[Weezer]

I don't like how PhDs call themselves Dr. Whatever. I think the term Dr. should be reserved for physicians. If you want a special title, come up with something else.

[ghporter]

There's a balance that needs to be struck between highly focused technical expertise and the ability to actually communicate in a human manner. The trend is to make all non-core courses as close to core courses as possible. A pre-med major with a biology minor makes sense in a way, but how much help will that bio minor be when the doc finally has to talk to a patient? Not much. The focus here is wrong; there's lots of biology in a pre-med program, but how much philosophy (to help patients deal with life-changing conditions or events), history (to help patients understand how they are indeed better off than people in the 1920s), geography (to help put in perspective where an infectious disease comes from and why it's emerging now) or any other similar non-medical subject? Not bloody much, which cheats the student and his future patients.

Every undergraduate program there is builds well-prepared apprentices. They may have a huge amount of knowledge, but no experience in applying it, so they need mentoring and guidance as they actually learn their profession. Some professions are built to do that; medicine is one (but they still only focus on the disease, not the patient and his family, his history, his wants and goals). Others don't bother at all; it's all "on the job training." If you survive that, you usually wind up being smug because you saw plenty of people NOT survive it. That doesn't excuse the stock broker who doesn't know how to keep his VCR from flashing "12:00", it just explains that he worked hard to become "Johnny One Note" and he thinks everyone should applaud him for getting to where he is.

[MarkLT1]

Originally Posted by freudling 

MarkLT1:

You are missing the point: forget about discussing things with people in relation to what you studied, and start thinking about how you would react when you are put on a project with people from all different backgrounds working on something unrelated to all of these backgrounds. It is now not so much about what you studied, but how well you understand the project's objectives and how well you get on with people. The problem is that academic pricks map on their feeling of "authority" onto everything else they do.

But my question is this: what about the other people who do the exact same thing without any kind of advanced degree? Yeah, these guys sound like pricks, but I don't think that their degree makes them any more of a prick. I have run into countless people who map their feeling of (non-existent) authority onto everything they do. By far, the majority of these people had no advanced degree whatsoever.

As for the comments about "Creating suspense." It simply comes down to privacy. I run in relatively tight circles, and would rather not comment on what my specific field is, as there aren't a whole lot of people active in my field with PhDs, and even fewer with the name "Mark"

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by MarkLT1 

As for the comments about "Creating suspense." It simply comes down to privacy. I run in relatively tight circles, and would rather not comment on what my specific field is...

You're cloning humans, aren't you?

[MarkLT1]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

You're cloning humans, aren't you?

Close.. its actually more extra terrestrial in nature

[mindwaves]

However they act, people with PhDs generally make more money than people with "lesser" degrees.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by mindwaves 

However they act, people with PhDs generally make more money than people with "lesser" degrees.

Except for college professors who decided to teach their field rather than practice it.

Most people would consider that noble, I suppose.

Two anecdotes:

I once worked at a campus computer store. Back then we filled out the AppleCare forms for people when they bought their Mac. A coworker was filling out a form for a professor when he asked the customer "Are you a Mrs. or a Ms.?" She replied in a huff, "I'm a Doctor!". He looked at her, and with a straight face, said succinctly, "Well, there's no checkbox for Dr. so today you are a Ms.!" The look on her face as she shuffled out of the store with her Mac was priceless.

In a later job at the campus Help Desk, we got a voice mail "I can not figure out how to log out of my account. I have a PhD so your system is obviously defective. I suggest you rewrite the Help command on this system!"

So yes, academic elitists are everywhere and are a self-selecting group. Unfortunately, the academics who aren't elitist don't go around proclaiming they have a PhD, so we don't really get a representative sample.

[Railroader]

Tommy: Did you hear I finally graduated?
Richard Hayden: Yeah, and just a shade under a decade too, all right.
Tommy: You know a lot of people go to college for seven years.
Richard Hayden: I know, they're called doctors

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And Jobs, Wozniak and Gates were dropouts.

Damn. That's where I blew it. I knew I should not have finished college.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

Two anecdotes:

I once worked at a campus computer store. Back then we filled out the AppleCare forms for people when they bought their Mac. A coworker was filling out a form for a professor when he asked the customer "Are you a Mrs. or a Ms.?" She replied in a huff, "I'm a Doctor!". He looked at her, and with a straight face, said succinctly, "Well, there's no checkbox for Dr. so today you are a Ms.!" The look on her face as she shuffled out of the store with her Mac was priceless.

