and that, again, is relying on one library's resources. the $180 example being for a LIMITED selection of databases. and good luck going to a library in-person to find a physical copy of something. again: i can think of about 3 libraries i've been to, ever, that stock a huge and extensive back-catalogue of all journals. most libraries will have relatively modest collections.Cybargs wrote:
180 bucks a year to read a couple of 5-10 page articles. yeah super duper cheap bro
almost all journal queries and searches are now done online. most journal reading/publishing is kept online now, too - less cost, and you don't have to travel miles and miles to a library that may or may not have something. in order to get access to online journals, as a member of 'joe public', you're looking at upwards of £50 per journal. even that $180 bucks looks like a silly figure when you consider that a) it is LIMITED and b) you have to actually troop over there in person (which add time/effort/travel costs, of course).
online access is expensive. you either have to be a current student at a participating institution, or you have to fork over a lot of money.
so, in conclusion:
NOT FREE. we are not "simply wrong", as you said for about 4 posts.
and even when you hedge your bets with some fees, they are far from cheap. the price/page is sky-high.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
$180 Isn't ridiculous for a single specialist book, $180 for access to a complete library, with borrowing rights and searchable journals, for a year, is nothing. I'd probably spend more on coffees and snacks in a week of library research than that.
also, again: the $180 example - just one particular institution, i add - is for a LIMITED SELECTION. not unlimited. not open free-reign. as you keep talking. the website states explicitly it is for a LIMITED SELECTION of journals.
$180+ in a week on coffee and snacks that's a jay-level money brag. stop posting such shite.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
Anyone with a bit of time and minimal nous can do it.
And if that 'limited selection' is what you're after its OK isn't it?
Surely this is clear to you by now.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (11 years, 8 months ago)
i never said anywhere that someone who wants to research a topic cannot do so. i never said the knowledge is under lock and key. anyone, indeed, can buy a crate of 10 academic hardbacks off amazon for the princely sum of £35-40 each. i just said it is not free. "surely this is clear to you".
okay sure, let me know how that goes for you. i wonder how many people are within a feasible 50-100 mile radius of that institution who have a special interest in the limited selection they offer. that seems rather niche. especially when most people do their journal research from a computer.And if that 'limited selection' is what you're after its OK isn't it?
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
tl;dr almost impossible for general public to get access, not free and certainly not an easy method.
so anyway. that little theory i was expounding upon a week or two back, to jay and dilbert, about funding academia and arts/humanities being of circular benefit and net-profit to the society, despite its niggling lack of scientific/pragmatic 'use' to grab hold of. all that research and spending on the arts, culture, humanities, piffly academic subjects... which dilbert and jay were tut-tutting, because of its truly massive and wasteful annual cost, incurring the grievous annual charge of 0.1% of the total budget. about that:Jay wrote:
They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts … port-publ/
so the problem does seem to be what i was originally talking about, all along, and my constant talking in praise of arts/humanities and their qualitative, roundabout 'benefits' has an empirical and concrete economic basis. when i say that people want to dismiss and do away with arts and culture, and when i laugh at dilbert's constant insinuation that it is 'harmful' or 'self-indulgent' or 'effete' navel-gazing for toffs, which only drains the country and saddles it with a whole load of traditional, aristocratic bs... when i counter all this with the charge that you are just a poorly-reasoned philistine, it is actually roundly true. people who are suspicious of the arts/culture/humanities, and who wish to destroy/dismantle them (or just simply cut their funding, if you will) are people who harbour nothing but petty resentments, intellectual envy/inferiority, or sheer and plain ignorance. those are the only real explanations - all, at the end of the day, the same tired, ugly philistinism.
- arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
- arts and culture is a sector of significant scale with a turnover of £12.4 billion and a GVA** of £5.9 billion in 2011
- arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
- the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
- at least £856 million per annum of spending by tourists visiting the UK can be attributed directly to arts and culture
- the economic contribution of the arts and cultural sector has grown since 2008, despite the UK economy as a whole remaining below its output level before the global financial crisis
at least now we can get some peace and quiet.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
Umm, are you separating out private funding for arts or are you lumping it all in and saying that the government gets a 400% return on its investment? Things like concerts are generally privately funded are they not?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
so anyway. that little theory i was expounding upon a week or two back, to jay and dilbert, about funding academia and arts/humanities being of circular benefit and net-profit to the society, despite its niggling lack of scientific/pragmatic 'use' to grab hold of. all that research and spending on the arts, culture, humanities, piffly academic subjects... which dilbert and jay were tut-tutting, because of its truly massive and wasteful annual cost, incurring the grievous annual charge of 0.1% of the total budget. about that:Jay wrote:
They are sucking at the public tit in order to do so. That is a luxury, not a right.
