You folks are in rare mood this evening!
Loved the Priest, but man they made some cheesy videos.
Loved the Priest, but man they made some cheesy videos.
This Is Why Academic Intellectuals Generally Suck For The Most Part...
- Thread starter misterlowercase
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Sable you are one of the truly good teachers then who teaches from both the book theory and practical experience. That doesn't apply to all teachers.
Here's another thought.
Higher education is a business. The main purpose of any college or university has long ago ceased to have the primary focus of educating students. The Primary focus is now to make money. Why else do students get burdened with paying for classes that have little connection to the field of study that is being pursued.
For example, I know a young lady that was seeking a degree in electrical engineering and she said her hardest classes as an undergraduate was in Greek mythology and philosophy. Instead of attending classes which pertained to electrical engineering, have of her class load each semester was in basic course and electives that she was told she had to take. The standard line is that the variety of courses is designed to make "well-rounded, well-educated" students.
I think the purpose was to jack the tuition and fees as high as possible to pay higher salaries to liberal instructors and professors. The same liberals who rend their clothing and beat their chests about business owners and leaders making too much money. They spend too much time indoctrinating the students into their leftist, PC beliefs and if you don't buy 100% into the crap they are teaching, then you fail the course.
Maybe I'm just too much a cynic.
Higher education is a business. The main purpose of any college or university has long ago ceased to have the primary focus of educating students. The Primary focus is now to make money. Why else do students get burdened with paying for classes that have little connection to the field of study that is being pursued.
For example, I know a young lady that was seeking a degree in electrical engineering and she said her hardest classes as an undergraduate was in Greek mythology and philosophy. Instead of attending classes which pertained to electrical engineering, have of her class load each semester was in basic course and electives that she was told she had to take. The standard line is that the variety of courses is designed to make "well-rounded, well-educated" students.
I think the purpose was to jack the tuition and fees as high as possible to pay higher salaries to liberal instructors and professors. The same liberals who rend their clothing and beat their chests about business owners and leaders making too much money. They spend too much time indoctrinating the students into their leftist, PC beliefs and if you don't buy 100% into the crap they are teaching, then you fail the course.
Maybe I'm just too much a cynic.
(I know, I know, I should leave it alone my precious. What the heck I have never been known to take the easy road.)
This sorta sounds like a dunhill thread. Some love them, others bash dunhill. Universities exist to promote learning and to expand knowledge. As pointed out they make money. Well sheeeet how do you promote learning and expand knowledge without money? Answer is you cannot. Anyone have a small nuclear power cell to donate, anyone, hmmmm anyone have a electron microscope hmmm how about 4,000 run of the mill microscopes anyone, anyone, dang hmmmm how about a 4 story building, buehler, buehler, no one it seems. Therefore to be able to teach and do research you have to make your own money. Why do you think the Football coach is usually the highest paid state employee....because a good football program, especially one that pulls TV contracts and bowl games, bring a ton of money to the University. More than any other revenue stream in many cases.
Someone wrote in this thread that no one pays them any attention except other professors. Well how many on this forum right now can understand and coherently discuss the theory of relativity with anyone? Or string theory, or medical models, or algebra in the 4th demension, or....you get the point. So for the most part the only ones that actually understand, really understand is their peers.
We as a nation need that information, we need to be on the cutting edge, because if we are not we are lost. We have to ask other countries scientist and professors to explain it to us. That my brothers of the Briar is dangerous and we will not survive.
I now step off of the soapbox. Please do consider my points though. Happy puffing!!
This sorta sounds like a dunhill thread. Some love them, others bash dunhill. Universities exist to promote learning and to expand knowledge. As pointed out they make money. Well sheeeet how do you promote learning and expand knowledge without money? Answer is you cannot. Anyone have a small nuclear power cell to donate, anyone, hmmmm anyone have a electron microscope hmmm how about 4,000 run of the mill microscopes anyone, anyone, dang hmmmm how about a 4 story building, buehler, buehler, no one it seems. Therefore to be able to teach and do research you have to make your own money. Why do you think the Football coach is usually the highest paid state employee....because a good football program, especially one that pulls TV contracts and bowl games, bring a ton of money to the University. More than any other revenue stream in many cases.
Someone wrote in this thread that no one pays them any attention except other professors. Well how many on this forum right now can understand and coherently discuss the theory of relativity with anyone? Or string theory, or medical models, or algebra in the 4th demension, or....you get the point. So for the most part the only ones that actually understand, really understand is their peers.
