|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 17:42:17 GMT -5
I don't think that this is the type of elitism that the OP was referring to. Of course, wherevever the is a pecking order, there will be this sort of crap. The OP, though, was referring to the general public's perception of academia, from the outside, not from within. The very phrase "academic elite" screams bias on the part of the user, looked at in this context. I abhor the term, or "ivory tower", which is another of those catch phrases that the right bandies about to justify their pandering to the anti-intellectuals out there. Am I making sense?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 17:48:59 GMT -5
Absolutely. In a way, it seems like what we're discovering is that the way the term is used by the general public on the "outside" is incorrect--but it might be correct when viewed in a way the general public doesn't have much access to? Sort of like--they're right, but they're right for the wrong reason. And incidentally, I too despise the term "ivory tower," all most as much as I hate it when I hear people claim we somehow don't live in the "real world"--as if we just roll out our sleeping bags in our offices and tuck ourselves in until we can get up at our desks in the a.m. and start all over again. We have kids and we're in the community, and we deal with lots of the same issues everybody else does.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 17:54:19 GMT -5
Thank you, that was my entire thesis for this thread. See, I'm not such a miserable old prick after all. By the way, I recently retired after a 30 year teaching career, hold a Master's in both history and education, and am part of the academia that is decried by the morons amongst us.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 19, 2009 17:58:24 GMT -5
I find that usually the younger the lecturer/teacher the more 'elite'. My older establisjed journalism lecturers are very down-to-earth. Sure, cynical, with serious anger-management issues but s in a 'of the people' manner. In fact, as far as I can tell, the head of journalism is the least 'elite' member of the course.
This is speaking as an undergrad with three weeks of experience.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 18:00:06 GMT -5
Thank you, that was my entire thesis for this thread. See, I'm not such a miserable old prick after all. By the way, I recently retired after a 30 year teaching career, hold a Master's in both history and education, and am part of the academia that is decried by the morons amongst us. I've never once thought you were a miserable old prick. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2009 19:13:43 GMT -5
I find that usually the younger the lecturer/teacher the more 'elite'. Not always, my biochemistry professor is one of the most arrogant women you will ever meet. She has been teaching for a long fucking time. Granted, a lot of this is because she actually has the skill and knowledge to back up her arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 19:19:22 GMT -5
In my experience the more "elite" ones were the older, deeply enmeshed ones, not the younger ones. Not to say the reverse couldn't be true, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2009 19:23:47 GMT -5
Just to add a bit more about her, she thinks that chemists are superior to the other scientists, hates it that Watson and Crick were a physicist and biologist, and don't get her started on non-scientists. She was complaining about the business department this past week, but that's normal from a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 19:26:48 GMT -5
Having had to work with Chem teachers as part of my job as a "mentor-teacher," it sounds about par for the course to me, as well. Some of them are really nice, though.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 19, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
Some are really nice and great teachers. I've had a couple of them as profs.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 20, 2009 2:04:20 GMT -5
In my experience the more "elite" ones were the older, deeply enmeshed ones, not the younger ones. Not to say the reverse couldn't be true, of course. I think this may be a case of trying to proove onesself by being as snobby as possible, wheras the older academics have nothing to prove. On the other hand, I have all the accuracy on this matter as a Galaxy Poll.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 20, 2009 6:52:54 GMT -5
Well, "junior" faculty, as they are known, often do develop a chip on their shoulder because they have to prove why they should stick around (no tenure yet). The size of the chip is directly proportional to how much transparency about the process and help the tenured faculty give them. Your experience is very valid, even though it's three weeks in.
|
|