I actually wasn't talking to you at all. I generally follow forum etiquette of quoting the person I am addressing unless its the post right above. ILY2
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6683
Life of Birds and Life of Mammals are good BBC docs.
you didn't quote anyone in that post, and the conversation you were 'adding to' was specifically about brian the rockstar scientist, who specifically does wide-eyed gaping bbc documentaries. nobody was talking about all documentaries being trash. nobody was mourning the dearth of indie/underground documentaries.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I actually wasn't talking to you at all. I generally follow forum etiquette of quoting the person I am addressing unless its the post right above. ILY2
No I was really commenting on the post directly above mine (jays) as I explained in my previous post. Can we reasonably assume I directed my response to jay because his post immediately preceded mine? I think so. He's trying to be apologetic for the US exporting a docutainment style that is a byproduct of the 'short, compact, easy to digest' media trend. He actually was commenting on the state of documentaries, so you're wrong.
Again, the conversation I was adding to was jays. If I were trying to comment on anything you said I would quote you. Calm down, FRANCIS!
Again, the conversation I was adding to was jays. If I were trying to comment on anything you said I would quote you. Calm down, FRANCIS!
yeh francis you cock
has anyone seen this
i'd like to watch it but i'm not going to go to some pop up screening or find a cinema that's showing it at some odd time and i can't find anywhere to download it
has anyone seen this
i'd like to watch it but i'm not going to go to some pop up screening or find a cinema that's showing it at some odd time and i can't find anywhere to download it
I was referring to made for television science 'documentaries' like Life After People etc.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No I was really commenting on the post directly above mine (jays) as I explained in my previous post. Can we reasonably assume I directed my response to jay because his post immediately preceded mine? I think so. He's trying to be apologetic for the US exporting a docutainment style that is a byproduct of the 'short, compact, easy to digest' media trend. He actually was commenting on the state of documentaries, so you're wrong.
Again, the conversation I was adding to was jays. If I were trying to comment on anything you said I would quote you. Calm down, FRANCIS!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6683
How is Life After People a documentary?
I think 'fantasy reality' is a more appropriate category.
I think 'fantasy reality' is a more appropriate category.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2013-03-25 19:09:37)
Doesn't matter. Through the Wormhole, How the earth was made, whatever, they're all drama heavy and fact light.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6683
Yeah. The worst offender is the history channel, especially H2. It's all Christian fundie programming.
Or PBSKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If its an indie documentary you don't generally see that formula. King of Kong, Thin Blue Line, Paris is Burning (this one came to mind when reading the uzi v. Roc gay black arguments), I could list dozens that don't fit that description. You probably just watch shitty docs.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-03-25 21:11:47)
The bottom line is you need a PhD to call yourself something in academia - as opposed to the outside world - because there are so many slackers and so few available posts. Simple qualification inflation.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
and yes, you do need a doctorate to be an 'astrophysicist'. are you really trying to suggest someone with a bachelor's or master's, i.e. pre-research level, can call themselves an astrophysicist? someone with a bachelor's in biology can call themselves a 'biologist'? someone with a bachelor's in psychology can call themselves a 'psychologist'? please. these are professional/career terms. they denote, at the very least, a level of professional employment or research activity. the guitarist from queen didn't 'become' an 'astrophysicist' until the band were in semi-retirement. you just got your chronology wrong. don't argue such an inane point. it's tedious. if you really want to stand by that ludicrous assertion, you better get used to me calling myself an 'econonomist' from now on, because i have an A-Level in Econ. "only in academia", you say, yet again harping on that tired old whorish complaint. lol. you are a fucking moron. an astrophysicist will almost always be an academic. an astrophysicist is someone who works in high-level theoretical research about... astrophysics... at a... research centre or university. so yes, duh, "only in academia" (those bothersome lot!) would you need a PhD to be considered an astrophysicist!!!!!
I'd say a grad student in a field can give themselves the title, just as someone with a Bachelors working in their field outside academia can.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Fox seems to have nothing but reality shows about hillbillies punching each other these days.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
No I was really commenting on the post directly above mine (jays) as I explained in my previous post. Can we reasonably assume I directed my response to jay because his post immediately preceded mine? I think so. He's trying to be apologetic for the US exporting a docutainment style that is a byproduct of the 'short, compact, easy to digest' media trend. He actually was commenting on the state of documentaries, so you're wrong.
Again, the conversation I was adding to was jays. If I were trying to comment on anything you said I would quote you. Calm down, FRANCIS!
