|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:28 pm
Wikipedia Academic elitism is a charge sometimes levied at academic institutions and academics more broadly; use of the term "ivory tower" often carries with it an implicit critique of academic elitism. Anti-intellectuals often perceive themselves as champions of ordinary people and populism against elitism, especially academic elitism. These critics argue that highly educated people form an isolated social group and tend to dominate political discourse in higher education (academia). Another criticism is that universities tend more to pseudo-intellectualism than intellectualism per se; for example, to protect their positions and prestige, academics may over-complicate problems and express them in obscure language. Now, being an "academic" myself, I'm in no denial that this phenomena exists. I myself have been called an academic elitist due to my verbose manner of speech. A prime example would be when I responded to some girls derision of the discussion as being childish with a quote from C.S. Lewis regarding the fear of being seen as childish, as being childish. To which she got defensive, and began saying that I was only trying to act smart. My question is, is it undeserved? Is it wrong to see academics as a.. higher authority? For example, when it comes to making a law (see my other thread), should the people who have studied the effect of smacking not have a greater say than those who perhaps have not? I'll concede that, I myself feel that the greatest flaw in democracy is that it allows people to make uninformed decisions. I believe that to make democracy better, it should be weighted so that the higher your education, the more your vote counts. But I want your opinions, be you educated or not xd (This is the first in a series of... "farewell" topics.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:33 pm
Well it makes some sense if you think about it but it would also become too complicated to judge who is educated and who isn't.
and what farewell are you going some place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:39 pm
SolarInvictus Well it makes some sense if you think about it but it would also become too complicated to judge who is educated and who isn't. and what farewell are you going some place? The complications are for the educated to sort out xp I'd say it's fairly easy though, as education is already clearly defined. High School Dropout < High School Leaver < University Student < Graduate < Post-Graduate < Doctor. Of course, that doesn't account for people who defy the norm, but they're isolated incidents. As for what I'm farewelling... I'm just going to be cutting back on my presence in the guild. There'll be perhaps one big thread I'll maintain here, but otherwise... Yeah. Of course, depending on how things go in the "farewell" posts, that may change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:50 pm
You said yourself though that education does not equal intelligence, this might make many very smart people's votes count a very minimalistic amount.
And awe, I'll miss you and your actual zomg based discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:20 pm
CH0Z0 You said yourself though that education does not equal intelligence, this might make many very smart people's votes count a very minimalistic amount. And awe, I'll miss you and your actual zomg based discussions. They don't equal, but there is a correlation. >.<;; It's the lack of zOMG! based discussions that's prompting this decision D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:40 pm
The idea about someone with a higher level of education having more of a say than one who doesn't is a relatively decent idea...except for the fact that just because you've been educated doesn't mean you're educated in politics or the voting process. Yes, you're normally required to take government at some point in high school, but unless you're planning on doing something in government or politics you're probably going to forget a lot of stuff so you can make room for college info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:52 am
Personally I hate the elitism of academia for the same reason I stopped indulging in the ED. A lot of it tends to obscure the truth in search of a hidden truth that most times, isn't there. Or it is just a different form of masturbation. This is balanced by the fact that you don't want the completely uneducated making decisions as a majority of said decisions will be riddled with ignorance.
Those who might attack me on this should note that they wouldn't take their sick relatives to a random hobo, they take them to a doctor. I wouldn't hire a random person to build me a house, I would speak with a professional carpenter or at least somebody I knew who had built a sound and safe house before. If I want a death ray, I will conjure up the spirit of Tesla.
I find that both sides of the coin, academia and the common folk, have driven a wedge between themselves. Academia by looking down its nose at those without a string of letter after their name and the common man by acting as if all of academia is trying to build a death ray to enslave them.
Then there is the lazy and arrogant, who substitute enough pretension to fill thousands of doctorate level books. They make the common folk look stupid by making false claims to attack legitimate theory and discovery and make academia look fishy by clothing their written works in obscure phrases without substance.
The whole mess is so convoluted and messy that half the time, I just want to build a death ray and kill us all. Let the next breed of sentient life have a go at it, though they could at least dedicate a statue to me. That would be sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:33 am
........
Used to think the people in the AP/honors classes were smarter.
