Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+765|5772|United States of America

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i have no shame about belonging to a class or social group who see university in its original, historical function. who still value education as something high-minded, lofty, ambitious, idealistic. seems like a better social universe to belong to than the money-obsessed and career stressed.
That's because there is no shame in belonging to a class able to do that. For the rest of us, most dreams of being able to explore your intellectual curiousity are going to go unfulfilled in favor of something more practical. I'm lucky enough that my parents were able to make enough money that I was able to go to college at all instead of marching into a steel mill.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342

DesertFox- wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

i have no shame about belonging to a class or social group who see university in its original, historical function. who still value education as something high-minded, lofty, ambitious, idealistic. seems like a better social universe to belong to than the money-obsessed and career stressed.
That's because there is no shame in belonging to a class able to do that. For the rest of us, most dreams of being able to explore your intellectual curiousity are going to go unfulfilled in favor of something more practical. I'm lucky enough that my parents were able to make enough money that I was able to go to college at all instead of marching into a steel mill.
well this is the thing, it's a personal choice you make. it's not like humanities degrees cost 5x more than the rest - unless you're aiming high for ivy league or liberal arts colleges or something. it's just a personal choice. the way i see it, on behalf of you poorly oppressed american brethren who must suffer a graduate market that (supposedly) places such a low value on anything non-STEM, is: you get one life. such a banal truism, but that's just the full extent of it. one life. doesn't matter what car you drive, or how many bedrooms your eventual house will have, or if you manage to have all the flash accessories of wealth. you can accept the american labour market the way it (supposedly) is, and do something you find personally and intellectually fulfilling in your life (not saying that can't be a science, just addressing the dichotomy the way you present it). why wouldn't you spend your early/mid-20's doing what you were most passionate about? you seem to be sacrificing your youth and your interests to bank on a future that may never come. that's a miserable way to live, man. even if i was born in america and i faced a system that (supposedly) radically devalued a philosophy degree or somesuch... i'd still take it. who cares if you're forecast to earn less over a lifetime? shit, if it's your interest, why wouldn't you do it? i don't get this mentality. there is no god. your kids will do just fine if you don't leave them a 6-bed behind. this whole ethic you betray about education and work/life seems to me to be thoroughly protestant, and very old-fashioned. 'suffer now for later salvation'. whether that salvation is theological, or the prospect of leaving your kids more opportunity than you had... that's a bum deal, man. you'll be worms-meat in a few decades. why deny yourself a few years being taught the great thinking of the ages by a fine grey-haired professor, if that's what you want to do?

but then again, perhaps that distanced perspective is also on account of my putative 'privilege'. i'll never know, because i can't fully extricate myself from my own consciousness or setting. but whatever. i like to think that's kind of quasi-objective, and rationally applies to anyone.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4446|London, England

Ilocano wrote:

So even if he lacked the social status your circle would accept him into your fold as an equal if he was of adequate literary skill?
Of course not. They'd mock him, and then plagiarize him.
"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
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|5778|Tampa Bay Florida

Ilocano wrote:

So even if he lacked the social status your circle would accept him into your fold as an equal if he was of adequate literary skill?
Dude there are plenty of kids who come from not very wealthy families and excel in academics.  Because they love it.  Even in the states.  uzique is being his usual snooty self but hes not really incorrect.  Anyone can do it.  If you have the willpower/ability.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342

Jay wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

So even if he lacked the social status your circle would accept him into your fold as an equal if he was of adequate literary skill?
Of course not. They'd mock him, and then plagiarize him.
i don't even know what you guys are talking about. it's cute though jay that you have this conception of the lower-class person as some noble soul, who the effete and corrupted upper-classes prey on, despite his inherent nobility and his essential goodness and moral superiority, etc. it would make a good book. in dickens' time. that doesn't correspond to my life or reality at all. i actually find it pretty amusing how you guys try to portray me as this decadent bohemian, just because i have the audacity - shock! horror!- to speak idealistically about the value of education. that doesn't mean i'm strolling around like a marquise.

also i graduated top of my class, motherfucker. as if i'd need to plagiarize anyone. eat it. your portrayal of people born of higher-class as being 'stupid' or 'indolent' is comical. it's precisely something from a simplistic book. like a children's tale set in the 19th century or something. go on, pip! we believe in you!!!

