|
Post by Death on Mar 19, 2009 6:36:13 GMT -5
Oh for the love of all that is sacred... Attack the ideas, not the person. Show how people are wrong. This is supposed to be intellectual discourse, not "You're a dumbass, so I don't have to prove you wrong." And seriously, there's no bloody need to bring Mormonism in on this. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a fraud, delusional, or the real deal is irrelevant to this discussion. Adoylelb90815 and DevilsChaplin, I'm looking at you. As to arrogant asses, every profession has them. Especially in cases where it takes a lot of time and training to get there. Does anyone deny that there are arrogant doctors? Politicians? Why should teachers be any different, especially the ones that are in advanced fields? Now, start to address his damn points. If you can't show why he's wrong (he's stated that there are arrogant douchebags in the education field) but instead have to snipe at him as a person and his history, take it to Flame and Burn. I'll repost his original post. It can be a bit of a vicious circle, tho, as there are some people in academia and other places that regard anyone who isn't as "elite" as they are to be unwashed and ignorant. What's really needed is for both sides to get over themselves. What's wrong with this? Seriously? The presence of pompous asses can lead to additional resentment. There most certainly are pompous asses in every damn career. He never said anything about all people in academia being arrogant. And Julian, buddy? Try to post an actual rebuttal instead of trying to call Skyfire an idiot. This isn't a difficult concept. That goes for you, too, Death and Ironbite. Show where he's wrong. Behave like adults or this thread will be locked. For reference, behaving like adults means "Showing how Skyfire is wrong" not "Skyfire's a failed tutor and has a history of talking out of his ass, so we don't have to prove him wrong!" As a final note, the next post to bring up Mormonism without actually showing how it has any bearing on this subject gets deleted. All of us mods are sick of this bullshit, and it is going to stop. Here's what's wrong with it. Our society has "democratised" ability to the point where intelligence is seen as somehow a bad thing, elitist to be exact. Then there is the old judeo-christian idea that people shouldn't be proud of their acheivements. The truth is , some people are more intelligent, whatever the definition, than others, and some of those work hard at making the most of that ability. Democritisation has put a value judgement on people who are academic achievers, in school and elsewhere. Their abilities and efforts are belittled because you know, everyone can read and add now, so if they wanted they could be just as smart , just as successful as the intelligent people, they think they just need to study a bit. Then there is knowing put downs of the intelligent to try to stop any influence they have. You know, sometimes people are smarter and they know it. Very few of them make a value judgement about other people, because they know it isn't everything. Some people are smarter , some are way smarter and many use that and become successful. What do youse guys want, false humility, would nerds lacking confidence make you feel more comfortable. Get over it. btw, I haven't met an "average" person yet who is willing to put in the hours of hard work it takes to acheive in any field that requires brains.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 7:14:32 GMT -5
That does nothing to prove why Skyfire's post that Nappy quoted is wrong. In fact, you had two academics tell you his descriptions of some people in academia are spot on. They're not assholes because of the cultural response to being smart. They're just plain old assholes.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 7:23:07 GMT -5
CH & DV, I agree, wholeheartedly, with what you have said. Having agreed with you, does not mean that what Skyfire was alluding to is in any way valid. An ad-hominem attack on those who we call academics does not in any manner whatever, take away from the accomplishments academic research and teaching. Yes, many professors are arrogant and downright boorish asses. They are also often brilliant, in their chosen field of study. DV, you teach the morons that graduate high school, who often cannot express themselves in the English language beyond a functional grade 9 level of comprehension and grammar. Doesn't that piss you off? Don't you feel rage when you mark some of the papers that are turned in to you for grading? How long have you been teaching? Imagine, then, having watched the gradual dummification of our society during a thirty or forty year tenure. I would turn into an asshole, too. It still doesn't diminish one's academic acheivements, and doesn't, for sure, Skyfire's ridiculous assertions. I've been teaching for under five years, but please do not use that to dismiss my experience with academia. I've been in school personally for much longer than that, both as a grad student and as an undergrad, both in the humanities depts. and outside of it. I don't feel "rage" when I grade, and if I did, I'd quit teaching. I also don't teach morons. I teach kids. Some of them aren't even 18 years old when they come to me. Some of their grammar sucks. Some of it sucks hard. But I have only found a few cases were sucky grammar meant a student was an idiot. I have a kid right now who can't write for shit--but he's one of the smartest kids I have. He has a couple of disabilities including dyslexia. But he's incredibly smart. Sometimes their irresponsibility aggravates me. I won't lie and say I never get fed up with them, because I do from time to time. But they're not stupid, and I don't judge them by their grammar skills--I judge them by the content they can produce, which can really be quite good--good enough to be talked about at the national conference in San Francisco, actually. Being a brilliant researcher is a non sequitor--one can still be an elitist asshole and be a great researcher. One point doesn't disqualify the other. There are plenty of people who look at you cross eyed for reading the "wrong" thing.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 19, 2009 10:32:00 GMT -5