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/arts … port-publ/so the problem does seem to be what i was originally talking about, all along, and my constant talking in praise of arts/humanities and their qualitative, roundabout 'benefits' has an empirical and concrete economic basis. when i say that people want to dismiss and do away with arts and culture, and when i laugh at dilbert's constant insinuation that it is 'harmful' or 'self-indulgent' or 'effete' navel-gazing for toffs, which only drains the country and saddles it with a whole load of traditional, aristocratic bs... when i counter all this with the charge that you are just a poorly-reasoned philistine, it is actually roundly true. people who are suspicious of the arts/culture/humanities, and who wish to destroy/dismantle them (or just simply cut their funding, if you will) are people who harbour nothing but petty resentments, intellectual envy/inferiority, or sheer and plain ignorance. those are the only real explanations - all, at the end of the day, the same tired, ugly philistinism.
- arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
- arts and culture is a sector of significant scale with a turnover of £12.4 billion and a GVA** of £5.9 billion in 2011
- arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
- the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
- at least £856 million per annum of spending by tourists visiting the UK can be attributed directly to arts and culture
- the economic contribution of the arts and cultural sector has grown since 2008, despite the UK economy as a whole remaining below its output level before the global financial crisis
at least now we can get some peace and quiet.
-Frederick Bastiat
Of course. I remember when I went to Woodstock '99 I spent like $300 on tickets and had to pay $5 per bottle of water (it was over 100 degrees that weekend and on a hot ass airfield tarmac) and like $15 for a mini pizza (I was 18 years old so this was a helluva lot of money for me at the time). Three days of those prices and they didn't allow outside food. Multiply that ridiculousness by 200,000 people...Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the report only deals with publicly funded arts. i.e. theaters and concerts put on or sponsored by the arts council. there is a 400% ROI on public money that is spent on public arts - galleries, theaters, funded installations/projects, etc. i don't think you have to do a funding report to conclude that things like private concerts and festivals make a decent return on the initial investment. if they didn't, they wouldn't fucking exist.
Anyway, if it is strictly limited to government funding, well, I would say that's a pretty good return. But, and it's a big but, it's extremely easy to reach the market saturation point with arts related projects. In an economic downturn they're generally the first people hit hard and the last to recover.
-Frederick Bastiat
you STEM guys can stop talking about arty-types "sucking on the tit of the public purse" now then, can't you? i guess so. it's confirmed: science and humanities both consume < 1% of the total federal/national budget, and both pay dividends, in more ways than one. time to find a new reason to hate intellectuals and artists.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
I never said arty types suck on the tit of the public purse, I said researchers at universities do. All I ever said was that researchers really don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about being asked to justify their research when they are receiving public funds. Logical, no?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
did you miss the part where it said the arts have provided continued growth and profit through the recession? the public arts/culture sector has notably "grown" during the beginning of the "2008 downturn", during a period when most other sectors of the economy stagnated or shrunk.
you STEM guys can stop talking about arty-types "sucking on the tit of the public purse" now then, can't you? i guess so. it's confirmed: science and humanities both consume < 1% of the total federal budget, and both pay dividends, in more ways than one. time to find a new reason to hate intellectuals and artists.
-Frederick Bastiat
every time a researcher writes a proposal or applies for funding, they have to go through volumes of expensive/time-consuming paperwork, to get those funds cleared. it is far from a 'gravytrain' or an indulgent free-for-all for self-satisfied snobs (as dilbert makes out). i've made it perfectly clear many times here in the past how competitive and cut-throat the world of academic funding/employment is. an academic will have to 'justify' their stipends at every single stage in their career; they're not called research 'awards' for nothing. it's a big deal to be given public money to do work in academia - it's noteworthy, it builds careers. they don't take it lightly. but, having their right to research what is intellectually valid and worthy in-itself ("knowledge for knowledge's sake") is an important tenet of academia. forcing your nation's intelligentsia to research politically-charged topics, or chase some whimsical fashion/trend down a knowledge-rabbithole for a few years, until the next fad comes along... is not a way to govern and manage institutions with centuries of independent civic service to their name.