In a later job at the campus Help Desk, we got a voice mail "I can not figure out how to log out of my account. I have a PhD so your system is obviously defective. I suggest you rewrite the Help command on this system!"

So yes, academic elitists are everywhere and are a self-selecting group. Unfortunately, the academics who aren't elitist don't go around proclaiming they have a PhD, so we don't really get a representative sample.

Try dealing with a medical school. A lot of MDs are also PhDs, and THEY have teh biggest heads around. Some of 'em anyway. If you want to name a category of academics to expect to be jerks, that's probably the first one. Fortunately, many of them surprise you, as do the immunologists, anatomists, cytologists, etc. But it's a red flag if you see both MD and PhD after a name-guaranteed.

[TheMosco]

I am elitist, not because I have a masters or a phd, but because in 2 weeks I will have a BS. Not some BA bulls***...

[turtle777]

Yeah, I have a bullsh!it in business as well.

-t

[MarkLT1]

Bullsh!t in business? The "S" is for Science man.. I know you don't have a PhD, but at the very least, get your animal dung categorization correct!

[turtle777]

Oh, my bad.

You are right, I have a BSh.

-t

[Chongo]

The worst are those with a JD/MD

[freudling]

What does Phd stand for?

Pretty. Huge. Dick.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Figuratively or literally?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by TheMosco 

I am elitist, not because I have a masters or a phd, but because in 2 weeks I will have a BS. Not some BA bulls***...

I have a BA in Geography with a focus on Cartography and Climatology. (The "A" in my BA comes from all the options I took to get into the master's program I took next)
From there, I went and got a master's of environmental design in industrial design and now I'm a usability specialist/software designer. The usability specialist part makes me, by definition, about the *least* elitist people in my office.

[Mithras]

But it does make you plural?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

But it does make you plural?

We don't think so ...

[Faust]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What does Phd stand for?

Pretty. Huge. Dick.

Does that mean women with a PhD really are hermaphrodites?

[Dakar the Fourth]

In that case it stands for Pretty Huge Diaphram.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Perhaps a lot of the names there could've been left out, but the point is that people can be successful (and even not ignorant) without having years upon years of schooling.

In limited fields, though. If all you want to do in your life is design web sites or kick soccer balls around, then by all means drop out of school. For me, this wouldn't be a fulfilling job, but there is more to life than one's job. If you want to save people's lives as a surgeon, or conduct research that will change the world---to make a real impact---then you'll usually need more education. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but these exceptions are rare; choosing a direction for your career based on what worked for Bill Gates isn't wise.

In any case, I think the reason people treat education as something setting them apart intellectually is because the primary purpose of education is screening, and everyone knows it. You've passed a test that most other people haven't, either because they can't or because they chose not to.

[design219]

Originally Posted by tie 

the primary purpose of education is screening, and everyone knows it.

Whoa. I don't know if I can accept that. Some people may not be able to afford a higher education. And there are other reasons.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by design219 

Whoa. I don't know if I can accept that. Some people may not be able to afford a higher education. And there are other reasons.

Agreed.

The only thing a PhD screens for is the relentless pursuit of recognition. Beyond that, and a few rungs up the food chain, it offers little to its bearers. Some people will sacrifice a lot (time, energy, relationships) to get that, others won't.

Look, there are plenty of M.S. degree people out there with tons more actual research experience and intellectual power behind them. And many of them don't want to "waste" 5 years of their life just to move up the food chain. They like their roles. I've met many of them in my work with pharmaceutical companies. They could tap dance rings around some of the PhD's on staff, but they didn't want the political/egotistical/administrative crap that often went with having a PhD. But heaven knows the PhD's were the ones going to conferences, shaking hands, and getting recognized for the work of the organization.

[freudling]

tie:

Thanks for explaining that to all of us, now we know how education works and what its purpose is for. Additionally, your generalizations are insightful. Was your Degree in Educational Development? I am sure it was, because of the authority with which you speak. I was actually thinking of dropping out of school to kick soccer balls around, but now I am having second thoughts. In fact, all I have planned on doing is kicking soccer balls around. No eating, not even breaking to go to the bathroom. Just one perpetual stream of soccer ball kicking. Thanks tie, I think you may have saved me a lot of grief! Too bad you weren't around to offer a motivational speech to Gates or Jobs when they dropped out.