No, I didn't say anything in this particular thread about my firing being personal. Rather, I identified the person I worked for as the type who tended to have the kinds of issues that people who are anti-academia often pick up on. As for why I was let go, the official reason is that I and the other two English tutors weren't needed, and so when the state-wide budget cuts came rolling around we were some employees who could let go. The reason I suspect is that we had more seniority than she did and so remembered what things were like before she took over (in fact, one of the other English tutors was up for the supervisor spot); she was trying to stuff the department with people who would follow her style of doing things, and we were roadblocks because we recognized what she was doing (including the fact that she could be downright unprofessional at times) and were in a position to call her out on it if she ever got bad enough. Would you believe that it's happened before to where I've known the odd bit of information or caught onto a detail that a prof missed? IE, for my business statistics class the prof had it so that we did our homework on an online system known as Homework Manager. As I was usually at least a full chapter ahead of the rest of the class and we could do our homework at our own pace, I was the one who kept finding all the places where the answer key was wrong; the people who set up HM had tried to pass a beta version of the program off on us as the actual product, and so the answer key being wrong in places wound up being a warning concerning other screw-ups. My findings resulted in the prof going back and personally looking over every single thing on HM, both to verify what I came up with and let the other students know what was and wasn't correct. I pretty much saved everyone's grades in that class, as the key was so fouled that nobody was getting higher than a C on any of the homework.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 19, 2009 11:02:53 GMT -5
I can't help but think that all the venom towards sky is just fueling his fursecution. Not that I agree with him, but doesn't it just validate most of what he says?
So back to the topic. The problem is, that while there are academics who are elitist jerks, there are people in every field who are elitist jerks, even if they have no real reason to feel elite. So simply arguing some level of attitude in academia is really kind of pointless, unless anyone's going to actually demonstrate instead that the number is higher. I've met elitist teachers. I've met elitist scholars. I've also met elitist gas pumpers and fry cooks. A lot of people think they're God's gift, regardless of their talents, station, or whatever else you might judge it on.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 11:30:27 GMT -5
Hm. A good point, schiz. I think the difference might be that in academia, the people there have attained something that not everyone else can, either because of a lack of ability or a lack of means or some other lack. So with hating academia, it's more about jealousy on the part of the people who don't have that kind of education, occasionally (but certainly not always) fueled by an attitude that some academics have who sincerely believe they are better than other people because of it. The same cannot necessarily be said of a fry cook just because of his position. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 19, 2009 11:55:09 GMT -5
Oh for the love of all that is sacred... Attack the ideas, not the person. Show how people are wrong. This is supposed to be intellectual discourse, not "You're a dumbass, so I don't have to prove you wrong." And seriously, there's no bloody need to bring Mormonism in on this. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a fraud, delusional, or the real deal is irrelevant to this discussion. Adoylelb90815 and DevilsChaplin, I'm looking at you. As to arrogant asses, every profession has them. Especially in cases where it takes a lot of time and training to get there. Does anyone deny that there are arrogant doctors? Politicians? Why should teachers be any different, especially the ones that are in advanced fields? Now, start to address his damn points. If you can't show why he's wrong (he's stated that there are arrogant douchebags in the education field) but instead have to snipe at him as a person and his history, take it to Flame and Burn. I'll repost his original post. What's wrong with this? Seriously? The presence of pompous asses can lead to additional resentment. There most certainly are pompous asses in every damn career. He never said anything about all people in academia being arrogant. And Julian, buddy? Try to post an actual rebuttal instead of trying to call Skyfire an idiot. This isn't a difficult concept. That goes for you, too, Death and Ironbite. Show where he's wrong. Behave like adults or this thread will be locked. For reference, behaving like adults means "Showing how Skyfire is wrong" not "Skyfire's a failed tutor and has a history of talking out of his ass, so we don't have to prove him wrong!" As a final note, the next post to bring up Mormonism without actually showing how it has any bearing on this subject gets deleted. All of us mods are sick of this bullshit, and it is going to stop. Here's what's wrong with it. Our society has "democratised" ability to the point where intelligence is seen as somehow a bad thing, elitist to be exact. Then there is the old judeo-christian idea that people shouldn't be proud of their acheivements. The truth is , some people are more intelligent, whatever the definition, than others, and some of those work hard at making the most of that ability. Democritisation has put a value judgement on people who are academic achievers, in school and elsewhere. Their abilities and efforts are belittled because you know, everyone can read and add now, so if they wanted they could be just as smart , just as successful as the intelligent people, they think they just need to study a bit. Then there is knowing put downs of the intelligent to try to stop any influence they have. You know, sometimes people are smarter and they know it. Very few of them make a value judgement about other people, because they know it isn't everything. Some people are smarter , some are way smarter and many use that and become successful. What do youse guys want, false humility, would nerds lacking confidence make you feel more comfortable. Get over it. btw, I haven't met an "average" person yet who is willing to put in the hours of hard work it takes to acheive in any field that requires brains. To a point you are correct. There seems to be a prevailing view in education these days that we can defy the bell curve, and that the comparative success of the gifted has to be curtailed to avoid hurting the feelings of other students. In that event, all that happens is that gifted students end up not being challenged and pushed to achieve their potential because achievements and assesments are reduced to cater to the lowest common denominator. But that said, there is more to intelligence than academia. S'why I reckon these "vocational qualifications" we get here could be great if done correctly (but as ever, the government is determined to ruin them with their shite).