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 14:58:03)

Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|5755

Answer my question then.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342

Ilocano wrote:

So even if he lacked the social status your circle would accept him into your fold as an equal if he was of adequate literary skill?
i have lots of friends from 'lower classes'. i don't know where you get this idea of me as someone exclusive and spiteful about people 'below me', because i'm not. all i have ever communicated on here w/r/t university is people doing what they are passionate about. i have defended universities as against being seen as extended job-training colleges. i don't care what background someone has if they share this view. and it is far from impossible for a complete working-class person to have this view. people say that i only see the university this way because of "privilege", but i don't buy that. read my post above. i think anyone can have this attitude. it's really a matter of people being fickle and materialistic, not people being born as minor aristocrats. as long as you're okay not basing your entire life around money (for an american, that is, the humanities aren't an auto-lose elsewhere in the world as they are portrayed for you yanks), i think anyone can do it.

fyi i know one other person from my university circle who is going to oxbridge for a PhD. he is already at oxford doing his Dphil, and he is from a markedly lower social background than me. he is my equal and we work together all the time. social background doesn't come into it one bit. this is all about attitudes to education and having a decent value-set to me, i.e. one that isn't fickle, and precisely isn't class-obsessed. i find people that quibble over 'degrees earning money' are normally people that are class anxious (like you, or jay). it's pretty ironic you guys turn around and try to portray me as some elitist guy that would never befriend anyone because of their background. i am arguing precisely FOR education in the most egalitarian, fuck-the-money sense.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 14:58:48)

Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|5755

Good on you.   Professors the same way?
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342
what does that mean? i'm just not following your line of argument. you're asking if my professors feel the same way about the value of education? or if they're the same way when treating people of class? i don't know how you see the english class system... but it's not the indian caste system. professors may be fustian, tweeded, and rather sheltered, but they're not going to point their noses up in the air and talk down to a student because of his background. the oxbridge/ivy don is a bit of a stereotype, and no one can deny their class connotations, but that doesn't necessarily make them socially odious people. if a student can make it to a school of x-y-z quality/prestige, s/he has earned their place, as much as anyone else.

in my experience of university - going to one with the highest proportion of privately educated students, so it's pretty extreme - the places in the university social sphere where you find the most selectivity, snobbery, and class-bullying is in the sporting side of things. not the academic. from from the professional side of things. it's the polo clubs, the sailing club, the dinner society, the lacrosse teams, the hockey teams, the rugger boys, etc. that are very exclusive and will exhibit 'hazing' type behaviour towards people they consider of a lower-class. that's part of the whole machismo dynamic of those sporting teams. when exactly do you picture me condescending to someone because of their background? in a theory seminar? and to what end/purpose or relevance? please.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 15:03:47)

-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|5747|BC, Canada
hollywood taught stereotypes.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342

-Whiteroom- wrote:

hollywood taught stereotypes.
i figured. i'm very confused by the line of argument being pursued. and all because i'm - yet again - sticking up for "knowledge for knowledge's sake". note how jay posted that thread/post a while back about a teacher who resigned from a prestigious american high-school because he saw that original credo being disabused. note how he was supposedly 'supporting' the man's sentiments, in his liberal pathos. now i espouse that view and jay wants to paint me as some little lord fauntleroy aristocrat-tyrant. one who preys on the innocent good little working-class boy who has all the brains. who i copy from .

fantasy existence. no wonder the university has so much answer in defense of itself in america. it seems badly maligned with some absurd stereotypes.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|5769|Disaster Free Zone

13/f/taiwan wrote:

bachelors(4 years), around $40,000 in debt, engineering or philosophy degree.
Engineering yes, philosophy, no.

Macbeth wrote:

$40,000 isn't a lot of money over a lifetime. It is not uncommon in this state for people to make 3 times that in a year.
It's not a lot of money at all, you can earn that in a year here after tax by stacking shelves at the local supermarket with no qualifications or experience at all.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

do you think university degrees are worth the time/money drunk?
That all depends on the degree, how much it costs and the opportunity cost of how long it takes to complete.
money money money. will you ever not be so plebeian.