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
i'm really not sure that would even get aired in europe. i'm not sure we give a shit enough about 'the bible's buried secrets'. give us a three hour special on toe fungus, instead.
no... you need a PhD to be called something in academia, because 80% of the job description of academia is 'research', and a PhD (in its 20th century professional application and structure) is the first full-size piece of individual research that a candidate ever does. it's a literal 'proving' of your ability and knowledge of the field. once you have the PhD in whatever given topic you want to go into, it's a qualification that demonstrates you are individually capable of directing individual high-level and NEW research in your area, contributing meaningfully, without need for direction or superiors/tutors babysitting you. nothing before PhD level fully prepares you for the role of professional academia, which is completely self-directed research, getting the whole academic shebang done properly and correctly, to professional standards. the PhD really is the entry-level qualification into the career-path... not because of grade inflation, you moron. the PhD has always been the standard entry-route into the academic profession, even back in the 'good old days' when about 3.65% of the world's population made it to the ivory tower (which your remarks seem to oddly lament).Dilbert_X wrote:
The bottom line is you need a PhD to call yourself something in academia - as opposed to the outside world - because there are so many slackers and so few available posts. Simple qualification inflation.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
and yes, you do need a doctorate to be an 'astrophysicist'. are you really trying to suggest someone with a bachelor's or master's, i.e. pre-research level, can call themselves an astrophysicist? someone with a bachelor's in biology can call themselves a 'biologist'? someone with a bachelor's in psychology can call themselves a 'psychologist'? please. these are professional/career terms. they denote, at the very least, a level of professional employment or research activity. the guitarist from queen didn't 'become' an 'astrophysicist' until the band were in semi-retirement. you just got your chronology wrong. don't argue such an inane point. it's tedious. if you really want to stand by that ludicrous assertion, you better get used to me calling myself an 'econonomist' from now on, because i have an A-Level in Econ. "only in academia", you say, yet again harping on that tired old whorish complaint. lol. you are a fucking moron. an astrophysicist will almost always be an academic. an astrophysicist is someone who works in high-level theoretical research about... astrophysics... at a... research centre or university. so yes, duh, "only in academia" (those bothersome lot!) would you need a PhD to be considered an astrophysicist!!!!!
I'd say a grad student in a field can give themselves the title, just as someone with a Bachelors working in their field outside academia can.
not to mention the other 20-30% of an academics' responsibilities are, you know, to docere, and teach. you need a doctorate to be able to teach bachelor's level material with confidence and a thorough grasp/understanding of the field. you're just not educated enough to teach undergraduates if you've only done 3-4 years yourself. you need deep knowledge and a very wide reading around to be truly familiar with the terrain. but no, all those "slackers"....
stop being an idiot. please.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 03:11:31)
lol. history of the doctorate.
all those slackers in academia! as i've said before, it's a 7 year training period - literally the same as medical school or professional law school - because you need a helluva lot of knowledge and skill to be able to teach and field questions and generate new meaningful contributions in the academy. if the doctorate and academic career path arose out of the ancient guild system, and if they are slackers... does that mean all the other old traditional guilds, which required 5-7 years of training and apprenticeship, are also slackers? what about the historical roots of engineering? slackers?The doctorate (Latin: doctor, "teacher," from doctum, "[that which is] taught," past participle of docere, "to teach") appeared in medieval Europe as a license to teach (Latin: licentia docendi) at a medieval university. [...] At the university, doctoral training was a form of apprenticeship to a guild. The traditional term of study before new teachers were admitted to the guild of "Masters of Arts," seven years, was the same as the term of apprenticeship for other occupations
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 03:10:29)
Most PhDs are very very narrow slices of a field, don't kid yourself that a PhD makes someone the master of an entire broad subject.
Its proof that someone can do original research and take an area of the subject forward, not that they have a wide knowledge comparable with a medical doctors knowledge of medicine.
Its proof that someone can do original research and take an area of the subject forward, not that they have a wide knowledge comparable with a medical doctors knowledge of medicine.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the PhD is a narrow specialisation, of course, that's a necessary part of any advanced professional career. it's the logic of the capitalist job market: increasing specialism with greater esteemed value/reward. in science and maths, where other areas of research basically speak an entirely different language, it's true that a PhD is the final point of your 'specialism' and building of a niche. but in the humanities, at your viva, you have to demonstrate a wide knowledge of the field/context/history. you have to be able to counter opposing and disparate theories. you have to be able to argue, pace and contra other thinkers in the field, which implies that you must have read many other thinkers in the field. literature/history/humanities scholars - particularly in the infancy of their careers - are expected to teach a wide range of topics - the whole gamut, really: from medieval to centuries of poetry to contemporary philosophy to court drama etc. you can't just say "i want a career in academia, i'm 25, i have a PhD, and i'm only ever willing to teach about the works of the one narrow author/topic i spent 5 years of my life researching". lol. a humanities PhD is just a proof that you are capable of self-directed, book-length (and thesedays it really must secure a publishing deal on completion, or you're dead in the water; all that competition you somehow bemoan) piece of work. but check an academics' resume: they do many book length pieces of work in a decade, across many varied subjects/periods. you are expected to have a wide understanding. i was taught joyce by one of the world's great joyce scholars... but he also taught me renaissance poetry, 2 years earlier, and he also taught me deconstructionist theory, too. a department doesn't have an infinite number of scholars on the payroll, each teaching the one module their specialism/PhD was in. lol.
but please, tell me some more about how my career path works. i'm intrigued. do you have any advice?
but please, tell me some more about how my career path works. i'm intrigued. do you have any advice?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 03:27:30)
you should've become an engineer.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
but please, tell me some more about how my career path works. i'm intrigued. do you have any advice?
