it who want to get a 4 year degree and make a nice paycheck as soon as they graduate.

Indeed. I believe 7 of the top 8 paying fields right out of school are various engineering disciplines.

[depascal22]

Does the advanced degree allow you to finish the rat race earlier?

I see you had nothing to say about my comment. Why are you still arguing that education means nothing?

[dmaul1114]

Whoop-tee-doo.

My company will pay for me to get a Master's Degree. I just have to fill out paperwork. Will it get me a promotion? Nope.

Dmaul's first angle is that education will lead to a better job and advanced degrees even more so.


But you have to work full time while getting--doubt they'll be very flexible when you have extra school work. I get paid and my school stuff has always been my top priority, work come second. Also, I forgot I'll actually make a tad over $40k this year as I taught a class and have done some contractual research work which both was extra pay on top of my 30K salary. Not shabby for getting paid to go to school IMO. So it's a good deal--not for someone who just wants out of the "rat race" fast though. But I'm much better off than most graduate students, so I can't complain


Anyway, getting to your main points, I've said over and over that college isn't the only way to make money, and explicitly said that people that only care about making money as quickly as possible should not go to college.

On average, people with college degrees make more money than those without them (see the stats above), but it delays the start of entering the work force. And it's certainly not the case that you can't get wealthy without a degree. You can and probably can faster if you learn a trade that pays well and you're smart with saving money and investing it.

I just don't like you belittling college as useless just because it didn't work out for you. I've never said everyone should go to college or that it's the only way to be successful. You're the one over-generalizing your own bad experience to bash college education. You majored in an oversaturated field, and with your life goals of supporting a family college probably wasn't the way to go anyway. There's nothing wrong with that. I just get annoyed at you saying college is useless, period. And that's how your posts came across.

We've crushed that a few times over, right?



Dmaul's second angle is that education will expand your mind. I think there was something about being a more informed voter.


It most certainly will expand your mind. And it's definitely not the only way to expand your mind. But it forces you to learn stuff you wouldn't bother with otherwise so you get a more well rounded knowledge. And you gain more perespective on issues from discussions with professors, fellow students etc. vs. just reading stuff and forming opinions completely on your own.


I'd argue you can reach financial independence (re: not having to work) faster by avoiding college if you manage money correctly.


I agree, and have said that repeatedly, including above. People with that goal probably shouldn't go to college, you can do it faster without it if you learn a trade. And I'd prefer to not have such students--i.e. those who don't care about learning just for learnings sake--in my classes anyway.


If financial independence can be reached faster without college, one could argue intellectual expansion could be reached faster without college, too.

That one's more debatable. You can certainly self learn, but you miss out a lot from having discussions with professors, fellow students etc. to get more perspective on issues when you're just reading and learning on your own.


Does the advanced degree allow you to finish the rat race earlier?

But what point you miss here is that those of us who are getting, or have, advavnced degrees don't think we are in the rat race. We love our work, we're not just trying to reach financial independence again.

I, again, agree 100% if you just want to get out of the "rat race" as fast as possible college probably isn't for you and advanced degrees most definitely are not for you.

I've never said otherwise. I just get tired of you shitting on education just because you think everyone is like you and only has life goals of raising a family and being finanancially independent as quickly as possible. Not everyone does. And again for those who do I'd never suggest college or advanced degrees as the best path.

[depascal22]

Even learning a trade takes some kind of advanced education. Do you want the self-taught electrician to rewire your home? How about a car mechanic working on a new car with zero computer or diagnostic skills? If you shun education, you're only setting yourself up for failure down the road. That job you have now might not be there in a couple years and an education is a nice thing to fall back on. It's kind of a safety net if you will.

[dmaul1114]

Even learning a trade takes some kind of advanced education. Do you want the self-taught electrician to rewire your home? How about a car mechanic working on a new car with zero computer or diagnostic skills? If you shun education, you're only setting yourself up for failure down the road. That job you have now might not be there in a couple years and an education is a nice thing to fall back on. It's kind of a safety net if you will.

To be fair, he's all about getting out of the rat race as fast as possible.

One can learn a trade much quicker. i.e. just go to trade/vocational school for the last two years of high school and you can come out with a lot of certifications as an electrician, mechanic etc.

I don't know if those programs are offered everywhere though, I grow up in WV so they may be more prevalent in rural areas.

But at any rate, I do agree with him that people that just want out of the "rat race" as quick as possible are probably better for doing soemthing like that vs. delaying entering the workforce for 4+ years while getting a degree.

[docvinh]

Does the advanced degree allow you to finish the rat race earlier?

Not really related, but I thought it was an interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/us/06marry.html

[fatherofcaitlyn]

To be fair, he's all about getting out of the rat race as fast as possible.

Very good. Once out of the rat race, then what? Well, it is infinite number of choices. With your advanced degree, you're limited to a few options. If they remain lucrative, great. If not, somebody will claim the field became oversaturated.

[thrustbucket]

I've realized, while trying to stay up with this little discussion, how far removed I am from the mentality of a lot of you when it comes to life philosophy.

Those of you who are arguing against FOC seem to have what I've commonly heard referred to as "East Coast Mentality" which is career is number one in life, and it defines who you are. Especially from dmaul with what he says about how important career is and how little importance having a family is.

I guess I have "West Coast Mentality", where for most people, Career is a necessary evil. What happens outside your career is what you are really living for (Family usually, and friends).

I am assuming a lot, if not all of you, are residing in the East.

Anywho, just making an observation, I think it's interesting how different parts of the country are raised with different focuses and priorities...... carry on.

[camoor]

Yep. That's all my comment to FoC meant. I don't look down on regular folks who work a trade and raise a family.

I simply personally have more respect for people who better themselves intellectually and don't settle for just earning a paycheck and supporting a family.

I didn't say I don't respect such people at all, I simply have more respect for people who have loftier goals than just making ends meet and raising a family.

One can have those goals and also choose to get educated and work in a career that advances something rather than just providing a service. Of course all these trade services are needed by society so I do respect people who do them. I just simply value more people who have loftier goals. That's all.


As for the other crap above, what can I say. Even us highly educated folks have tempers, especially when making the mistake of getting in debates with people like Koggitt over stuff they know nothing about.

I'd just like to see all the nay-sayers try and explain their position to the average manual worker looking to immigrate to the USA. Seems to me all these conservative types are always pushing to raise the wall on the border while talking out the other side of their mouth about how much they respect the working man.

Fact is USA isn't letting you in from some third-world country unless you're ready to pay for a collegiate education, program a computer, heal the sick, peform ground-breaking research, or pump a large amount of dough into a US corporation. And isn't that evidence of a tacit valuation in of itself.

