[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Academia (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/27/2007 11:44:33 AM EDT
|
Who else finds academia to be made up of self-interested 'scholars' who will defend their own theories (even if wrong) to the death or pick up on the latest intellectual fad making its way through the field just because it's the most popular one at the moment? To me the intellectual system is flawed. Plus a majority of 'intellectuals' don't like our guns. 
|
Damn straight! We don't need no stinkin' education! Of course, as two college educators, we kind of have a dog in the fight.  To the OP, I'm curious about what the "flaws" are in the "intellectual system", and how you would fix them. |
I have to admit I am curious about the qualification of someone criticizing "academia" and "the intellectual system" - does this person really understand how that system works, or does he merely have a superficial and flawed "outside" view of it. It has a little more weight if it's coming from a senior tenured Stanford professor, as opposed to coming from a college sophmore. One is valid, and the other is, well, sophmoric.  |
I am, was a history major and poli. sci. minor. Frankly, I believe academia is quite overrated and we put too much weight on their 'findings'. They are humans like us who make mistakes, cling to fads and have biases and personalities that affect their decisions. I've found in my questioning that to put ones complete faith in other fallible humans is very flawed. It seems strange that we give people an 'elite' status for creating and defending theories that may or may not be right. Scientists and historians come up with numerous theories about single topics and try to pass off one specific theory as correct. One academic faction battles against another. The stronger of the two wins. Ask and I'll provide examples. |
Couldn't get into Grad school, eh?
|
I didn't want to have jump through hoops to please other people. |
So, we can't question them? |
Sure we can! That's the whole point of academic research! You SHOULD question the findings, that's the main idea of the whole thing! But you said this:
And those things you mentioned there are nothing like proper academia. That is exactly what the academic system works against. |
No offense, but you have NO IDEA how academia actually works. It isn't about sitting around mentally masturbating and jsut coming up with goofy theories that may or may not be correct, and then spewing bullshit. That may be the case in shitty universities (i.e. non-research universities), or in crappy pseudo-academic departments like women's studies, and literature, and political science, etc. But "academia" is about creating testable hypotheses, grounded in existing theory, and then designing and testing those hypotheses as part of the gradual and rigorous expansion of knowledge. Developing new theory is even harder and more difficult, especially in the peer-reviewed journals necessary for recognition. I've published a lot of empirical studies in top journals in my field, by the theory paper I published was by far the hardest to develop and write - but it will be the basis for further empirical work. The human genome project is academia. Developing new medical technology is academia. Developing new insight into high-energy physics and cosmology is academia. Developing new energy sources, new materials, and new technology is academia. Please don't stereotype the REAL academics based on the hacks and losers that you may have encountered in your college experience. 
|
Yup. A. Unless you work in this "academia", I question your ability to suggest otherwise. |
Oh I'm sorry - I didn't realize you were ASKING A QUESTION in your post.  It sure looked to me like you had already made up your mind about "academia" and were busy judging, not questioning. If you had questions about how actual academia WORKS, I would have been happy to answer them.
|
I'll throw my hat into the ring as well, if anyone has any questions about how things work at the higher academic level, feel free to ask. |
lame cop-out. |
Do you have any questions for me? I'd be happy to answer anything you have to ask. I'm willing to debate this, but no one, including you, has offered any actual arguments yet. |
ok, i'll shoot. how do you feel about journals which require "fees" to publish papers? do you see this as any different from bribes? |
|
This topic arises from research I've been doing about the ancient Anasazi. Richard Wetherill helped discover Mesa Verde, arguably one of the most imporant areas of Anasazi ruins. Yet today many an 'academic' ignore him and his brothers or even cast aspersions against him. Edgar Hewett spoke out against Whetherill, considered the father of modern Anasazi archeology, saying he was 'vandalizing' Chaco Canyon, another important Anasazi site. Wetherill was eventually banned from Chaco even though he was using archeological techniques that were ahead of their time. Do you want more examples? |
|
Several months ago NASA administrator, Mike Griffin, was attacked because of statements he made about global warming. Eventually he apologized for his remarks. It seems academia will browbeat anyone who disagrees with the popular theories. And if someone who isn't a 'scholar' questions them they hold up the "I'm an intellectual, I'm a scholar" card. |
Journals have evolved quite a bit over the last few years, so there are a lot of issues here. In the case of classic peer-reviewed journals, the good ones generally do not require a fee on the part of the submitter. However, there are cases of small fees, as generally the peer-reviewers for these journals have many other responsibilities and are compensated for their time. Truely pay-to-publish hardcopy journals are not seen as academically prestigious, but they are used on occasion to expose research to a larger audience. Remember, the value in a journal article is exposure of the idea, the discussion it generates, and from a less-academic standpoint, the prestige it gathers. In general, serious academic research is not vetted through pay-to-publish journals. The newer concepts of Open Access journals throw a little wrench into the traditional structure. These journals are open to access by all comers, through online archives, and thus have to subsidize their operations through payments from submitters. An academic may publish in these journals for exposure, but is not looking necessarily for peer review or prestige. So to sum up, it depends on what you're looking for. The purpose of a pay-to-publish plan is generally to get the word out on some less-than-solid research, or to dishonestly promote a work. Thus, you wouldn't look to such publications for a credible assertion of validity. The best-vetted research is in the classical peer-reviewed journal, but Open Access journals are serving to widen the discussion, while not at all taking the place of the prestige and review granted by the older school of publication. Remember this: no pay, peer-reviewed is the most prestigious, and most independent. But there is information to be gained by reading other publications as well, as long as you recognize where it's coming from. |