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 19, 2009 12:01:00 GMT -5
Just a little anecdote:
I graduated from sixth form (the last year of high school) with "A" grades in chemistry and physics and "B" grades in electronics and maths, my chemistry result was in the top 100 in the country...this was all despite the usual teenage asshattery, turning up to exams drunk/hungover/sleep deprived, doing the bare minimum of revision etc.
During my first year at university, one of our lecturers made us sit an A level exam paper from the 70s as a class exercise. The grade I came out with in that would have got me a D on the modern grade scale.
I know it's hardly a controlled and scientific test, but it does illustrate how the criteria for exams has changed down the years.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 19, 2009 12:11:38 GMT -5
I'm working on my second degree right now, one thing I've noticed is that the school is much more lax than it was my first time through. I don't know if it's because it's a different school, or if this is something that's just happening.
When I took stats, we actually had people in the class who didn't understand why -5 + 7 =/= -12
It used to be that if you didn't have your project in by the due date, unless you had a damn good reason, you got a 0. Now it seems they allow you right up to the very end. I've seen people handing in all their projects at the final exam.
Talking about finals. We used to do them in the gym or some other giant room. There was no way of cheating off of each other because while you were writing an accounting final the people around you were in completely different courses.
Yeah, schooling in general has become quite lax.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 19, 2009 12:15:52 GMT -5
It used to be that if you didn't have your project in by the due date, unless you had a damn good reason, you got a 0. Now it seems they allow you right up to the very end. I've seen people handing in all their projects at the final exam. What the hell kind of policy is that? Here, if you don't get it in by the deadline to the minute they stop accepting submissions and you get 0. If you have a valid reason, you fill out an extenuating circumstances form and it goes before an arbitration panel. They don't accept "the bus didn't turn up" or queuing delays at the office as legitimate circumstances, either.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 19, 2009 13:17:18 GMT -5
That does nothing to prove why Skyfire's post that Nappy quoted is wrong. In fact, you had two academics tell you his descriptions of some people in academia are spot on. They're not assholes because of the cultural response to being smart. They're just plain old assholes. Sky's post made generalisations and was verbally abusive. A few anecdotes is not proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 15:41:22 GMT -5
Back to the OP. The entire concept of the "intellectual elites" is made up. People resent that which they don't understand. Admittedly, there are assholes and pompous jerks amongst the intelligensia, but, often that behaviour is the result of exposure to simplistic morons who make personal attacks on the intellectual in question, rather than on their ideas, or worse, take their ideas out of context and attempt to simplify what are often complex issues. The term "academic elites" is a misnomer, in the conservative parlance. They are often castigated by said academics for their simplistic world views, and rather than debate honestly, resort to ad-hominem attacks on their personalities and behaviours, rather than on the ideas themselves. To them, the conservative attackers, an elitist is someone who points out the fallacies of their world view, and are, therefore, elitist. It is a false argument. Higher education does not equate to elitism, in the conservative parlance. Higher education is merely that, more learning. Often, academians specializations seem obscure to those outside the academic milieu, and often misunderstood, and more often, misinterpreted intentionally. By focusing on the academic elites, the conservative set takes our focus off of the economic elites who really control things. It is the old bait and switch, slight of hand argument that is inherently meaningless. THIS is the point that I have been trying to make. THIS is why I called Skyfire out. THIS refutes his blanket statement about "academic" elites, and gives proper insight into what the OP was referring to. Skyfire aside, this adresses the OP.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 15:50:23 GMT -5
CH & DV, I agree, wholeheartedly, with what you have said. Having agreed with you, does not mean that what Skyfire was alluding to is in any way valid. An ad-hominem attack on those who we call academics does not in any manner whatever, take away from the accomplishments academic research and teaching. Yes, many professors are arrogant and downright boorish asses. They are also often brilliant, in their chosen field of study. DV, you teach the morons that graduate high school, who often cannot express themselves in the English language beyond a functional grade 9 level of comprehension and grammar. Doesn't that piss you off? Don't you feel rage when you mark some of the papers that are turned in to you for grading? How long have you been teaching? Imagine, then, having watched the gradual dummification of our society during a thirty or forty year tenure. I would turn into an asshole, too. It still doesn't diminish one's academic acheivements, and doesn't, for sure, Skyfire's ridiculous assertions. I've been teaching for under five years, but please do not use that to dismiss my experience with academia. I've been in school personally for much longer than that, both as a grad student and as an undergrad, both in the humanities depts. and outside of it. I don't feel "rage" when I grade, and if I did, I'd quit teaching. I also don't teach morons. I teach kids. Some of them aren't even 18 years old when they come to me. Some of their grammar sucks. Some of it sucks hard. But I have only found a few cases were sucky grammar meant a student was an idiot. I have a kid right now who can't write for shit--but he's one of the smartest kids I have. He has a couple of disabilities including dyslexia. But he's incredibly smart. Sometimes their irresponsibility aggravates me. I won't lie and say I never get fed up with them, because I do from time to time. But they're not stupid, and I don't judge them by their grammar skills--I judge them by the content they can produce, which can really be quite good--good enough to be talked about at the national conference in San Francisco, actually. Being a brilliant researcher is a non sequitor--one can still be an elitist asshole and be a great researcher. One point doesn't disqualify the other. There are plenty of people who look at you cross eyed for reading the "wrong" thing. DV, I was in NO WAY attempting to diminish your teaching carreer. What I was trying to bring out was that tenured professors, with many many years of dealing with know-it-all, but simple students, get crusty. That is all I was trying to say. The whole issue is not about whether a few, or even many, academians have personality problems. The issue is the labelling of them as "elites", or calling their positions "ivory towers". All of the blanket condemnation of the academia comes from the right, who focus attention there to mask their own horseshit. This is why academia has been maligned. People will condemn that which they don't understand, or don't wish to understand, when it interferes with their world view. Conservatives do it as part of the scape-goating methods that they employ, to focus animosity on a small group, instead of on the real problems. That is the whole point I was trying to make. Not once did I disagree that there are some assholes in the academia. So what if there are. The broad brush of the right in condemning academia sells well to the great unwashed, specifically the Republican base, whose vitriol towards the educated in general and science in particular is a means to an end. Am I making more sense now? I don't care to discuss anecdotal evidence, because that is not the issue being discussed. We were discussing why there is such vitriol towards academia, and I hope this post clarifies what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 15:52:41 GMT -5
Those who consider themselves "elite" are actually quite rare amongst acedemia. Can you name one? Primary or secondary level? At the primary level I've dealt with more than a few teachers who really didn't need to be teaching; they had a marked superiority complex and so regarded any student as inferior and any parent who didn't automatically side with them as impediments. At the secondary level, my last supervisor when I did paid tutoring was a massive jerk in regards to the job. She started out a nice person, but in time it became apparent that she hit the Peters Principle hard (it's believed that she got the position because she was a willing "yes-woman" to the higher-ups). Given that she was also working as a professor at the same time, I can only pity her students. Skyfire, this is the post I referred to. Here, you made your argument PERSONAL. End of discussion with you. lad.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 17:28:39 GMT -5
JonathanE: I do see where you are coming from. Based on that study that I mentioned earlier, conservatives did poll with worse attitudes toward people who worked in higher ed, especially if the people polled were older people and from a certain demographic regions. I understand the bait and switch technique. And it does sell very well with the masses. My response was mainly due to the fact that some people seemed to be implying that there could not be "academic elites" in the first place; that seems to be why captainhooker got on, too. I agree with the other poster that higher education does not automatically equate to "elite". But in a way it does. Tell me what you think about this. It definitely can confer class status, and if you're in certain departments, it can be very lucrative as well (not for most of us). In my state school, some of the profs are definitely academic "elites", if that equates to both power and economic clout concentrated in a few hands, because they are in bed with the governor & his staff, and have worked hard to concentrate power in just a few hands. In my home state, one of the state schools forced a certain degree into the job requirements of the public school systems--it was not just the admins but some of the head profs who worked so hard to do that--and the result is that now people who are essentially bilingual from birth but only have high school diplomas cannot work as translators in the public school system without this specific degree that only this state school offers (no other school in the state or the surrounding states offers it). If those two things are not examples of elitism, which I take to mean conferring special status/privileges on a group of people based on certain characteristics like income or education or skin color or whatever, I don't know what is. Power is totally concentrated sometimes in the academic world, and it can be wielded to cause problems for people who aren't in the same "class." I totally agree that higher ed doesn't automatically equate. But I disagree that the use of the term is not applicable in some instances. Then there is the whole notion of academic elitism. Wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_elitism That definitely exists, and even within the English dept. alone you see a big ideological split between people who teach lit classes and people who teach comp/rhet. There are other definitions of academic elitism that might apply to this thread as well--might be interesting to check out. What do you think?
|
|