[dmaul1114]

Very good. Once out of the rat race, then what? Well, it is infinite number of choices. With your advanced degree, you're limited to a few options. If they remain lucrative, great. If not, somebody will claim the field became oversaturated.

Huh? I'm going into academia. I just have to bust ass for 6 years to get tenure then I have job security for life. Though I'll keep busting ass to get promoted to full professor after that, and will always work hard just because I love my work and think it's important.

I'm not in it because it's lucrative. Academic jobs in social science are not remotely lucrative given the amount of time it takes to get a Ph D and the amount of hours you work as a professor for that salary. You do it because you love the work, it's pretty much a job only work-a-holics need to apply for.

That was my point, I don't view working to make a living as the "rat race." I like my work, and do it for that reason, as well as to pay the bills. I don't work just to pay the bills like people in the rat race do.

[depascal22]

It's just that a good career can lead to a good life. Like that NYT article said, women don't want a guy that can't support a family. You can bitch all you want about how you don't want those kind of women until you realize that those are the only kind of women. There are exceptions of course but the article does tell some good stories about people marrying young and not making it because of finances.

On the flip side, what the hell is the point of living if you don't have any time to enjoy it?

[dmaul1114]

Those of you who are arguing against FOC seem to have what I've commonly heard referred to as "East Coast Mentality" which is career is number one in life, and it defines who you are. Especially from dmaul with what he says about how important career is and how little importance having a family is.


I am from the east coast, but I don't know that it's a east coast mentality. It's just an advanced degree--particularly Ph Ds who want to stay in academia, mentality. There's plenty of people on the east coast who are all about working as little as possible and spending time with family etc. But maybe the workaholic thing is more prevalent out here, I've never lived out west.

But it's definitely a Ph D mentality. You don't put all that time into getting a master's and Ph D if your career isn't your main life focus. You do it because you interested in a field and want to devote the bulk of your time to making advances in that field.

That doesn't mean I don't have a social life. I have a long-term girlfriend (in the same field) and a several close friends I hang out with once or twice a week.

As for family, it's not that I don't care, I just don't enjoy children nor have the time or patience to raise any of my own. Even if I wasn't career centered that would likely be the same as I've just never had a desire to have kids, even back when I took work less seriously as an undergrad etc.

[dmaul1114]

On the flip side, what the hell is the point of living if you don't have any time to enjoy it?

Well...

1. You have to enjoy doing the work. Not just "not mind doing it" but actually enjoy it.

2. Like I said above, I still have an active social life. Not wanting children helps with that as you can do social stuff whenever you want, rather than your life being consumed by work and raising children. Of course some enjoy children and that's fine.

[thrustbucket]

I'd just like to see all the nay-sayers try and explain their position to the average manual worker looking to immigrate to the USA. Seems to me all these conservative types are always pushing to raise the wall on the border while talking out the other side of their mouth about how much they respect the working man.

Fact is USA isn't letting you in from some third-world country unless you're ready to pay for a collegiate education, program a computer, heal the sick, peform ground-breaking research, or pump a large amount of dough into a US corporation. And isn't that evidence of a tacit valuation in of itself.

It looks to me like you are missing the point of the illegal immigration concern conservatives have.

Most people WANT to allow blue collar labor into the country. Most people are fine with it. They just want them all accounted for when they come.

[depascal22]

Yeah, they just want people to go through the proper channels to get into this country instead of just showing up and asking for a job.

[SpazX]

FoC -

Those were the most recent 2008 statistics. I dunno when exactly they surveyed it, but I'd guess it was pretty recent.

thrust -

You're not actually against liking your job are you? Everybody thinks that a career is a necessary evil if they don't like it. What Dmaul is trying to say is that he enjoys his work. I'd say that anybody who doesn't enjoy their work has set themselves up for a lot of misery. Personally I will enjoy my life outside of my career, I plan on having a family, I live on the east coast, but I also don't plan on having a career I hate so I can dread going into work every day just wishing for it to be over so I can enjoy something. I'm going to spend a lot of my life working, I think it's a good idea to enjoy it.

[thrustbucket]

No absolutely not. My father absolutely loves his job with a passion, and I'm very jealous of him. I think it's important, if possible, to enjoy what you do.

I guess what I'm talking about is what's most important to you in life. Because most people, myself included, don't spend most waking hours with what's most important to them, but it's necessary that we do so to support ourselves.

When I talk about the east coast mentality, I'm mostly talking about priorities. My friends that have lived on the east coast talk about how people out there are generally super ambitious in their careers, comparatively. People out here, out West, tend to be pretty lax about their jobs, and even if they enjoy them, they are nothing like the Japanese, where obsession with work is a virtue. On the East, I'm told, society smiles more on obsession with work.

[camoor]

It looks to me like you are missing the point of the illegal immigration concern conservatives have.

Most people WANT to allow blue collar labor into the country. Most people are fine with it. They just want them all accounted for when they come.

That's a nice sentiment. But the government under Republican leadership had a long time to change their immigration policy, and they didn't do it. It's all about opening the large door to educated and skilled workers, while opening a much much much smaller door to unskilled labor (that usually comes with preconditions such as political asylum or a commitment to enter the armed forces)

[thrustbucket]

I think you are over exaggerating.

Those same evil Republicans supposedly love the cheap labor force streaming across the boarder as well, right? Because it's higher profit margins for their greedy corporate backers, right?

I actually believe there is some truth to that, but it applies to both parties, unfortunately.

I think Educated and Skilled workers, compared to the illegals, are in a vast minority, and are usually kept overseas so we can outsource all our work for cheap that would otherwise cost a lot more (see India).

Of course Republicans have failed on immigration, but I don't think it's for the reasons you think it is.

Immigration reform remains the one issue neither party will appropriately address any time soon.

[SpazX]

No absolutely not. My father absolutely loves his job with a passion, and I'm very jealous of him. I think it's important, if possible, to enjoy what you do.

I guess what I'm talking about is what's most important to you in life. Because most people, myself included, don't spend most waking hours with what's most important to them, but it's necessary that we do so to support ourselves.

When I talk about the east coast mentality, I'm mostly talking about priorities. My friends that have lived on the east coast talk about how people out there are generally super ambitious in their careers, comparatively. People out here, out West, tend to be pretty lax about their jobs, and even if they enjoy them, they are nothing like the Japanese, where obsession with work is a virtue. On the East, I'm told, society smiles more on obsession with work.