it is generally acknowledged that all university graduates earn more over the course of a lifetime than non-graduates. same with masters/postgrad. it does scale.
Cause money buys shit I want.
Generally and on average they do earn more, but is that intrinsically linked to their education or due to the fact in general the more intelligent and motivated are the ones that attend universities, which just creates a positive feedback. Many people without degrees are very financially successful and many people with degrees struggle.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

the fact some craftsmen make a lot of money clearly doesn't palliate them, because people like drunkface still come here to shit on university students.
No one's shitty on 'university students', which would be very hypocritical as I used to be one. I'm shitting on your pretentious idea that your supposed cultural and educated enlightenment somehow makes you better then someone else. That going to university for broadening the mind is somehow more virtuous then someone who goes to learn a practical skill.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

a university-educated person, even if they went only to 'get a better job', still has the cultural and intellectual experience of university. a typical student will use their time at university to branch out into many societies, teams, hobbies, cultural interests etc. they will, at the most simple level, be 'more educated' than a builder.
Then I can't have been very 'typical', university was about learning a skill nothing more, nothing less.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342
i never said once that going to university makes someone more 'virtuous' than a person that goes to learn a skill. i just defend the universities' purpose and civic aim. sometimes from people who never went, sure, but i've never put down people who earn a skill. pointing out that someone who attends university is considered to have more 'social capital' is not an insult or a put-down. that's just the way society works.

and sounds like you went to a shit university. though again i'm sure you'll take that comment as me being all "virtuous". if your uni just tried to "teach you a skill", it failed. and yes, nobody should go to university to learn philosophy doesn't pay as much as engineering - get rid of it! see this is the attitude i have a problem with. i don't give a shit about people who want to learn a trade or profession. i have a problem with people making stupid statements.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 15:25:45)

DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|5769|Disaster Free Zone
I went to uni to learn something specific, not for a cultural experience, hence I ignored all the worthless addendum. As for philosophy; my mate is currently doing a phd which is utterly and completely irrelevant to anything at all.

'what role should the semantic properties of English definite descriptions (henceforth ‘descriptions’) play in explaining how we use them to communicate?'
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342
a phd is only intended to be relevant to academic experience. do you know what a phd is? there is no reason why anyone would take a phd in philosophy if he wanted resume-filler for an office job. criticizing a phd for not 'being relevant' (whatever that means, perhaps one for your linguistics scholar friend) is a little confused.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4673

I should have joined the military out of high school so that they would have paid for my education at NYU. I could have been a real self made man and would one day make it into a yacht club.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342
wouldn't the military cover colombia? why stop at NYU
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4673

I am sure my well paying job would have covered my MBA at Columbia.
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5820|Cambridge, England
I dont know what any of this has to do with "science" but oh well.

Im all for academia for everybody but im not convinced that we have got the balance quite right in the uk. Uni is full of people taking courses on media studies or child care purely for the sake of it. People go to uni now because thats just what you do after sixth form. My old sixth form sends more students to cambridge / oxford than any other state funded school in the country, we had classes timetabled on how to get into uni, how to write personal statements etc etc. In one of our first lessons I stated that I couldnt see the point in going to uni (yeah I was a gobby shite), the lecturer saw this as an opportunity and went around the class getting people to put forward an argument for university. Practically all of the responses were "for the experience" "to have a good time". Fees at the time were £6k a yr plus costs, put £20-30k in my pocket and I will have plenty of good times and experiences and probably be a much better person for it. After I dropped out of these uni lessons I was put into the "employment group" along with 7 other people, out of 2,000 students, we were the 7 not applying to uni.

For the record if I was going to uni properly I would be studying history as I liked it and got high 90s in my A levels but the long and short is, where would I be when I finish uni with a history degree? Instead I am a construction professional doing a degree in construction one day a week, paid for by my firm, while earning a salary above my shelf stacking graduate friends. The degree is a complete joke, there is no way the qualification should be called a degree, its about as taxing as GCSEs, I expect this is the same for most of the applied / practical courses. The pass mark is 40%, you can get 60% of your stuff wrong and you still get a degree. Sure its a crap one but its still a degree, where is the social benefit in this!?

Maybe my problem is that I am "class conscious" that I put too much emphasis on wealth, I spent my childhood never having enough to go round with all the shite that goes with that and I just want to be in a position where money isnt a worry. I dont want to spend all day working and no time enjoying my life, I want the funds to be able to buy nice stuff, treat the people I care about and just you know, have a good time.