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
It's public money extracted from the populace by politicians. You don't think politicians can/should demand a say? They're (supposedly) the peoples defense against graft in the public sector. It's one of the primary reasons we elect them, to represent us, the taxpayer.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
they don't complain about being asked to 'justify' their research, though. there's a big difference between having to justify/make relevant your research, and having to tailor it to politically-mandated or managerially-appointed 'criteria'. a big difference. that difference is the whole principle of 'free inquiry', or 'intellectual autonomy', if you will. making sure that research progresses according to intellectual curiosity and the inner logic of reason, rather than collaring academia into being a whippet for the ruling elite (with whatever political/social agendas they may wish to push). chaining academia to a political program is disastrous.
every time a researcher writes a proposal or applies for funding, they have to go through volumes of expensive/time-consuming paperwork, to get those funds cleared. it is far from a 'gravytrain' or an indulgent free-for-all for self-satisfied snobs (as dilbert makes out). i've made it perfectly clear many times here in the past how competitive and cut-throat the world of academic funding/employment is. an academic will have to 'justify' their stipends at every single stage in their career; they're not called research 'awards' for nothing. it's a big deal to be given public money to do work in academia - it's noteworthy, it builds careers. they don't take it lightly. but, having their right to research what is intellectually valid and worthy in-itself ("knowledge for knowledge's sake") is an important tenet of academia. forcing your nation's intelligentsia to research politically-charged topics, or chase some whimsical fashion/trend down a knowledge-rabbithole for a few years, until the next fad comes along... is not a way to govern and manage institutions with centuries of independent civic service to their name.
If you don't like the new strings, feel free to go back to the old way and find a rich philanthropist sponsor to support your work. Hell, that's how we figured out 99% of the important things in the realm of science.
Last edited by Jay (11 years, 8 months ago)
-Frederick Bastiat
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
Well, you do understand that he has every right to bitch about things like that, yes? (Or would if he were still paying taxes in England) You're very proud of having a publicly funded education system, well, by making it public you open yourselves to criticism from the public that pays for it. If Harvard decided to fund a department stocked with former child molesters the only people who would/could have a real say in expressing outrage would be the alumni they hit up for donations and the current student body. In both cases, the college, if such a department were found revolting enough, would experience a drop in funding. When you are a public institution you have to expect increased scrutiny and potential revocation of funding if what your institution does is not politically palatable. That's the tradeoff.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
-Frederick Bastiat
Now all they need to do is demonstrate some linkage between govt spending on 'arts' and actual turnover in the art/culture part of the economy.Uzique wrote:
arts and culture make up 0.4 per cent of *GDP – a significant return on the less than 0.1 per cent of government spending invested in the sector
I bet there's none.
And yet produces only 0.4% of GDP, so its less efficient than average.the arts and culture sector provides 0.45 per cent of total UK employment and 0.48 per cent of total employment in England
Last edited by Dilbert_X (11 years, 8 months ago)
Nope, I wouldn't be having people concocting absurd excuses to fill their time and then funding them, if they can't come up with something worthwhile then there's nothing for them to 'research' is there?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dilbert ridicules some universities for maintaining (small) departmental researchers in things like the medieval age. okay, i'm not going to get into that again, but following his rationalisation and insistence on 'use', the other side of the coin would basically mean you'd have complete english/philosophy departments now pumping out ersatz research on "portrayals of climate change: from odysseus to crusoe", or "vegetarianism and the court-drama" or something stupid like that. the present always has a bad habit of being interpellated with the ideology of the day. what we think today is coldly rational and objectively 'good' will look, in many cases, like total folly in 100 years' time. it's just not good to try and 'shape' the research of knowledge to an End; it's antithetical.
(Still waiting for you to point to a single example of a literature dept anywhere doing a worthwhile piece of research)
and you and jay lack a striking proficiency in basic reading, it seems.
And yet produces only 0.4% of GDP, so its less efficient than average.
arts and culture generate more per pound invested than the health, wholesale and retail, and professional and business services sectors
seems like a fine way to spend public money to me. it has a 400% ROI. "less efficient than average"? uuuh. i think the government would be doing skips of glee all the way to the chancery if they could generate 400% return on all of their public spending.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)
400% ROI? If there were no govt spending it would be infinity% ROI. If the govt doubled spending the return would barely increase so the 'ROI' would be 200%, so by that logic the govt should cut funding to make the figures look better.
ROI is the wrong term to be using when there is no clear linkage.
How much does the govt spend on the countryside? How many tourists come to see the Lake District and the Highlands?
The ROI is infinity% there also apparently....
(Still disappointed you can't come with anything which even looks like it could be worthwhile research in the field of literature)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (11 years, 8 months ago)
You'll have noticed the lines don't join up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
Well played, King of the Derp.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (11 years, 8 months ago)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
great job being able to read an information graphic. the image shows that those are the two main sides considering funding proposals in the arts/humanities. a research proposal has to satisfy both 'sides' - it has to be academically valid and have impact in the economy/society. otherwise it DOESN'T GET THE MONEY.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (11 years, 8 months ago)