[BRussell]

wolfen - I've never seen a situation where people get PhDs for the recognition of going to conferences, but the real work is done by lab rats who are the real scientists. I'd like to know where that happens. It's true that in most cases, people simply aren't allowed to have the jobs without a PhD, but there's a reason for that. You usually just can't get the training and education any other way. There might be cases where you can work in a lab and get most of the experience you need, but you're still not taking the classes, you still don't have the pressure to do the research, and you probably aren't going to get the kind of systematic training you'd get in the formal program.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

In that case it stands for Pretty Huge Diaphram.

One day my LCD is going to get a mouthful of Sam Adams all over it thanks to you.

[Railroader]

Dude, keep the sexual stuff outa here, there's kids reading this stuff!

I know what Sam Adams is. Good stuff.

[tie]

Originally Posted by freudling 

tie:

Thanks for explaining that to all of us, now we know how education works and what its purpose is for. Additionally, your generalizations are insightful. Was your Degree in Educational Development? I am sure it was, because of the authority with which you speak. I was actually thinking of dropping out of school to kick soccer balls around, but now I am having second thoughts. In fact, all I have planned on doing is kicking soccer balls around. No eating, not even breaking to go to the bathroom. Just one perpetual stream of soccer ball kicking. Thanks tie, I think you may have saved me a lot of grief! Too bad you weren't around to offer a motivational speech to Gates or Jobs when they dropped out.

No, my degree wasn't in educational development, but as I explained, that is irrelevant. I am an expert in everything. (Thanks for playing along. )

[wolfen]

I'm not putting PhD's down. I used to want one. I'm just saying the PhD process and construct is like any other kind of peer review: it's a great idea on paper, but reality is another thing altogether. Think about the consequences of inherent reward systems. People are human, and motivation is pretty simple in certain regards -- people aren't "competing" to be forgotten under some bridge in Podunkia. But when they DO compete for a PhD, there are egoic rewards. And so, some will naturally be disposed to pursue credentials because they provide those rewards.

I know at least 3 people who pursued PhD's because they are basically lazy and wanted to be their own boss without having to be an entrepreneur -- because that's a lot of work. I've met many more professors who were bad at most things, but loved having earned the role.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

wolfen - I've never seen a situation where people get PhDs for the recognition of going to conferences, but the real work is done by lab rats who are the real scientists. I'd like to know where that happens.

You're twisting my words. I think you understand that it's a simple matter of politics that the program manager is the one more likely to shake hands and make deals, not his loyal assistant Kato. And in the political landscape, PhD is a better credential to have. Again - think about the natural consequence of any inherent reward system like that. A significant proportion of people will pursue such rewards as a destination, consciously or otherwise.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I like to get Elitist about my Bachelors in Art.

I wish they'd printed my BA on softer paper.

[freudling]

Man uses Phd Degree as toilet paper, except he never took it out of its frame:

http://www.Phdtoiletpaper.com/newsflash.html

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm not putting PhD's down. I used to want one. I'm just saying the PhD process and construct is like any other kind of peer review: it's a great idea on paper, but reality is another thing altogether. Think about the consequences of inherent reward systems. People are human, and motivation is pretty simple in certain regards -- people aren't "competing" to be forgotten under some bridge in Podunkia. But when they DO compete for a PhD, there are egoic rewards. And so, some will naturally be disposed to pursue credentials because they provide those rewards.

I know at least 3 people who pursued PhD's because they are basically lazy and wanted to be their own boss without having to be an entrepreneur -- because that's a lot of work. I've met many more professors who were bad at most things, but loved having earned the role.

You're twisting my words. I think you understand that it's a simple matter of politics that the program manager is the one more likely to shake hands and make deals, not his loyal assistant Kato. And in the political landscape, PhD is a better credential to have. Again - think about the natural consequence of any inherent reward system like that. A significant proportion of people will pursue such rewards as a destination, consciously or otherwise.

Yeah right. Lazy? Then get a PhD. Don't want to do a lot of work? A PhD is for you!

There's no doubt that it's easier for some people than others, just as being an entrepreneur comes naturally to some but not others. But the idea that going through what you need to go through to get a PhD is associated with laziness and some kind of grandstanding ego thing is hard to take. Of course people get degrees and credentials to improve their career and income prospects. Not many people would go through it just for kicks. But it just sounds to me like you decided not to get one yourself and so now you're justifying your decision by irrationally derogating it as being for lazy people who like political grandstanding, rather than people who like and are good at research and so decide to do it for a living.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I wish they'd printed my BA on softer paper.