Meh, I've certainly never met someone who would rather be working than not. I doubt any of that is confined to any region either. It would probably depend more on the job. Either 1) You really want to make a ton of money and so you're dedicated to the job for that purpose or 2) You think what you're doing really matters and so you're dedicated to it for that purpose. Discounting any outside pressure, of course.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

FoC -
Those were the most recent 2008 statistics. I dunno when exactly they surveyed it, but I'd guess it was pretty recent.

Glad to hear it.

Now, geographic distribution, please.

[SpazX]

Glad to hear it.

Now, geographic distribution, please.

That's no separated for that. They have surveys for different regions as well, you can find whatever you want at www.bls.gov.

Though I don't see how that's really relevant - obviously if you live in a place where there aren't any jobs that require a degree then the degree doesn't matter. That still doesn't change the average. I have no doubts that you can find several places in the US where your job prospects aren't any different with or without a degree.

[camoor]

I think you are over exaggerating.

Those same evil Republicans supposedly love the cheap labor force streaming across the boarder as well, right? Because it's higher profit margins for their greedy corporate backers, right?

I actually believe there is some truth to that, but it applies to both parties, unfortunately.

I think Educated and Skilled workers, compared to the illegals, are in a vast minority, and are usually kept overseas so we can outsource all our work for cheap that would otherwise cost a lot more (see India).

Of course Republicans have failed on immigration, but I don't think it's for the reasons you think it is.

Immigration reform remains the one issue neither party will appropriately address any time soon.

For the record I wasn't saying the immigration policy was evil - it's just a fact of life that educated people are considered more valueable to corporations, governments, and countries - no matter what political rhetoric you hear coming out of the nearest politician.

You're right in one respect - USA isn't taking in enough skilled workers, and that back-ass policy is going to hurt us in the long run.

http://www.coha.org/2008/07/skilled-labor-outdated-immigration-policy-threatens-us-economic-well-being/

[dmaul1114]

Meh, I've certainly never met someone who would rather be working than not. I doubt any of that is confined to any region either. It would probably depend more on the job. Either 1) You really want to make a ton of money and so you're dedicated to the job for that purpose or 2) You think what you're doing really matters and so you're dedicated to it for that purpose. Discounting any outside pressure, of course.

Yep, that's it in a nutshell, and I fall in category 2.



Though I don't see how that's really relevant - obviously if you live in a place where there aren't any jobs that require a degree then the degree doesn't matter. That still doesn't change the average. I have no doubts that you can find several places in the US where your job prospects aren't any different with or without a degree.

Yeah, I'm struggling to see what he's getting at here. Just trying to find something to support his view that college education is a waste of time I guess.

Which is pointless given I, and everyone else, has conceded that college isn't for everyone. It's just one way to get into a decent paying job, but not the only way in many fields. Yeah, engineering, medicine, law etc. you need degrees, but plenty of trade fields and even stuff like computer science you'll make more money faster by not spending 4+ years in college.

We've conceded that point, so I'm not sure what crusade he's on here with challenging those statistics. People with degrees make more on average--nationwide and within region/city from other stats I've seen. But that doesn't mean that everyone with a degree earns more than people without a degree in their field, or that college gets you out of the "rat race" faster which seems to be his main concern.

We've conceded that point. I just wish he'd quit crusading against college as being useless for everyone. It's not for everyone, but it's beneficial for many or most IMO. Be it through just the value of learning or having a higher earnings ceiling in their field (at the expense of delaying entering the workforce).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

That's no separated for that. They have surveys for different regions as well, you can find whatever you want at www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov).

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/atlanta/qcewkentucky.txt

This article is all I could find about Kentucky.

It doesn't mention education or college.

...

I dug a little deeper ...

Here are wages in my field in my metro area:

Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_31140.htm#b15-0000

Do you notice anything missing?

[dmaul1114]

It may be a tough stat to find as that's probably a field where most people in most of those postions have college degrees....so it may be hard to find a large enough sample of people working as say, database administrators, who only have high school diplomas to be able to compare mean/median salaries.

Just think of your situation. You got out of college and had a hard time getting a job because you were up against people who probably mostly had experience AND a degree--or just a lot of experience. While you had a degree and little to no experience probably.

Think of how much worse off you'd have been straight out of high school. Not saying the college was helpful, and maybe getting some technical certifications would have been faster and easier and got you on the market before it was so saturated. But it's not like the degree hurt your chances--though not doubt it was frustrating to put in the time and not have it pay off afterwards.

Again, college gets higher wages on average, but that doesn't mean it pays off for everyone. There's some look involved. This article is pretty good on this as it shows median salaries by education (more outdated the the info posted earlier though) but also tallks about how it doesn't pay off for everyone and that there are various factors to consider when deciding if college is the right thing to do.

http://www.salary.com/learning/layouthtmls/leal_display_nocat_Ser285_Par409.html

This from BLS also has the 2007 wages along with unemployment rates by education level. I can't find anything state level either though.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/edupay.jpg

There's just no disputing that on average education pays off. But that still doesn't mean that it's for everyone and that some people don't end up getting screwed as the market in a field changes over the 4+ years their in school--as the above article mentioned (and as happened to you).


Edit: The census has earnings by education level by state, but it's very outdated (given the last census was released in 2000).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1kyboth.html

[camoor]

It may be a tough stat to find as that's probably a field where most people in most of those postions have college degrees....so it may be hard to find a large enough sample of people working as say, database administrators, who only have high school diplomas to be able to compare mean/median salaries.

Just think of your situation. You got out of college and had a hard time getting a job because you were up against people who probably mostly had experience AND a degree--or just a lot of experience. While you had a degree and little to no experience probably.

Think of how much worse off you'd have been straight out of high school. Not saying the college was helpful, and maybe getting some technical certifications would have been faster and easier and got you on the market before it was so saturated. But it's not like the degree hurt your chances--though not doubt it was frustrating to put in the time and not have it pay off afterwards.

Again, college gets higher wages on average, but that doesn't mean it pays off for everyone. There's some look involved. This article is pretty good on this as it shows median salaries by education (more outdated the the info posted earlier though) but also tallks about how it doesn't pay off for everyone and that there are various factors to consider when deciding if college is the right thing to do.

http://www.salary.com/learning/layouthtmls/leal_display_nocat_Ser285_Par409.html

This from BLS also has the 2007 wages along with unemployment rates by education level. I can't find anything state level either though.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/edupay.jpg

There's just no disputing that on average education pays off. But that still doesn't mean that it's for everyone and that some people don't end up getting screwed as the market in a field changes over the 4+ years their in school--as the above article mentioned (and as happened to you).


Edit: The census has earnings by education level by state, but it's very outdated (given the last census was released in 2000).

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/earnings/call1kyboth.html

I think that's a pretty good summary. There will always be outliers, but on the whole education definitely raises your value.

It should go without saying - but I want to head the "but Bill Gates..." people off at the pass. If your parents are rich, can introduce to to well-connected people, and you are extremely self-motivated then there's a chance you can become a major success without anything more then a HS education and specialized training. You might also win the lottery.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

We've conceded that point, so I'm not sure what crusade he's on here with challenging those statistics.

We'll get there ...maybe.

I can make that advantage in pay shrink if we lay out some ground rules.

[mykevermin]

Someone explain to me how we got onto this topic.

How did we get so far from making fun of those people who express disdain for science and public funding of science?

[depascal22]

Talk to FoC

[dmaul1114]

We'll get there ...maybe.

I can make that advantage in pay shrink if we lay out some ground rules.

There's always going to be ways to shrink it, as average stats like that never tell the story for everyone at the individual level. There's always outliers.

But in the big picture, education pays off--on average.

For some people, and in some places, not as much. Take those old Kentucky census stats show a smaller difference, for instance. Kentucky isn't a great place to be with advanced degrees, or even college degrees to some extent. I grew up in WV and it's the same, you go to college to get the hell out of these rural areas. There's not much there job wise relative to other places. I have one university that has a semi decent department related to my field (a sociology department that has a criminology division--sort of) so I couldn't really go back even if I wanted to.

And it's much easier to get a job without a college degree in places like KY and WV as not as high a percentage of people in the job market have them. Somewhere like DC it's hard even with a degree as everyone has one, and many have master's or above, so often a bachelor's doesn't get your foot in many doors.

So beyond just being whether you want to make as much money as quickly as possible being a factor in whether college is worth it for you, you also have to factor in the market for your field in your area. If everyone in it has a bachelor's you better at least have that. If they don't, maybe you can get by with connections and some certifications etc.

Again, the value and need of college varies greatly from person to person, field to field and area to area. But it's silly to be so deadset in the mind frame to think that it's a waste of time for everyone, everywhere. Just as it's silly to say that college is for everyone and is the best way for everyone to make a good living. As is usually the case, the truth is more complicated and lies in between the extreme views.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

^So, no ground rules, huh?

[bmulligan]

What in? I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?

You must be really fun at parties.

[dmaul1114]

^So, no ground rules, huh?

There's no need to waste time on that. On average college pays off. Sometimes it doesn't. I'm not interested in the specifics of when it doesn't pay off. I've already conceded many times that it's not for everyone, and not by any means the only way, or always the best way, to make a nice salary fast.

You just need to stop implying that college is useless for everyone, in every field and we'll be all square. For some people college is the best way for them to achieve their goals--financial and other wise. For some people it's not.

There's no debate here.

[camoor]

And it's much easier to get a job without a college degree in places like KY and WV as not as high a percentage of people in the job market have them. Somewhere like DC it's hard even with a degree as everyone has one, and many have master's or above, so often a bachelor's doesn't get your foot in many doors.

Just FYI - DC is a town of connections. It's who you know more then what you know.

Don't just take my word, there are plenty of high profile examples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964_pf.html

College is a place where you can make those connections.

I just don't want you to that guy who comes to DC with a bunch of letters after your name only to get jaded when you're fired to make room for a kid who believes "Touched by an Angel" is a documentary.

[dmaul1114]

Just FYI - DC is a town of connections. It's who you know more then what you know.

Don't just take my word, there are plenty of high profile examples.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032901964_pf.html

College is a place where you can make those connections.

I just don't want you to that guy who comes to DC with a bunch of letters after your name only to get jaded when you're fired to make room for a kid who believes "Touched by an Angel" is a documentary.

Oh don't worry. I've been in the area for grad school for 6 years. :D Have little desire to stay after graduation. I was just using it to make the point that it's near impossible to get jobs in many cities without at least a degree. Often you need a degree (or advanced degree) AND connections. Though you're right, with the corruption out there many times it's all the connections.

Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?



You read that wrong. The latter part of what you quoted was the point I was making. There's not as much reason to expect an engineer, computer scienctist, chemist etc. to be more informed on politics just because they have a degree. Versus someone with a social science degree that had to take a lot of political science, history, sociology etc. to get their degree.

I cared little about politics until college, majoring in journalism and minoring in sociology started my interest. I can't imagine that would have happened if I'd stuck wtih computer science and not had to take so many classes in poli sci etc.

Clearly engineers can think obviously critically, but there's not reason to think they're degree has led them to seek out staying informed on politics. They may be informed, but their degree would have little to do with it versus someone that had a degree in political science, history etc.

And I'm quite fun at a party, thank you very much. Though probably not as much as you as I'm sure people love watching you get your ass kicked when you make smart ass remarks like you do on here all the time.

[bmulligan]

Sorry, but you've given no compelling evidence that we should expect a social science major to know anything more about politics than my plumber, or the guy who designed my car. I'm sure you're an expert in social engineering, but politics is a completely different theatre than the subset of leftist thought pervading social studies in academia.

I would theorize that the capacity of higher educated people to identify, integrate, and apply new information would make them very informed in political thinking, were they so inclined to read a newspaper, regardless of their specialty. I could be wrong, but I thought that the superior mental faculties of advanced degree holders could transpose their abilities into many other types of knowledge readily. But perhaps those skills are only taught in the theoretical sciences, not the lowly applied sciences.

I guess that makes you in partial agreement with me that science, or at least, the applied sciences aren't what advances society after all. They're merely cogs in the machinery of the truly advancing fields of critical thought and analysis. I'll enjoy the solace in a half agreement.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

There's no need to waste time on that.

Correct.

If we lay down ground rules, use the data on income levels at various education levels, use the average or range student loan ranges and interest rates to obtain various levels of education, we could construct an age when college or other advanced degrees pay off.

Is 18? 28? 38? 48? 58? 68? 78?

Well, we'd have to crunch some numbers and I might be wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll shrug and say, "I'm wrong. Oops."

[depascal22]

This thread isn't even about who's (sp?) dick is bigger. You guys are just arguing whether you should use inches or centimeters. See ya.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

This thread isn't even about who's (sp?) dick is bigger. You guys are just arguing whether you should use inches or centimeters. See ya.

OK. We'll get back on topic.

A lot of very intelligent people prefer Obama to McCain.

OK, that's nice. Most people at that level of formal education do.

/thread

Feel better?

[GuilewasNK]

You know, I think the biggest problem with governement and politics is all of us engage in the monday quarterback mentality. We think we are experts, we think we know everything, but I doubt any of us has been in elected office or ever ran for one. Class president doesn't count.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You know, I think the biggest problem with governement and politics is all of us engage in the monday quarterback mentality. We think we are experts, we think we know everything, but I doubt any of us has been in elected office or ever ran for one. Class president doesn't count.