Anyway just off to practice my violin :p

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2013-04-24 16:51:04)

Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342
'pass mark as 40%' shows a woeful lack of understanding about the way universities are marked in the UK. it's not "40% correct", that 40 represents a marker of quality. it's hard to explain how it's calculated, because it's all separate to each institution/department, but basically a 60 is considered a 'good mark' (good enough to get you onto most prestigious graduate job courses). so therefore you could phrase it that "a 60% is a joke", but it really isn't. seldom will a university student - especially in history - ever get above a 72-75. so you judging the university pass-mark as "40%" and concluding that "it's as easy as GCSE's" is really piss-poor tbh. the assumption in humanities courses is that even an 80% is 'unattainable' (75%+ implies publishable quality, like, proper academic work quality, as opposed to a student 'attempt'). it's not exactly a straight '40% (out of 100%) to pass'.

and what would you have if you had gone to do a history degree instead of work in construction? does that really have to be answered? you'd have a history degree, nourishment in a subject you enjoy... and, provided you went to a good enough uni, a history degree opens plenty of doors in the UK. you seem very misguided and not very aware of the subject - perhaps because of your background, as you said. i have many friends who took history degrees who are now all making £25-30k a year doing pretty cushty graduate jobs. the "what is it worth?" or "what use will that degree be to me?" question normally comes from people who don't understand how degrees transfer into work. in the UK you can pretty much get an academic degree in whatever subject you want, so long as it is 'respected' and the university is 'prestigious'. that will get you onto loads of graduate schemes in-itself. after that, your actual degree subject matters less and less, because THEN, and properly THEN, after your university studies, do you start learning 'job skills' and the desired's of your career.

i feel sorry that you missed out on 3-4 years to study something you were interested in. perhaps if you had listened to your advisers you could now be having your cake and eating it.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-24 17:04:25)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5194|eXtreme to the maX

UTL wrote:

a phd is only intended to be relevant to academic experience.
Nonsense. That really is complete and utter garbage.
#FreeBritney
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5804

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

wouldn't the military cover colombia? why stop at NYU
he couldn't get into colombia probably.

Jay should chime in on this, but the GI bill pays for 36 months of schooling and coverage is dependent on what you put into it.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5804

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

'pass mark as 40%' shows a woeful lack of understanding about the way universities are marked in the UK. it's not "40% correct", that 40 represents a marker of quality. it's hard to explain how it's calculated, because it's all separate to each institution/department, but basically a 60 is considered a 'good mark' (good enough to get you onto most prestigious graduate job courses). so therefore you could phrase it that "a 60% is a joke", but it really isn't. seldom will a university student - especially in history - ever get above a 72-75. so you judging the university pass-mark as "40%" and concluding that "it's as easy as GCSE's" is really piss-poor tbh. the assumption in humanities courses is that even an 80% is 'unattainable' (75%+ implies publishable quality, like, proper academic work quality, as opposed to a student 'attempt'). it's not exactly a straight '40% (out of 100%) to pass'.
All the ilocano styled asians at my uni cried when they received their papers back in first year getting 50s-60s (COZ OMG ANYTHING BELOW 90 IS A FAIL). Personally I was a bit shocked when I got a 75, but then realizing that was a pretty high mark (wasn't used to the grading system).

edit: cheeky your degree is what you make of it. If you had that much of an interest in history and was the top of your course i'm pretty sure you'd still get lots of jobs offers. if you scrape by passes no shit you're gonna be in the shitter.

Last edited by Cybargs (2013-04-25 02:02:19)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|3342

Dilbert_X wrote:

UTL wrote:

a phd is only intended to be relevant to academic experience.
Nonsense. That really is complete and utter garbage.
dilbert a PhD proposal/topic and a doctoral candidates' work during their 3-4 years is concerned only with the academic topic at hand. nobody doing a linguistics PhD will be thinking to themselves 'how is this relevant?' or 'how does this help me in any way?' that's not the sort of 'real-life' based questions a person who has got far enough into their field to do a PhD will be asking. a person taking a PhD in linguistics will probably be thinking of 2 things:) the topic and the topic. it's just not the sort of thing you take with a 'private-sector' job in mind at the end of it. people take a PhD in linguistics because they want to work in linguistics research. nobody spends 4 years doing a piece of academic research to list some more 'skills acquired' on their CV for that graduate job application. so yes, i do thinik that "a PhD is only intended to be relevant for academic experience" (i.e. in-itself). again: CERN and NASA aren't exactly what i would call 'non-academic' real-world jobs. i know - as we've said - that in the sciences certain disciplines and fields can cross over into private employment and industrial work... but still, during the 3-4 years, and probably motivating the whole project, is an academic interest, not a 'real world' one.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,753|5194|eXtreme to the maX
You only seem concerned with subjects which have no real world application - There are many which do, and people studying for PhDs in them aren't always pursuing esoteric flights of fancy because it tickles their pretensions.
#FreeBritney

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard