next »

[licaone]

Whether or not, I'm considered a "true academic" by someone else doesn't bother me. I let my academic record speak for itself and still cash my paychecks.

Which is probably much more substantial than mine. Good for you.

But I would like to point that I am not a racist: several of my best friends are in the business school :-)

[prof_smartypants]

Why respond at all? The OP already said that it's "undeniably true" that the sciences look down on everyone else. Furthermore, this statement was based on personal experience, which we all know trumps any and all scientific method or academic rigor.

[boolos]

Our moral judgments about others is one thing, and perhaps we should discuss this topic within that context.

The other component is getting mixed in here, and it is undeniably true - there are many disciplines that are more difficult than others, and it is simply true that for many average people these paths are cut off for them because they lack the ability to do what is required.  Those who are utterly incompetent at math will never succeed in "hard" science, those who cannot think abstractly and do well in logic cannot succeed in philosophy, etc.   The no-talent folks tend to stay away from these and other areas, usually choosing "disciplines" such as business for a major.  It's true.  Our condescending judgments about those people is another matter.

[licaone]

those who cannot think abstractly and do well in logic cannot succeed in philosophy

Can they succeed in any other academic discipline? Is there one where logic is is not essential? I sincerely hope not.

[neutralname]

At my school, the practice is not to look down on other academic concentrations.  Instead, we view the people from other concentrations with fear and hostility, in case they might be trying to steal our students or get funding taken away from us. 

[boolos]

those who cannot think abstractly and do well in logic cannot succeed in philosophy

Can they succeed in any other academic discipline? Is there one where logic is is not essential? I sincerely hope not.

Actually it is not.

Symbolic logic & "up" is highly specialized, and is analogous to higher math - not everyone can do it, and it often weeds out people.  You would be surprised how bad most people are at logic.

[larryc]

All graduate programs weed out people because not everyone can do it--"it" being history, or English, or physics, or what have you. That is not the point.

The point is that history is the queen of all academic disciplines. That is the point.

[yellowtractor]

All graduate programs weed out people because not everyone can do it--"it" being history, or English, or physics, or what have you. That is not the point.

The point is that history is the queen of all academic disciplines. That is the point.

...because all academic disciplines have histories.  See how neat, how elegant the hegemony tautology logic of actual life?

[licaone]

those who cannot think abstractly and do well in logic cannot succeed in philosophy

Can they succeed in any other academic discipline? Is there one where logic is is not essential? I sincerely hope not.

Actually it is not.

Symbolic logic & "up" is highly specialized, and is analogous to higher math - not everyone can do it, and it often weeds out people.  You would be surprised how bad most people are at logic.

Symbolic logic is highly specialized, and very few philosophers use it, or know it. On the other hand, they need the ability to think logically, to draw correct conclusions from certain premises. As, I claim, does any other scholar.

[finallyfullprof]

I guess I am an academic miscegenist since I am in the humanities but married someone in the sciences. We count among our best friends people in law, auto mechanics, nursing, and social sciences.

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
 

[daniel_von_flanagan]

PentiumPancake, is that you? - DvF

[the_myth]

All graduate programs weed out people because not everyone can do it--"it" being history, or English, or physics, or what have you. That is not the point.

The point is that history is the queen of all academic disciplines. That is the point.

Wait...since this a rooster-measuring contest, wouldn't the winner be King?


As to the original post, this attitude more often manifests in the students of those other disciplines.  I taught a few courses in "Intro to Communication" at a school known for its engineering and hard science programs.  Sadly, the school is crappy...except in those fields, so only about 25% of any class had those majors in my "elective."

I had 2 memorable experiences:

Student #1 approached me on day one claiming he just didn;t have time to come to my class for the last half of the 10-week quarter because he would be working on his senior project.  After refraining from laughing at his request, I told him I didn't think it would be possible for him "do all the work ahead of time to get it out of the way" and that he'd have to come for the entire 10 weeks.  Surprise, surprise, he thanked me at the end of the quarter for actually teaching a course in which he learned stuff.  [So many of them always assume Comm courses are all about coming to class, watching movies, and then sitting around and chatting about them.]

Student #2 was in the same course the following term.  He was a quiet sort, so I didn't really notice him.  But, one day I was discussing the relationship of some new tech to an old medium.  He chatted me up about it after class.  He started bringing in stuff like it was show-and-tell!  He got *involved* in the course and at the end also thanked me for making what he thought would a fluffy elective relevant to his future career.

Good lord!  I actually made an impact on 2 young engineers with my frivolous little humanities/social science class.  Someone call a priest!

In the end, I think my point is that sometimes people with preconceived notions have no idea what they are talking about and being exposed to other disciplinary stances on the same material is necessary and important.  Disciplinary entrenchment gets in the way of education.  But, I suspect this is more often obvious in students than faculty [although I do not disbelieve for a second that some faculty disparage their colleagues is other non-related disciplines].


P.S.  It was really nice to be able to talk about students who weren't boneheads for once.  Thanks for the inspiration!

[expatinuk]

The point is that history is the queen of all academic disciplines. That is the point.

Which neatly explains why there is a glut of historians on the market. ;-)

Seriously.... I'm in awe of academics in EVERY discipline.

I love history... but I certainly do not have the drive to decipher handwritten documents 800 years old.
I love to read... but arguing over the nuances of 'what did author X mean when she wrote... 'I went outside' is just plain bizarre to me.
Numbers are wonderful and their relationship is riveting.... but....

Oh, the buts go on and on and on.

This discussion reminds me of the endless ones about religion and politics. Everyone thinks that his candidate/religion is the best and those who don't embrace him/it are stupid.

And seriously... the more that I read these boards the more I realize just how narrow minded and bigoted academics are.

[chroniclejd]

I agree that all disciplines and professions contribute value.  However, having worked for a large internet company, it seemed to me then that the computer scientists and engineers in general could usually "outthink" the law and business people in terms of sheer brainpower, despite the apparently huge gap in FQ (fashion quotient).  And this is coming from a non-scientist/engineer.

[larryc]

Wait...since this a rooster-measuring contest, wouldn't the winner be King?

No it would not. Had you taken more history courses you would know this.