Wow, condemn the whole idea of academia from one political battle in a small sub-section of a specialized field. That's good scientific method. And my wife, departmental chair, tenured associate professor, says that there is no so such things as politics in academia. At all. Of course, upon being elected chair, she said: "let the reign of darkness begin." One of her colleagues is Rocky Chandler's wife. That would be of the "Death From Afar/ Shooter Galloway" fame. |
|
Here's another example. The theory about the abandonment of the Anasazi has been changing constantly. Back in the early part of the 20th century the theory was invaders from the south pushed them away. Then it was the changing climate that did it. Then it was arroyo cutting. Today the popular theory is that a religious change made the Anasazi abandon their dwellings. We don't know what exactly pushed the Anasazi away but every few decades we get a new theory that gains popularity only to be neglected when a 'better' theory arises. |
So what is your complaint here? That as more research is done, different ideas are floated? I'm not sure what the issue is. |
There are thousands of such examples. Politics is quite involved in academia yet those in the system like to think it's not. |
Oh Teh Noes! Are we saying that we should pick a theory and stick with it? Right after disparaging an instance of just that? |
No, they don't. They acknowledge it, bemoan it, and, occasionally, try and do something about it. I have yet to meet an academic (silly me, only three degrees) who would claim otherwise. Is this an undergraduate rant? |
It depends on what kind of journal it is. If it's a pay-to-publish journal, then everyone in the field knows it, and the journal is regarded as roughly as useful as toilet paper - but it might be useful for consultants and pseudo-academics to try to pretend to have "credentials" by impressing suckers outside academia who don't know a shitty pretend journal from a serious academic journal. If it's a rigorous academic journal, but it requires a fee with a submission for review (in order to cover costs - after all, it's not like they sell ads or anyting - or to pay for high-qaulity reviewers at top institutions), then I don't think it's a problem. I believe that a number of the top journals in Finance and Economics might require a fee. However, considering that most of the articles are rejected from these journals (about 90 - 95%), then it clearly isn't a "pay-to-publish" scheme. Plus, if there's a fee like that, in most case the institution the researcher works for will pay the fee, so it's not really like extorting money from the poor researcher. Does that help to answer, or am I missing something of what you were asking? |
So how is this an indictment of academia again? Internal politics is part of life in every single thing in the world, whether it be academia, government, or business. If you're talking about politics in the "demo vs. repub" sense, it really has little to no influence in true academia. In general, politics really don't have that much influence in the academic world; if a theory is strong, it will stand on its own. There is not a global political conspiracy repressing what you think is right. |
|
thunderw21, where are you attending? If you care to share? I'll chime in as someone who is over-educated for his intelligence. Like with many other things, I like academia for the good ones in it. I have encountered many snobbish professors who are the self-serving types you mentioned. I have also had the pleasure to have some intelligent, knowledgeable, and helpful professors who even left politics out of the classroom  . Many had interesting classes and made learning a joy. Hell, college was one of the few things I was good atI am friends with a prof. I had as an undergrad, he has helped me in grad school and we've even drank beer together. |
The issue is that we look at only what we want to look at. Is it reasonable to say that these theories exsited before they became popular? If so, why did they become popular at one point only to loose out to another theory? New research could account for some of it but politics accounts for much of it. Theories seem more like fads. If you go question popular belief you will be attacked much like the NASA official was when he spoke out against global warming. Or when Richard Whetherill was digging Chaco Canyon and others wanted to get involved. Don't get me wrong, not all of academia is bad. But I'm seeing a disturbing increase of politics and personal interest into the academic field. |
Tell me more about what the people in a system think like, oh great insightful one.  Seriously, you sound exactly like some some soccermom or liberal who has never been in the military complaining about the conditions IN the military, because of a few extreme examples that have little to do with hoe things actually work on an everyday basis. In the days of the internet, everyone is suddenly an expert on everything. I'm not saying that you have to have "been there and done that" to have an opinion, but it does become a little ludicrous when someone with ZERO experience in a profession starts to lecture the actual professionals about how their world works. Plus, your earlier posts indicate (as I explained) that you really have NO IDEA hwo academia actually works, so your opinions about how much politics there is or isn't carry about as much weight as your understanding of how theory development and testing work |
What position are you in to have this birds-eye view of academic fields? You talk about all these things that are supposedly happening, but I don't see them. Theories become "fads" when the latest research supports them the best. |
|
Hey they get paid 22k a year to teach your dum arse. They deserve their silly titles and elbow patches and whacky theories. I'm not interested in paying high tuition so I can have a level headed conservative earning 200k a year teaching advanced physics. I can listen to a little crazy if it means lower tuition. Yes yes, the US is evil, white people are evil, Indians deserve their country back and guns cause crime. Now gimme my sheepskin and my scholorship for nothing. |
It does make someone less credible, since the rant itself is about academia, something that an undergrad doesn't have much experience with. |
I'm not even sure what your point is here...is it something you want someone to address? |
|
To the OP: The university system is full of all kinds of people. As critically thinking students we are tasked with understanding the difference between, "Here's what I think and here's why I think it. Anyone care to discuss and try to change my mind?" vs. "Here's what I think and I mock those who disagree." Once you can determine the difference between the two, you get a gold star in your workbook, but you STILL have to give them what they want. There are nuqgets to be gleaned from even the most obnoxious professor. |