True, it sometimes scratches my face when I hug it at night.
I know what you meant.

[freudling]

Look at BRussell getting blue in the face.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah right. Lazy? Then get a PhD. Don't want to do a lot of work? A PhD is for you!

There's no doubt that it's easier for some people than others, just as being an entrepreneur comes naturally to some but not others. But the idea that going through what you need to go through to get a PhD is associated with laziness and some kind of grandstanding ego thing is hard to take. Of course people get degrees and credentials to improve their career and income prospects. Not many people would go through it just for kicks. But it just sounds to me like you decided not to get one yourself and so now you're justifying your decision by irrationally derogating it as being for lazy people who like political grandstanding, rather than people who like and are good at research and so decide to do it for a living.

woah, woah, woah. You seem defensive. First, I'm not making statements applicable to all PhD's.

You seem as if you think I'm making moral judgments of people. I'm saying I KNOW THEM. And since my last post, I count a total of 5 peers who fall into this category of "Smart guy with no drive who doesn't like to be told what to do." In short, narcisstic. I'm not making this up -- I'm a trained clinician. Nothing irrational about it. They're the ones who said "I don't like to work too hard and I like being in charge." Not me.

I didn't say these people weren't intelligent -- they're fully capable of getting their PhD's. I'm saying they admitted that they didn't know what they really wanted to do, had little drive, and a PhD gave them 5 years to to be guided to some prestigious destination. And, the idea of being a boss or "expert" that other people had to listen to appealed to them.

Yes, there are narcissists living under bridges as well as haunting the halls of academia -- it's just that the ones under bridges don't get to boss people around much. Powerless narcissism has much less appeal.

[Jawbone54]

Related video? Somewhat?

Stuart Varney gets schooled.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Weezer 

I don't like how PhDs call themselves Dr. Whatever. I think the term Dr. should be reserved for physicians. If you want a special title, come up with something else.

Maybe physicians should come up with something else? After all, most Ph.D.s went to school longer than M.D.s.

J.D. = about 3 years
M.D. = 4 years
Ph.D. = 5-7 years

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

But when they DO compete for a PhD, there are egoic rewards. And so, some will naturally be disposed to pursue credentials because they provide those rewards.

Those people will not manage to get a PhD, your average egomaniac won't manage, because beyond your `self-advertisement skills', you need scientific skills for which there is no substitute. Especially in natural sciences, your result is either right or it's wrong.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I know at least 3 people who pursued PhD's because they are basically lazy and wanted to be their own boss without having to be an entrepreneur -- because that's a lot of work. I've met many more professors who were bad at most things, but loved having earned the role.

Nobody pursues a PhD, because (s)he is lazy, it sounds to me that you don't really know much about PhD programs in general.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

And in the political landscape, PhD is a better credential to have. Again - think about the natural consequence of any inherent reward system like that. A significant proportion of people will pursue such rewards as a destination, consciously or otherwise.

A PhD is no different from a Master's degree or a Bachelor in that respect. There are some jobs you can't get without an MSc. The same reasoning applies, but it's not about an `inherent reward system,' but a matter of qualifications. And there is a big difference if someone has spent 3, 5 or 9 years at university (in terms of qualification, of course). Does that mean someone with a PhD and lots of expert knowledge knows what it takes to be a supervisor? Not necessarily, but the converse isn't true either. But professional expertise is part of the equation and there is a difference.

It seems to me that you are somewhat bitter, because someone `with a PhD, but less skills' has gotten something you think (s)he didn't deserve.

[freudling]

Jawbone54:

That video was awesome! Exactly what we are talking about. What an Academic blowhard that guy is.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nobody pursues a PhD, because (s)he is lazy, it sounds to me that you don't really know much about PhD programs in general.

rofl. I'm not throwing around my research experience like I know anything. I'll just say that you know what you know, but you don't know what you refuse to hear. The fact that I know (and have known) many PhD's, MD's, and psychiatrists equips me with a broad enough experience to make reasonably appropriate observations on this subject. I work in a psychiatric hospital in a region with one of the highest PhD-per-capita ratios in the nation. If I throw a rock out my back door it will ricochet off 3 Doctors' houses before it hits the ground. (I'll admit I have an unusually strong arm.)

it's not about an `inherent reward system,' but a matter of qualifications.

People work toward a goal because there are rewards in doing so. Why is it so difficult to accept that the rewards also have the effect of attracting certain people who are seeking certain rewards? That's neither complicated nor farfetched. It's basic supply and demand.

It seems to me that you are somewhat bitter, because someone `with a PhD, but less skills' has gotten something you think (s)he didn't deserve.

No, I don't desire a PhD and have never even applied to a program. Frankly, I love learning but I don't like school. But I'm free to pursue any degree I like. I'm sorry if your experience is that people only employ critical thinking skills to rationalize egoic pain. That has not been my Modus Operandi for many years.

I am simply responding to the topic. It's nothing personal.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What does Phd stand for?

Piled High and Deep.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

People work toward a goal because there are rewards in doing so. Why is it so difficult to accept that the rewards also have the effect of attracting certain people who are seeking certain rewards? That's neither complicated nor farfetched. It's basic supply and demand.

I think we just differ on what the reward is. The reward for most people with PhD (or enrolled in a PhD program) that reward is research and/or the teaching experience. But not prestige or a fat salary.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

No, I don't desire a PhD and have never even applied to a program. Frankly, I love learning but I don't like school. But I'm free to pursue any degree I like.

Doing a PhD is not like school anymore. You aren't taught anymore, but you learn to teach and do research at the same time. Life as a PhD student is vastly different from life as a undergrad/grad student.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I'm sorry if your experience is that people only employ critical thinking skills to rationalize egoic pain. That has not been my Modus Operandi for many years.

Huh? I've never said that my experience is like that, it's rather exact opposite: people don't care about their title, but only about research. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but these exceptions often do very good research in addition to having a giant ego. In any case, even if they have an ego, it is built on who they have been working with and the kind of research they are doing.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I am simply responding to the topic. It's nothing personal.

You invariably get the impression that it is personal to you. And (no offense) that you don't really have an understanding what getting a PhD means.

I couldn't care less, I love what I'm doing, I love learning and teaching, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

[wolfen]

I see that you are getting your PhD. You are missing every point I make and responding with personal validations or assaults on me that are irrelevant to my logic. This is personal for you and not for me, so we can't really entertain this discussion in a reasonable way without getting you offended.

You also keep trying to imagine that the world of a PhD student is a mystery to me. I've been in Universities for a total of 8 years, rubbing elbows with PhD candidates, professors, freshly minted PhD's, blah blah blah. I've been courted by programs. I know what it's about, I promise.

For these reasons, I'm disengaging from this tit for tat. I wish you well in your pursuit of whatever rewards you seek.

[Wiskedjak]

What's funny is how elitist those who complain about academics sound ...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

I see that you are getting your PhD. You are missing every point I make and responding with personal validations or assaults on me that are irrelevant to my logic.

I'm not missing your points, I'm disagreeing with some of them. But that doesn't mean I don't get them. Or that I am offended.

Originally Posted by wolfen 

You also keep trying to imagine that the world of a PhD student is a mystery to me.

I'm not trying to imagine anything, I have just read your posts and drawn conclusions from them.

[dav]

seems to me snobbery is more of a personality trait irrespective of intelligence. the two brightest people i know personally (both PhDs) are also the most well-rounded, kindest people i know.
of course, i don't get out much.

[Faust]

90% of my family relatives either have a PhD in medicine or law. Based on the relatives I know well (father, uncles, aunts etc.) most of them made their PhD because it was tradition that you enrolled into a PhD programme after graduation. If you didn't, you'd be seen as somewhat lethargic or lazy. So in my family, having a PhD did and continues to have a certain amount of status symbolicism. I don't have a PhD and didn't pursue enrolling into a PhD programme because I didn't care enough about the subject at the end of my term and the social fortune I'd have earned from my family weren't reason enough for me either. Instead, I turned to my true passion which is design and art. I'd done that since age two and nothing gives me greater gratification than doing what I love to do, regardless of how it is viewed by family members or society. The upside to my odyssey is that I have two qualifications and can always go back if I intend on doing so or if my passion for designing wears off.

I'd like to point out that (in my opinion) snobbery/elitism doesn't have anything to do with educational qualifications.
Elitism is a mindset.