How about college dorm council?

[Koggit]

Engineers don't know how to think critically, that's a good one. You know there is a world out there beyond those ivy covered walls, right?

You must be really fun at parties.

Holy crap, did he actually say this?

What in? I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

That's an actual dmaul quote?

HAHAHAHA

Dear god...

[dmaul1114]

Sorry, but you've given no compelling evidence that we should expect a social science major to know anything more about politics than my plumber, or the guy who designed my car.

All I was saying is that people who major is social sciences, political science, history etc. are going to have to take many more classes related to history and politics than someone who does engineering. So they're going to learn more about these topics in college and be more likely to be interested in and stay informed on politics in the future.

More likely being the key, of course some of them won't be and many people who majored in engineering or didn't go to college at all will be much more informed. But its hard to argue that taking numerous political science classes etc. doesn't spark more interest in the topic on average among these students.



I would theorize that the capacity of higher educated people to identify, integrate, and apply new information would make them very informed in political thinking, were they so inclined to read a newspaper, regardless of their specialty. I could be wrong, but I thought that the superior mental faculties of advanced degree holders could transpose their abilities into many other types of knowledge readily. But perhaps those skills are only taught in the theoretical sciences, not the lowly applied sciences.

Of course that is true for every major. I'm just saying interest is likely to be higher on average among thosue who got those skills plus spent a ton of time directly studying politics and history during their college careers. They have the skills and were forced to learn about and think about political issues.


I guess that makes you in partial agreement with me that science, or at least, the applied sciences aren't what advances society after all. They're merely cogs in the machinery of the truly advancing fields of critical thought and analysis. I'll enjoy the solace in a half agreement.

Nope. I'd agree education is only one part of the machine, but not science. Science is much more than a COG. One can think critically about cancer, but they aren't advancing a damn thing if they aren't in a lab testing treatments or prevention strategies etc. and finding factual ways to deal with the disease.

The same is true in every discipline. One can think of how to prevent crime, but is doing nothing to advance this if they're not working with police, or prison treatment programs etc. to apply their ideas and rigorously test whether they work.

Critcal though/philosophy is key, as it brings the ideas that science tests. But ideas along get no where if they're are not tested by science. Philosophy once thought the world to be flat. Science proved it to be round.

[dmaul1114]

Correct.

If we lay down ground rules, use the data on income levels at various education levels, use the average or range student loan ranges and interest rates to obtain various levels of education, we could construct an age when college or other advanced degrees pay off.

Is 18? 28? 38? 48? 58? 68? 78?

Well, we'd have to crunch some numbers and I might be wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll shrug and say, "I'm wrong. Oops."

If you're willing to do it, knock yourself out. I've already conceded that college isn't going to be the quickest way out of the rat race for many people, so I have no stake in this issue.

I also have no personal interest in what age it pays off for me. I'm sure it will be damn old, probably in my 50s or later given I'll be 30 or 31 when I start my real career. But like I said, I didn't go into this field for the finanacial benefits.

[dmaul1114]

That's an actual dmaul quote?

HAHAHAHA

Dear god...

Like I said, it was phrased a bit poorly. All I meant was my saying that people with degrees in social science and related fields should be more informed on politics didn't necessarily extend to engineers, computer science majors etc.

NOT because they can't think critically. Of course they can, their fields are built around critical thought.

But because they weren't forced to take a ton of political science classes, history classes etc. relative to people who majored in political science, history, sociology etc. and took a ton of classes.

Most kids going into college don't give a shit about politics. I've taught a few freshman level classes and these kids no jack shit about politics, with a few exceptions. The ones who have to take political science classes over there 4 years are more likely to gain more interest in the topic, than those who do not take those types of clases or only take one 100 level course as an elective.

Graduates in every major should have the critical thinking skills to be informed about politics, they just may not have the interest--and if they do it probably wasn't from exposure to the topics during their studies but just an interest they always had or developed on their own.

That's all I meant.

[Koggit]

I don't expect great intellectual debates with somone with masters degrees in computer science or engineering. They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc., so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber.

Graduates in every major should have the critical thinking skills to be informed about politics, they just may not have the interest--and if they do it probably wasn't from exposure to the topics during their studies but just an interest they always had or developed on their own.

That's all I meant.

You can't say one thing and claim to have meant the exact opposite

[dmaul1114]

You can't say one thing and claim to have meant the exact opposite

It was poorly phrased. The last part of what you quoted: "so I wouldn't expect them to be more articulate about say politics than my plumber."

Was the point I was trying to make, it just wasn't worded well. All my posts in this thread have been about how the overall value of college is in learning to think critically about issues and consider diverse points of view--in response to people saying it was just memorization

Clearly I'm not going to post that engineers don't have that skill. Every graduate of any half way decent college should get that benefit.

I simply left a word or two out here:

"They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically etc."

It should have read:

"They essentially have degrees in trade skills and haven't spent their academic career studying social issues, learning to think critically about politics and social issues etc."

I just don't expect the college experience of an engineer to have got them interested in politics. They were either interested already or got interested on their own. And if they got interested in them, they clearly have the critical thinking skills to be informed about the topic.

On the other hand people who took a lot of political science and similar classes may have gotten interested as a result of their college experience. I know I did, I didn't care jack about politics before taking some poli sci and history classes as an undergrad. Classes expose you to new ideas. My whole career is based of getting interested in Criminology from taking an intro to crim class as an elective, then deciding to minor in sociology and take several more crim classes.

[Koggit]

I'd understand if you were speaking strictly of polysci majors, but I don't think you are.

What's the difference between the social science classes you took as a journalism major and the social science classes I take as a physics major?

At UW Seattle, every student in the College of Arts & Sciences is required to take 25 credits of I&S (social sciences). Journalism, Physics, History, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc -- they all have the exact same requirement. Those 25 credits can even be completely disconnected from American politics. Even foreign languages can satisfy the requirement. You can major in journalism, learn Japanese, and get a degree. You can major in electrical engineering, learn Japanese, and get a degree all the same. Why would you expect the Journalism major (or history, or whatever) to be more informed than the engineer?

Your bounds seem awfully arbitrary to me. The whole "grad program rank matters, undergrad rank doesn't" thing also seems pretty arbitrary.

[dmaul1114]

What's the difference between the social science classes you took as a journalism major and the social science classes I take as a physics major?


It could vary by school I guess. As a journalism major I had to take 4 specific poli sci classes, 4 specific history classes, 3 econ classes etc. We didn't have many electives, they had our classes mapped out for us. I guess they wanted future reporters to have a good knowledge of these things. We only had like 9 or 12 hours of true electives where we could take whatever we wanted.

We were also required to choose a minor, and I choose sociology which gave me more. A lot of people minor in poli sci or history in the journalism program.

Where as, my friends that majored in engineering, chemistry etc. didn't have that, they just had a lot of electives too choose from, and could have taken no political science classes if they choose, or at most only had to take the lowest level introductory course.

But you're right, and other schools may require more social science classes among people in engineering, CS, hard sciences etc.


he whole "grad program rank matters, undergrad rank doesn't" thing also seems pretty arbitrary.

I never said undergrad ranking doesn't matter. I just said you made a bit too much of it.

Grad rankings matter more, as in grad school, especailly at the Ph D level, you are working directly with faculty not just taking classes from them. So it's important to gain the experience you get doing research with the leading faculty in your field. And having connections with these top scholars is crucial to getting a good job--particularly in academia. Who you're letters of reference are from are huge in where you get academic interviews. Being from a top school and having letters from leading scholars who are friends with other top scholars in other universities will get you interviews over people with more impressive CVs.

It's always important to go to a good school, I won't dispute that. But it's more important at the graduate level for a variety of reasons, in my opinion. Undergrad, as long as you have a high GPA from a decent school you're ok. My undergrad school is tier 3 in the US News rankings (so somewhere in the 51st-74th percentile--they only give exact rankings to the top 50%) and I got into the what is the top ranked graduate program in my field in their rankings.

So I guess my point is there is benefit for sure to going to a top ranked undergrad school, but there's not a lot of harm done in going to a lower ranked one. Where as at the graduate level, it's more important to be at top program, both for the experience and for trhe connections and reputation getting your foot in the door for interviews at other top schools.

But I will also say the grad school rankings are fairly aribitrary. For instance, my program rankings only go through like 12 or 13 schools as that's all the Ph D programs in my field that have been around long enough to be ranked. For the most part, I think students are fine at any of these schools. They all have solid faculties. Of course, it matters more in a field with 100s of Ph D programs, especially since you'll be in competition with a much larger pool of graduates every year.

Edit Also, one thing I'd add about undergraduate programs, is that at top schools/programs the senior faculty don't teach a lot of undergrad courses. For instance, in my program, most of the senior faculty at most teach one upper level undergrad course a year, and many only teach grad level courses. A lot of the undergrad courses are taught by adjunct lecturers and ABD Ph D students. So at top schools sometimes undergrads have less access to the faculty that earn the school that ranking. While the grad students are still getting taught by them and working on research with them etc.

Just one more thing to consider when thinking about undergrad rankings vs. graduate program rankings.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If you're willing to do it, knock yourself out. I've already conceded that college isn't going to be the quickest way out of the rat race for many people, so I have no stake in this issue.

I also have no personal interest in what age it pays off for me. I'm sure it will be damn old, probably in my 50s or later given I'll be 30 or 31 when I start my real career. But like I said, I didn't go into this field for the finanacial benefits.

However, you're convinced college is the most efficient route.

You need to stop explicitly stating "On average college pays off." unless you want to lay some ground rules. Then, the math can decide.

[dmaul1114]

However, you're convinced college is the most efficient route.

No I'm not. I've said many times for people that want to make as much money as quickly as possible it's probably more efficent to not go to college and to just learn a trade and be smart investing the money you earn vs. delaying work force entry 4+ years.


You need to stop explicitly stating "On average college pays off." unless you want to lay some ground rules. Then, the math can decide.

By on average, I mean the mean/median salaries above. That's indisputable. They're clearly higher and have lower unemployment rates. Ground rules can change that, for instance I'm sure it's not true in a lot of fields and those averages are no doubt inflated by high paying fields like engineering, medicine, law etc. etc. which require degrees or advanced degrees for entry into the job market.

But on average, it's higher. End of story. Is it higher for everyone? Nope. Is it higher in every field? Nope. Does it vary by area? yep. But it's indisputably higher on average when you lump everyone together as in those BLS stats. That's all I'm saying. It's higher on average, it's needed in some fields, and you get more benefit if you don't major in an oversaturated field. That's all I'm saying. there are tons of exceptions where college isn't ideal for someone.

Again, if people only care about making $$$ as fast as possible, then they shouldn't go to college in many cases. They'll get their $$$ faster by working hard in a trade and being smart with money.

It's a win-win. They get their precious $$$ faster and I have less people who don't care about learning and just want a degree in my classes.

As for the ground rules, it's hard to set anyway. Is your goal to get out of the "rat race" as fast as possible? Or is it to earn the most salary possible over your life time? For the first, college isn't always the best. For the latter college probably wins more often since you have a higher ceiling with a degree in many fields. But even in both cases there will be exceptions to those general trends.

So it's really a pointless exercise. Everyone just needs to evaluate their goals, the field they want to work in, the area they want to live, and decide if college is a worthwhile investment for them.

[trq]

Someone explain to me how we got onto this topic.

How did we get so far from making fun of those people who express disdain for science and public funding of science?

Beats me. I was incredibly disheartened by the anti-intellectual bullshit in the first half of the thread ... now I'm just bored.

[thrustbucket]

I was going to say something simmilar to TRQ. Except it's not anti-intellectual, it's wannabe intellectual.

When will this thread get off the merry-go-round?

[dmaul1114]

Beats me. I was incredibly disheartened by the anti-intellectual bullshit in the first half of the thread ... now I'm just bored.

I'm bored as well, hence the long posts. Procrastinating writing the boring last chapter (data collection methodology) to my dissertation prospectus.

But I'm glad to have drowned out the anti-intellectual bullshit. Though it wasn't that drowned out, see bmulligan's post above on this page.

[thrustbucket]

Well I think each of you have stated the same things at least 7 or 8 times by now.

[dmaul1114]

I was going to say something simmilar to TRQ. Except it's not anti-intellectual, it's wannabe intellectual.


Wannabe intellectuals? Those posts started with bashing of Nobel Laureates, who are hardly wannabe intellectuals. Also, I'd say anyone with Ph D from a decent program is far from a wannabe intellectual. You can't get through comps/qualifiers if you're not intellectually inclined, much less complete a dissertation meeting the standards of good doctoral programs.

Well I think each of you have stated the same things at least 7 or 8 times by now.

No doubt. I'm pretty tired of going in circles on this stuff. FoC is too anti college to soften his views, and I'm not going to soften my views on the value of college any more than I already have by clearly stating repeatingly that it's not for everyone.

[thrustbucket]

Wannabe intellectuals? Those posts started with bashing of Nobel Laureates, who are hardly wannabe intellectuals. Also, I'd say anyone with Ph D from a decent program is far from a wannabe intellectual. You can't get through comps/qualifiers if you're not intellectually inclined, much less complete a dissertation meeting the standards of good doctoral programs.


Just because someone might be a real intellectual, doesn't mean every conversation they have on the internet is an intellectual conversation. That's what I meant.

[dmaul1114]

Just because someone might be a real intellectual, doesn't mean every conversation they have on the internet is an intellectual conversation. That's what I meant.

Oh of course.

I try to stay out of intellectual conversations on the net...which is why I'm often absent from this forum for long stretches.

If you have an intellectual job, it's not much of a break to hop online and have intellectual discussions.

I'd rather just hop on CAG and shoot shit about games, rile up fan boys etc. to kill some time and take a break most of the time. But I'm in hardcore procrastination mode now...will have this damn prospectus 1st draft done by the weekend though!

But that doesn't really get at TRQs point of being disheartened by people being anti-intellectual, by bashing science, education, etc.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

But that doesn't really get at TRQs point of being disheartened by people being anti-intellectual, by bashing science, education, etc.

Just checking: Did I bash science?

[dmaul1114]

Just checking: Did I bash science?

Nope, that was bmulligan and to a lesser extent Thrust (his was more education).

[bmulligan]

Just checking: Did I bash science?

It was I.

And I wasn't bashing science, just the claim that science advances society. Then there's the further reaching claim that government sponsored science research is the only way to sufficiently fund said science.

I still haven;t gotten an adequate definition of what advancement of society means apart from we drive better cars and know how to zap some cancers with drugs and radiation. If anything, this implies that the applied sciences (the ones seemingly frowned upon as plebeian, or unintellectual) are what hold claim on advancement, not the theory about weather dark matter exists.

Name one government sponsored scientific breakthrough that has advanced society, please. Anyone, please ?

[trq]

Name one government sponsored scientific breakthrough that has advanced society, please. Anyone, please ?

Hint: we're using one right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation

[dmaul1114]

I don't have the patience to argue the usefulness of science, or need for government funding any more than I already did, as my earlier explanations were sufficient IMO. And more generally, I'm not wanting to procrastinate enough to argue against ignorant, fringe views that aren't really worth recognizing.

Though I will say that I agree that applied science is what I do and believe in. You're the one who was touting philosophy as being so great. I have little patience for theoretical science. I see the value in it, as we have to have new ideas to test, but my work is all about taking theory and applying it to real world programs (policing strategies for the most part currently) and seeing if they work.

[Allnatural]

Hint: we're using one right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#Creation
I want to agree, but then I see sites like 4chan and myspace...

[bmulligan]

I don't have the patience to argue the usefulness of science, or need for government funding any more than I already did, as my earlier explanations were sufficient IMO. And more generally, I'm not wanting to procrastinate enough to argue against ignorant, fringe views that aren't really worth recognizing.

Though I will say that I agree that applied science is what I do and believe in. You're the one who was touting philosophy as being so great. I have little patience for theoretical science. I see the value in it, as we have to have new ideas to test, but my work is all about taking theory and applying it to real world programs (policing strategies for the most part currently) and seeing if they work.

It's unfortunate you don't seem to have enough patience for much of anything and prefer insults as a substitute.

No one is arguing against the usefulness of science. We all enjoy its benefits, and science obviously has it's uses, none of which can teach a child to read, ride a bike, instruct someone how to calculate a derivative, or make an Acapulco sunset any more beautiful. It may allow us to kill more efficiently, communicate faster and less meaningfully, calculate and profit more effectively, but aren't there just as many detriments to these "advances" as benefits? Many of the "liberals" here argue exactly that - that our efficiency in these and many more areas is what's wrong with society.

Ignorance is bliss, even for the over-educated.

[dmaul1114]

I don't buy the whole efficiency equals bad for society thing. People just have to be smart enough to take care of themselves and not be lazy. Having things to make everyday tasks easier, for instance, doesn't preclude going to the gym, going for runs, hiking, eating well etc. It all comes down to personal responsibility.

And the good things far outweigh any negatives in my view. Advances in health care out weigh negatives of advances in technology making people lazy. Average life expectancies are way up from centuries past do to advances in science. etc. etc.

And sorry, but I don't have much respect for people who don't realize that and demean science and the need for public funding of science.

Much research is not profitable and thus would not be sufficiently funded by the private sector. Look at the space program and the billions and billions that have went into it. It doesn't make a cent. There's no current profit in exploring space, landing on mars etc. It's simply a scientific endeveaor to gain more knowledge about the universe. Maybe in a century or two we'll be colonizing another planet and there will be profit involved and there may be more private funding. But for now it's up to governments to fund this quest for knowledge.

Yes there are those who say it's a waste of time and shouldn't be paid for. But I don't waste my time having discussions with people who don't value the quest for knowledge in all disciplines. Again, I view knowledge as what makes us human, and there's no greater work a person can do than working to advance human understanding.

[mykevermin]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-nobel-economics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I bet y'all anti-intellectual types hate the shit out of this.

:lol:

[ananag112]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-nobel-economics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I bet y'all anti-intellectual types hate the shit out of this.

:lol:

Oh shit! I didn't think he would win.

He was on CNN almost every day during the bailouts.

[bmulligan]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-nobel-economics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I bet y'all anti-intellectual types hate the shit out of this.

:lol:

Because another "liberal" won a Nobel? Big surprise there. At least it brings us back on topic.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I saw Krugman on CNBC this morning. That darned liberal media spent most of the interview trying to get him to give socialism his seal of approval.

[camoor]

It's unfortunate you don't seem to have enough patience for much of anything and prefer insults as a substitute.

No one is arguing against the usefulness of science. We all enjoy its benefits, and science obviously has it's uses, none of which can teach a child to read, ride a bike, instruct someone how to calculate a derivative, or make an Acapulco sunset any more beautiful. It may allow us to kill more efficiently, communicate faster and less meaningfully, calculate and profit more effectively, but aren't there just as many detriments to these "advances" as benefits? Many of the "liberals" here argue exactly that - that our efficiency in these and many more areas is what's wrong with society.

Ignorance is bliss, even for the over-educated.

Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.

[Msut77]

Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.

It is an amalgam of talk radio, anonymous emails and things he hears at sleazy bars.

[camoor]

It is an amalgam of talk radio, anonymous emails and things he hears at sleazy bars.

:rofl::applause:

[The Crotch]

It may allow us to... communicate faster and less meaningfully...
Stop it with your fast and meaningless communication.