We as a nation need that information, we need to be on the cutting edge, because if we are not we are lost. We have to ask other countries scientist and professors to explain it to us. That my brothers of the Briar is dangerous and we will not survive.
I now step off of the soapbox. Please do consider my points though. Happy puffing!!
I find the anti-intellectualism here to be disconcerting and furthermore I consider myself to be an intellectual and make no apologies for my love of learning.
Forgot to add this. In case your wondering, no I am not a University professor or associated with any University. I am a simple old Airborne Infantryman, a life taker and a heart breaker, guaranteed not to dust, bust, or rust. I eat razor blades and shit concertina wire, drink diesel and piss napalm, cut me and I bleed Airborne Maroon. I certainly am not fucking PC or a liberal. But I can see the tactical advantage of a College Degree and believe it or not I have even earned one. I also can see the tactical advantage and need as a nation to have a very good University system.
I now throw the dang soapbox in the trash!! Time to smoke a bowl of Mountain Camp in my Pete 68 Spigot! Happy puffing!!
I now throw the dang soapbox in the trash!! Time to smoke a bowl of Mountain Camp in my Pete 68 Spigot! Happy puffing!!
I spent eight years of my life going to university and earned three degrees. I loved every minute of it and wouldn't trade the experience for anything else on the planet.
I do agree that there should always be some balance between theory and practice, but university, for the most part, is a place to learn and explore theory and, by extension, to learn how to tackle problems and to think critically; practical experience is something that is better learned on the job, and as long as students know how to think analytically and tackle problems by the time they leave an institutional setting, they will be well prepared for that process.
There are always exceptions of course, but I think a great many universities fulfill this function very well.
Today, I am a practitioner in my field as well as an adjunct professor at a university. While I have no doubt that my practical experience influences my teaching (how can it not), I make a concerted effort to focus on theory and not practice and to force students to challenge generally accepted norms and modes of thinking in the area they are studying -- because it is precisely that sort of critical thinking that produces exceptional practitioners.
I do agree that there should always be some balance between theory and practice, but university, for the most part, is a place to learn and explore theory and, by extension, to learn how to tackle problems and to think critically; practical experience is something that is better learned on the job, and as long as students know how to think analytically and tackle problems by the time they leave an institutional setting, they will be well prepared for that process.
There are always exceptions of course, but I think a great many universities fulfill this function very well.
Today, I am a practitioner in my field as well as an adjunct professor at a university. While I have no doubt that my practical experience influences my teaching (how can it not), I make a concerted effort to focus on theory and not practice and to force students to challenge generally accepted norms and modes of thinking in the area they are studying -- because it is precisely that sort of critical thinking that produces exceptional practitioners.
I've taught and run some very large adult learning operations involving thousands of people. There is a big difference between those that take refuge in our universities and colleges and those that impart the skills needed for success by bringing experience to the classroom. If anti-intellectualism hurt your feelings it might just be because of the arrogance and condescending manner that community seems to have for everyone else. They're great at the theoretical but most of them couldn't run a lawn party. And to hide that reality they resort to intellectual intimidation. If they are held in contempt, many earned it.
Yep, that's what they likely said about Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Max Planck, Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Ronald Coase, to name but a few.
And they would be right of course.
But I would submit there are other people who are better suited to running lawn parties.
A child should be taught critical thinking early, starting at home, long before they attend an institution of higher learning. They should also be taught to regurgitate what an educator whats to hear when confronting a pedant in the class room. Then when the student becomes a job holder it is time to apply what was taught in the classroom to the real world.
We send kids to school to improve them, not to make them into us. We should want better than we are with regards to education. Most teachers are probably closer to the peck or sable model than the ones which make the headlines or talk shows.
We send kids to school to improve them, not to make them into us. We should want better than we are with regards to education. Most teachers are probably closer to the peck or sable model than the ones which make the headlines or talk shows.
Peck and Sable said it as well as anyone can. One of the professors I most respected during my post-graduate education had a plaque on his desk that read, "Those who can do, do. Those who can do better, teach". He lived that mantra every day.
I tried to foster these skills in my university students. Unfortunately, the professors who were more worried about their publication quotas often sent me students woefully unprepared for independent critical/analytical thinking. Hell, in my advanced courses I even had Master's students who could not follow basic assignment guidelines, much less perform thoughtful analysis.