So a PhD viva is an interview for a job in academia really?
I thought the purpose of a PhD was to further human knowledge in a specific area, to be a piece of original academic research which could be defended against experts in that field, but its been since corrupted to be an entry test to a job in academia, how naive of me.
I thought the purpose of a PhD was to further human knowledge in a specific area, to be a piece of original academic research which could be defended against experts in that field, but its been since corrupted to be an entry test to a job in academia, how naive of me.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
a PhD viva is a defense of your work. it's the final 'test' before you are granted the 'professional license' of the academic career. it's normally a gruelling 3-4 hour spoken interview/defense about your work, in front of a panel of the 3-5 professors and experts who have supervised (and very meticulously and hawkishly read) your work. it's not a job interview, because you don't get given a job. it's the oral counterpart to your 3-5 years' of written, professional work. part a: original research and formal book-length writing; part b: demonstrable knowledge and confidence of the field, in a spontaneous/unplanned verbal defense. you know, you say a PhD doesn't require 'wide reading' and 'knowledge of the field', but really that's what the viva is for: to ensure that you really know your stuff. going away and writing a single piece of work for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 5 years... you can come across pretty learned, in writing, anyway. the viva is there to make sure you know your way around the subject in a challenging, direct, oral examination. they will question you on faults in your work, raise thorny issues, and purposefully put questions to you that make you uncomfortable and have to really think about your work, in context.Dilbert_X wrote:
So a PhD viva is an interview for a job in academia really?
I thought the purpose of a PhD was to further human knowledge in a specific area, to be a piece of original academic research which could be defended against experts in that field, but its been since corrupted to be an entry test to a job in academia, how naive of me.
you know, you have all these critiques of the academic profession and PhD's, and you don't even know what a PhD viva voce is? you clearly know what you are talking about. a fine interlocutor.
lol "corrupted". you just rant and rant and you are so fucking inane. please get a clue. i'm pretty sure the viva voce oral examination is as old as the academic profession. please tell me some more about how it is a modern, easy "corruption".
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-26 03:47:37)
This is new, I've not seen that definition anywhere before.the final 'test' before you are granted the 'professional license' of the academic career
I did a viva for my MSc, and turned down two fully funded PhDs, but thanks for the heads up.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-26 03:49:19)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
well that's because you're a fucking idiot, and don't know what you're talking about. fancy that? surprising.Dilbert_X wrote:
This is new, I've not seen that definition anywhere before.the final 'test' before you are granted the 'professional license' of the academic career
that's from a university website, fyi. how about you brush up on what you rant against? that way you won't look quite so fucking dumb.Literally, "viva voce" means by or with the living voice - i.e., by word of mouth as opposed to writing. So the viva examination is where you will give a verbal defence of your thesis.
Put simply, you should think of it as a verbal counterpart to your written thesis. Your thesis demonstrates your skill at presenting your research in writing. In the viva examination, you will demonstrate your ability to participate in academic discussion with research colleagues.
Purpose of the Exam
The purpose of the viva examination is to:
demonstrate that the thesis is your own work
confirm that you understand what you have written and can defend it verbally
investigate your awareness of where your original work sits in relation to the wider research field
establish whether the thesis is of sufficiently high standard to merit the award of the degree for which it is submitted
allow you to clarify and develop the written thesis in response to the examiners' questions
So where does it say or imply its purpose is to be "the final 'test' before you are granted the 'professional license' of the academic career"?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
well that's because you're a fucking idiot, and don't know what you're talking about. fancy that? surprising.Dilbert_X wrote:
This is new, I've not seen that definition anywhere before.the final 'test' before you are granted the 'professional license' of the academic careerthat's from a university website, fyi. how about you brush up on what you rant against? that way you won't look quite so fucking dumb.Literally, "viva voce" means by or with the living voice - i.e., by word of mouth as opposed to writing. So the viva examination is where you will give a verbal defence of your thesis.
Put simply, you should think of it as a verbal counterpart to your written thesis. Your thesis demonstrates your skill at presenting your research in writing. In the viva examination, you will demonstrate your ability to participate in academic discussion with research colleagues.
Purpose of the Exam
The purpose of the viva examination is to:
demonstrate that the thesis is your own work
confirm that you understand what you have written and can defend it verbally
investigate your awareness of where your original work sits in relation to the wider research field
establish whether the thesis is of sufficiently high standard to merit the award of the degree for which it is submitted
allow you to clarify and develop the written thesis in response to the examiners' questions
It seems you are the one who 'looks fucking dumb'.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-26 03:52:03)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
hurrrr durrr PhD's are 700 year old grade inflations for medieval guild slackers
herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview
snarf snarf should have become an engineer
herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview
snarf snarf should have become an engineer
You said it, not sure what point you're making now.herp derp the viva voce is a dumbification and bypassing of research, a free job interview
My point is a PhD is the gold standard of academic research, an indication you've advanced human knowledge - not the final test before you get a nice desk in a wood panelled office and a line of teenage asians to molest.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-26 03:55:03)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!