Then I got into them, and found that they're just as stupid as everyone else. If not, more so.
I've also had some clashes with people from..... Schools that are deemed to be higher. It was truly horrifying how lowly they seemed.
College graduates as well. Testaments to how truly horrible the system is.
Higher education is, at the moment, a myth. I hear legends about, but I can never find an example. Never. Not once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 am
I won't say academical education prove people to be smarter than others, but it may help people get a little smarter than they used to be.
The academics mostly just specialize within certain fields. Just 'cause somebody got the education to take more advanced jobs within a given field, doesn't mean they're smarter than those without.
And let's not forget those who're far supreriour than their examination grades. They may be abel to handle the stress at work, but not on their tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:36 pm
hermie_the_frog The idea about someone with a higher level of education having more of a say than one who doesn't is a relatively decent idea...except for the fact that just because you've been educated doesn't mean you're educated in politics or the voting process. Yes, you're normally required to take government at some point in high school, but unless you're planning on doing something in government or politics you're probably going to forget a lot of stuff so you can make room for college info. This is true. Only those who specialise in political science would be more inclined to make "intelligent" voting decisions. One theory behind my statement though is, speaking from personal experience, a lot of the ability to pass exams isn't from the ability to memorise stuff (in science at least) but rather the ability to piece 2 and 2 together on the fly. I would expect this helps all academics to undertake logical process like government even -slightly- more effectively. >.>;; Speechless 'cause I'm leavin', or speechless 'cause you dislike academic elitism? DeathWyrmNexus Personally I hate the elitism of academia for the same reason I stopped indulging in the ED. A lot of it tends to obscure the truth in search of a hidden truth that most times, isn't there. Or it is just a different form of masturbation. This is balanced by the fact that you don't want the completely uneducated making decisions as a majority of said decisions will be riddled with ignorance. Those who might attack me on this should note that they wouldn't take their sick relatives to a random hobo, they take them to a doctor. I wouldn't hire a random person to build me a house, I would speak with a professional carpenter or at least somebody I knew who had built a sound and safe house before. If I want a death ray, I will conjure up the spirit of Tesla. I find that both sides of the coin, academia and the common folk, have driven a wedge between themselves. Academia by looking down its nose at those without a string of letter after their name and the common man by acting as if all of academia is trying to build a death ray to enslave them. Then there is the lazy and arrogant, who substitute enough pretension to fill thousands of doctorate level books. They make the common folk look stupid by making false claims to attack legitimate theory and discovery and make academia look fishy by clothing their written works in obscure phrases without substance. The whole mess is so convoluted and messy that half the time, I just want to build a death ray and kill us all. Let the next breed of sentient life have a go at it, though they could at least dedicate a statue to me. That would be sweet. Regarding the first paragraph... That's why I steer clear of the Philosophy department ._.;; Divine_Malevolence ........ Used to think the people in the AP/honors classes were smarter. Then I got into them, and found that they're just as stupid as everyone else. If not, more so. I've also had some clashes with people from..... Schools that are deemed to be higher. It was truly horrifying how lowly they seemed. College graduates as well. Testaments to how truly horrible the system is. Higher education is, at the moment, a myth. I hear legends about, but I can never find an example. Never. Not once. People will always act stupid as a general rule of thumb. The question at hand is whether they can execute intelligent decisions (when given time to think) better than uneducated people. Gakre I won't say academical education prove people to be smarter than others, but it may help people get a little smarter than they used to be. The academics mostly just specialize within certain fields. Just 'cause somebody got the education to take more advanced jobs within a given field, doesn't mean they're smarter than those without. And let's not forget those who're far supreriour than their examination grades. They may be abel to handle the stress at work, but not on their tests. Well, that first one is a good point. I've already mentioned geniuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:25 am
Valheita hermie_the_frog The idea about someone with a higher level of education having more of a say than one who doesn't is a relatively decent idea...except for the fact that just because you've been educated doesn't mean you're educated in politics or the voting process. Yes, you're normally required to take government at some point in high school, but unless you're planning on doing something in government or politics you're probably going to forget a lot of stuff so you can make room for college info. This is true. Only those who specialise in political science would be more inclined to make "intelligent" voting decisions. One theory behind my statement though is, speaking from personal experience, a lot of the ability to pass exams isn't from the ability to memorise stuff (in science at least) but rather the ability to piece 2 and 2 together on the fly. I would expect this helps all academics to undertake logical process like government even -slightly- more effectively. The problem is though, not everyone is necessarily educated in logical processes. It's a big part of math, of philosophy (sometimes), of computer science and physics and chemistry and to some degree biology; engineers use it and astronomers almost fit under physics. Once you leave the sciences, though, logic becomes rather less important. (Of course, 'science' can be taken in many ways, especially when it comes to 'social sciences', which many people don't regard as science at all but others think that they definitely are.)
If you had someone with a degree in, say, art history, and someone with a degree in computer science, which would you be more inclined to allow to make an important decision for the country? The art historian whose knowledge is solely about art, or the computer scientist who also may not have much relevant knowledge, but has been well-taught to follow logical steps in order to come to any conclusion?
Personally, I'd trust the computer scientist, even if they had only a bachelor's degree while the art historian had a doctorate.
As far as academic elitism goes, I think that in some cases, it is definitely justified. Of course, were it up to me, only those highly educated in science would be allowed to make decisions pertaining to it. So while someone who studied liberal arts could vote on a law concerning the legality of same-sex marriage, only those who had studied science could vote on a law concerning the legality of embryonic stem-cell research.
Though if you take that too far, I suppose one could come to the conclusion that only those who study political science can vote, which raises problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:41 pm
Depending on the Art History course, you learn about movement events and what caused them. You get a good idea of time period's mood and thought processes by viewing their art.
That said, you are correct computer training vs art history, neither have a natural or at least easily identified niche' to know more about voting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:51 pm
Tabihito The problem is though, not everyone is necessarily educated in logical processes. It's a big part of math, of philosophy (sometimes), of computer science and physics and chemistry and to some degree biology; engineers use it and astronomers almost fit under physics. Once you leave the sciences, though, logic becomes rather less important. (Of course, 'science' can be taken in many ways, especially when it comes to 'social sciences', which many people don't regard as science at all but others think that they definitely are.)
If you had someone with a degree in, say, art history, and someone with a degree in computer science, which would you be more inclined to allow to make an important decision for the country? The art historian whose knowledge is solely about art, or the computer scientist who also may not have much relevant knowledge, but has been well-taught to follow logical steps in order to come to any conclusion?
Personally, I'd trust the computer scientist, even if they had only a bachelor's degree while the art historian had a doctorate.
As far as academic elitism goes, I think that in some cases, it is definitely justified. Of course, were it up to me, only those highly educated in science would be allowed to make decisions pertaining to it. So while someone who studied liberal arts could vote on a law concerning the legality of same-sex marriage, only those who had studied science could vote on a law concerning the legality of embryonic stem-cell research.
Though if you take that too far, I suppose one could come to the conclusion that only those who study political science can vote, which raises problems. It is a slippery slope I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:37 pm
Valheita Tabihito The problem is though, not everyone is necessarily educated in logical processes. It's a big part of math, of philosophy (sometimes), of computer science and physics and chemistry and to some degree biology; engineers use it and astronomers almost fit under physics. Once you leave the sciences, though, logic becomes rather less important. (Of course, 'science' can be taken in many ways, especially when it comes to 'social sciences', which many people don't regard as science at all but others think that they definitely are.)
If you had someone with a degree in, say, art history, and someone with a degree in computer science, which would you be more inclined to allow to make an important decision for the country? The art historian whose knowledge is solely about art, or the computer scientist who also may not have much relevant knowledge, but has been well-taught to follow logical steps in order to come to any conclusion?
Personally, I'd trust the computer scientist, even if they had only a bachelor's degree while the art historian had a doctorate.
As far as academic elitism goes, I think that in some cases, it is definitely justified. Of course, were it up to me, only those highly educated in science would be allowed to make decisions pertaining to it. So while someone who studied liberal arts could vote on a law concerning the legality of same-sex marriage, only those who had studied science could vote on a law concerning the legality of embryonic stem-cell research.
Though if you take that too far, I suppose one could come to the conclusion that only those who study political science can vote, which raises problems. It is a slippery slope I guess. -nod- I guess my point was, once you start adding restrictions based on education, where does it end?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