Academia offers an easy target for Luddites. Like any population there are in the academic population a wide range of personality types, including poseurs, fakes, airy fairies, bullies, and mediocrities. Such fauna give Luddites an excuse to revel in the superiority of their precious ignorance. They are deluded.
The majority of academicians that I've met are passionate about their field, critical in their thinking, and expert in practice. Some of them can be pompous, but that's style, not substance. Most of the academicians I've met were straightforward and unpretentious.
Luddites can be insufferably pompous. That seems to be more substance than style.
Certainly there are academic studies that appear on the surface to be precious fluff, and which turns out, upon close examination, to be precious fluff. But there's also the occasional study that seems ludicrous at the time, and which turns out to be pay dirt years later.
Universities have to make their costs, so research is the life blood that keeps the doors open, not tuition. Publish or perish has long been the motto, and it has as long been decried by academicians who feel that more emphasis needs to be given to teaching than current economics allow.
The majority of academicians that I've met are passionate about their field, critical in their thinking, and expert in practice. Some of them can be pompous, but that's style, not substance. Most of the academicians I've met were straightforward and unpretentious.
Luddites can be insufferably pompous. That seems to be more substance than style.
Certainly there are academic studies that appear on the surface to be precious fluff, and which turns out, upon close examination, to be precious fluff. But there's also the occasional study that seems ludicrous at the time, and which turns out to be pay dirt years later.
Universities have to make their costs, so research is the life blood that keeps the doors open, not tuition. Publish or perish has long been the motto, and it has as long been decried by academicians who feel that more emphasis needs to be given to teaching than current economics allow.
I love scholarship. Learning is a hobby I do very well on my own. I do poorly in University settings. I have all the needed talents in regards to research and have dropped out of some VERY fine institutions. :roll:
My Mother taught the severely and profoundly mentally and physically handicapped and had her Masters. I have great admiration for great teachers. It appears we have some on this very thread. Thank you for taking the time and having the patience to impart knowledge to a sometimes lazy and unfocused population...students.
When a thread made the rounds asking about people's hobbies, I didn't see many lists that matched mine. I know that in many circles, being an intellectual can get your ass kicked, especially growing up. This is the poor state of affairs of American culture and schools. I personally felt the need to "dumb down" to fit in high school. I certainly regret it. It is not a concern or problem I have now. I don't know the answers to the problems raised in this thread, but if a mentally handicapped woman can be taught NOT to insert objects under her skin just to get attention, then a reasonably intelligent person can be taught to function effectively in society. I EXPECT people with unimpaired minds to use them in some kind of constructive manner for society. If that makes me a liberal, then we need more liberals.
"Well how many on this forum right now can understand and coherently discuss the theory of relativity with anyone? Or string theory, or medical models, or algebra in the 4th dimension"
I can, and will, do exactly this with anyone interested (not algebra but the Fibonacci series in the 4th dimension as delineated by the ancient Egyptian High Priests). Feel free to PM me, I will definitely NOT feel imposed upon. This includes TEACHERS who may have problems with classroom structure, behavioral problems or participation of students, or anything else. I seriously need to find a group who will indulge in this kind of communication. I learned who Alfred Jarry was today thanks to misterlowercase, and I think this entire thread of participants are ON the same page more than they are NOT.
What does this have to do with Pipes? EVERYTHING !! These are exactly the types of conversations gentleman of learning had back in the day as they puffed away on their favorite tobaccos in overstuffed chairs in their shockingly dashing silk lined smoking jackets. I almost feel at home.
Time for a smoke...sorry about the rant. :puffpipe:
My Mother taught the severely and profoundly mentally and physically handicapped and had her Masters. I have great admiration for great teachers. It appears we have some on this very thread. Thank you for taking the time and having the patience to impart knowledge to a sometimes lazy and unfocused population...students.
When a thread made the rounds asking about people's hobbies, I didn't see many lists that matched mine. I know that in many circles, being an intellectual can get your ass kicked, especially growing up. This is the poor state of affairs of American culture and schools. I personally felt the need to "dumb down" to fit in high school. I certainly regret it. It is not a concern or problem I have now. I don't know the answers to the problems raised in this thread, but if a mentally handicapped woman can be taught NOT to insert objects under her skin just to get attention, then a reasonably intelligent person can be taught to function effectively in society. I EXPECT people with unimpaired minds to use them in some kind of constructive manner for society. If that makes me a liberal, then we need more liberals.