[RAMSTORIA]

off topic, howd dmaul get a temp ban?

[SpazX]

off topic, howd dmaul get a temp ban?

I was wondering the same thing, it might have something to do with the GGT.

[thrustbucket]

What is GGT?

[RAMSTORIA]

general gaming thread.

[bmulligan]

Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.

It's important in any discussion to define terms. The assumption that societal "advancement" is a function of scientific research just doesn't make sense to me. I wanted to know how the good doctor defined "advancement" so that we could then argue the finer points of the discussion. All I got in return was "I don't deal with people who disagree with me."

I would have thought an aspiring PhD candidate would welcome a good semantic discussion, or maybe be adept at creating an original thought. Unfortunately, instead of bothering to question the world of assumptive constructs, he, and all the rest of you, prefer blind existence in a universe, accepting everything as defined by your superiors as truth.

But, I suppose the academic social sciences are just as paradigmatic and dogmatic as the genuine sciences.;) Real higher knowledge usually transcends these boundaries.

[thrustbucket]

I would have thought an aspiring PhD candidate would welcome a good semantic discussion, or maybe be adept at creating an original thought. Unfortunately, instead of bothering to question the world of assumptive constructs, he, and all the rest of you, prefer blind existence in a universe, accepting everything as defined by your superiors as truth.



Just to be fair, I personally don't know a PhD that isn't like this.

[mykevermin]

This whole conversation about whether or not society advances from sciences is so fuckin' absurd on the surface that it isn't worth discussing, Ph.D. or no.

Let me offer up a corollary that's similarly asinine: the economy does nothing to advance society.

[SpazX]

No man, Bmugs is right. What is "advancement"? I mean, aren't we all just running in the rat race working for the man? You could think "advancement" in society means that people are generally better off, live longer lives, don't work as hard, etc., but that's just how the man defines it. Is our society really any more advanced than one where people live til 35 working hard all day as a peasant incapable of improving ones life?

And what is "blue"? Blue is just a wavelength of light man, just a reflection off a surface interpreted by your brain as a separate color from other light, so is anything really blue?

Oh man, you're so deep bmugs.

[bmulligan]

No man, Bmugs is right. What is "advancement"? I mean, aren't we all just running in the rat race working for the man? You could think "advancement" in society means that people are generally better off, live longer lives, don't work as hard, etc., but that's just how the man defines it. Is our society really any more advanced than one where people live til 35 working hard all day as a peasant incapable of improving ones life?
.

Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.

[SpazX]

Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.

I think you're simply grasping onto part of the answer just so you're not wrong. Obviously political changes have changed social structures for the better, but scientific advancements have also improved life and society. Medical advances and technological advances from vaccinations to germ theory to plows to tractors to electricity to microwaves to computers to the internet. They have profound effects on both individuals and society as a whole. Not every effect is necessarily positive (what does "positive" even mean!), but overall people's lives have improved and society has "advanced" because of scientific advances.

You can't argue that scientific advances have a worse effect on society than political ones unless you only focus on the positive political changes. There is plenty of good and bad to both scientific and political advances.

Political advances aren't always predecessors to scientific ones or vice versa, they work together. Tools created for farming had an undeniable effect on how societies organized themselves, and theory led to machines, which led to industrialization, which had a huge effect on political structures, just to name a few big ones.

[SoonerMatt]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I've supported Obama since he got the ticket.

The Nobel Peace Prize might have lost its sparkle, but the science ones are still the biggest honor you can get.

[mykevermin]

Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.

TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPBBBBBB.

Really, for fuck's sake, type something worth debating. This kind of argument is crap. It's like saying Guiding Light is a better show than Days of Our Lives (real answer? All My Children. empirically provable).

Next time you step on a nail, or run the risk of picking up polio, have fresh vegetables in the wintertime, communicate with dozens of assholes on CAG, find your job is made simpler thanks to your computer and the internet, find that the chickenbreasts you bought 4 months ago aren't decayed thanks to refrigeration, fill your tank with unleaded and discover that you've reached 200,000 miles on one engine, bought an item that was thought of in the us, manufactured in China, and shipped to the US -

are you going to thank "political structure" over "science"?

I'm sure you will, out of the need for "philosophical consistency." But you're just being a pedantic brat at that point.

Or you're just being a semantic prat.

I mean - really, now. You - YOU - are praising government and the political structure? P'shaw. Now you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

[bmulligan]

TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPBBBBBB.

Really, for fuck's sake, type something worth debating. This kind of argument is crap. It's like saying Guiding Light is a better show than Days of Our Lives (real answer? All My Children. empirically provable).

Next time you step on a nail, or run the risk of picking up polio, have fresh vegetables in the wintertime, communicate with dozens of assholes on CAG, find your job is made simpler thanks to your computer and the internet, find that the chickenbreasts you bought 4 months ago aren't decayed thanks to refrigeration, fill your tank with unleaded and discover that you've reached 200,000 miles on one engine, bought an item that was thought of in the us, manufactured in China, and shipped to the US -

are you going to thank "political structure" over "science"?

I'm sure you will, out of the need for "philosophical consistency." But you're just being a pedantic brat at that point.

Or you're just being a semantic prat.

I mean - really, now. You - YOU - are praising government and the political structure? P'shaw. Now you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

I'm glad you've decided to join the dark side and honor the achievements of men, their profit, and relative advancement they've bestowed upon society through innovation and technology. It was most graciously accomplished without the Socialist overlords directing scientific breakthrough.

Now, if only you could reconcile your new found beliefs with your campaign to save the earth from technological destruction brought to you by the same people that gave you that refrigerator and microwave. Be truthful, Myke, you HATE technology, it's wasteful.

There's also that annoying conscience of yours that says we all need to be saved from ourselves, our evil nature, and inability to provide for our own needs and make good decisions without the help of the common good, or the State, whichever you prefer.

I feel the conflict within you. Which is it, Myke? Are we more advanced because we're idiots who can't care for themselves? Or are we heroes because we can boil water in a minute thirty yet can't decide whether to buy an SUV or a Toyota Prius? There is only surface with your attempts at argument, Myke, and no depth at all.

[mykevermin]

:lol:

Now you're just trollin', pudding pop.

One of these days you're going to come out of your house when I'm in Michigan, we're going to do shots of Jameson, and I'm gonna find out whether you're a prat who just likes to pisstake on the internet like the dime-a-dozen myriad, or if you're really a blithering idiot.

Because I can assure you, I am who I come off as. But I refuse to believe that you can stream together so many big words in a sentence and manage to come off as a rambling simpleton without doing so intentionally.