"Well how many on this forum right now can understand and coherently discuss the theory of relativity with anyone? Or string theory, or medical models, or algebra in the 4th dimension"
I can, and will, do exactly this with anyone interested (not algebra but the Fibonacci series in the 4th dimension as delineated by the ancient Egyptian High Priests). Feel free to PM me, I will definitely NOT feel imposed upon. This includes TEACHERS who may have problems with classroom structure, behavioral problems or participation of students, or anything else. I seriously need to find a group who will indulge in this kind of communication. I learned who Alfred Jarry was today thanks to misterlowercase, and I think this entire thread of participants are ON the same page more than they are NOT.
What does this have to do with Pipes? EVERYTHING !! These are exactly the types of conversations gentleman of learning had back in the day as they puffed away on their favorite tobaccos in overstuffed chairs in their shockingly dashing silk lined smoking jackets. I almost feel at home.
Time for a smoke...sorry about the rant. :puffpipe:
I agree with you Gloucesterman. I don't consider myself a Luddite primarily because I've never destroyed a piece of laborsaving machinery or technology. It seems to be a popular name to call people who don't intellectually agree with ones beliefs or thoughts.
I will apologize if it seemed as though I was attacking higher education. I wasn't. It is valuable and makes the world a better case. Knowledge is light that keeps us from living in a world of darkness. However, I stand by my opinion that university's are just as interested in making money as any other business and that they do this by increasing the number of classes that has little to do with the actual field of study that is being pursued. I'm 62 and readily admit that I didn't complete college. I served for 21 years in the military and the majority of my education came from military schools. I did earn 97 credit hours towards a degree though. After working for a printing company for 10 years, I am now successfully self employed.
We have 4 adult children who also attend college. The majority of their professors and instructors were very competent and of those, many had real world work experience to back up their academics. However, there are too many professors and instructors who go from being a student to being an instructor and all they teach are theory. There are also too many professors and instructors who teach their own political agenda and if you disagree then you have a hard time passing the course.
So, if you want to call me a Luddite because I believe the higher education system needs to be about teaching a field of study and not about increasing the amount of money professors, instructors and administrators make, then you can call me a Luddite.
I will apologize if it seemed as though I was attacking higher education. I wasn't. It is valuable and makes the world a better case. Knowledge is light that keeps us from living in a world of darkness. However, I stand by my opinion that university's are just as interested in making money as any other business and that they do this by increasing the number of classes that has little to do with the actual field of study that is being pursued. I'm 62 and readily admit that I didn't complete college. I served for 21 years in the military and the majority of my education came from military schools. I did earn 97 credit hours towards a degree though. After working for a printing company for 10 years, I am now successfully self employed.
We have 4 adult children who also attend college. The majority of their professors and instructors were very competent and of those, many had real world work experience to back up their academics. However, there are too many professors and instructors who go from being a student to being an instructor and all they teach are theory. There are also too many professors and instructors who teach their own political agenda and if you disagree then you have a hard time passing the course.
So, if you want to call me a Luddite because I believe the higher education system needs to be about teaching a field of study and not about increasing the amount of money professors, instructors and administrators make, then you can call me a Luddite.
Good points all around,
thank you gentlemen.
:clap:
What started out as a rant post for venting my disgruntlement in regards to not having access to an article that I was highly interested in, has sort of exploded, and also prompted me to actually think about things...
...should I be more careful with my language?
Yes,
I should.
All too often I am impulsive and dive right in the soupy public mix, off the cuff and rambling with half-baked ideas seemingly being sketched as I go along, like rough drafts which shouldn't really be published.
Are we, culturally, now, due to the online influence, more prone to such tendencies?
A quick look at twitter would seem to indicate so.
The "publish or perish" slogan has went viral, mainstreaming a vast public discourse, in many cases people feel that it is imperative to publish whatever they think or share whatever they find, to document it all and chronicle all the various aspects of whatever wherever whenever and about whomever.
This is generally a good thing I think.
I am mostly a romantic at heart, an idealist, I do look upon the internet as a very positive influence, and actually believe it has provided a sort of transcendental tech-gnosis --- Borges's infinite library in the flesh, alive and mutating by the nanosecond.
Even here, I don't really know what I'm trying to say.
When I used the term "academic intellectuals" as a descriptor,
in my mind the phrase has a rather narrow application as to relate moreso to "traditional humanists" and everything encapsulated within that particular subset of academia.
I should have been more cautious as to making such a blanket statement,
that was a faltering mistake on my part.
The wiki entries are actually pretty good,
I've read them both this morning...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual
...
A quarter of a century ago, Russell Jacoby lamented the demise of the public intellectual. The cause of death was an improvement in material conditions. Public intellectuals—Dwight Macdonald, I.F. Stone, and their like—once had little choice but to be independent. They had difficulty getting permanent well-paying jobs. However, as universities began to expand, they offered new opportunities to erstwhile unemployables. The academy demanded a high price. Intellectuals had to turn away from the public and toward the practiced obscurities of academic research and prose. In Jacoby’s description, these intellectuals “no longer needed or wanted a larger public…. Campuses were their homes; colleagues their audience; monographs and specialized journals their media.”
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/30/the-tech-intellectuals/
...and this:
thank you gentlemen.
:clap:
What started out as a rant post for venting my disgruntlement in regards to not having access to an article that I was highly interested in, has sort of exploded, and also prompted me to actually think about things...
...should I be more careful with my language?
Yes,
I should.
All too often I am impulsive and dive right in the soupy public mix, off the cuff and rambling with half-baked ideas seemingly being sketched as I go along, like rough drafts which shouldn't really be published.
Are we, culturally, now, due to the online influence, more prone to such tendencies?
A quick look at twitter would seem to indicate so.
The "publish or perish" slogan has went viral, mainstreaming a vast public discourse, in many cases people feel that it is imperative to publish whatever they think or share whatever they find, to document it all and chronicle all the various aspects of whatever wherever whenever and about whomever.
This is generally a good thing I think.
I am mostly a romantic at heart, an idealist, I do look upon the internet as a very positive influence, and actually believe it has provided a sort of transcendental tech-gnosis --- Borges's infinite library in the flesh, alive and mutating by the nanosecond.
Even here, I don't really know what I'm trying to say.
When I used the term "academic intellectuals" as a descriptor,
in my mind the phrase has a rather narrow application as to relate moreso to "traditional humanists" and everything encapsulated within that particular subset of academia.
I should have been more cautious as to making such a blanket statement,
that was a faltering mistake on my part.
The wiki entries are actually pretty good,
I've read them both this morning...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual
...
...and this too:
A quarter of a century ago, Russell Jacoby lamented the demise of the public intellectual. The cause of death was an improvement in material conditions. Public intellectuals—Dwight Macdonald, I.F. Stone, and their like—once had little choice but to be independent. They had difficulty getting permanent well-paying jobs. However, as universities began to expand, they offered new opportunities to erstwhile unemployables. The academy demanded a high price. Intellectuals had to turn away from the public and toward the practiced obscurities of academic research and prose. In Jacoby’s description, these intellectuals “no longer needed or wanted a larger public…. Campuses were their homes; colleagues their audience; monographs and specialized journals their media.”
http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/30/the-tech-intellectuals/
...and this:
...
I think every point that has been made on this subject is valid. One thing left out, not all young adults have a place at University. Not all minds are a like, not all individuals are to be cut from the same mold. Not all can handle the rigorous learning. That also means wading through the Professor's B.S.( not all professors spout B.S.). As far as Elementary and High School I think it's evident that One Size Fits All is a disaster. Thank god for Charter Schools, Virtual Schools, Independent Schools, etc.
Peck, point well taken. I most certainly should have exempted schools of medicine and science. Overly broad generalizations will always get you into trouble.
Sable, your right, there are many who don't fit the characterization.
Sable, your right, there are many who don't fit the characterization.
"Well how many on this forum right now can understand and coherently discuss the theory of relativity with anyone? Or string theory, or medical models, or algebra in the 4th dimension"
mayfair70 first off dang!! Your good to go! In case you or anyone else thought I can discuss any of my examples coherently, nope. I was simply using them as an example of at that level only a peer, another Professor, or someone like mayfair70 can understand. According to some of my research there was only one physicist that was smart enough to understand what Einstein was writing at the time he wrote his first paper. Anyway, my pipe is calling and the coffee is hot. Must dash.
mayfair70 first off dang!! Your good to go! In case you or anyone else thought I can discuss any of my examples coherently, nope. I was simply using them as an example of at that level only a peer, another Professor, or someone like mayfair70 can understand. According to some of my research there was only one physicist that was smart enough to understand what Einstein was writing at the time he wrote his first paper. Anyway, my pipe is calling and the coffee is hot. Must dash.
- Status