It is natural to find yourself asking these questions after devoting a long time to a dissertation. There is a reason that you’re asking them. All knowledge is valuable, but it is not all of equal value. Graduate school is terribly costly in terms of time (see Reason 4), a reality made worse when you harbor doubts about whether your work serves any useful purpose (to you or anyone else). Even in the sciences, this is not an uncommon concern, as this humorous parody suggests. If you are writing a dissertation for no other reason than to qualify for a job in academe, the effort may be in vain in any case (see Reason 8). So, why are you studying that? It is bad enough when you begin to suspect that you’re wasting your time in graduate school, but it’s worse when others begin to suspect it, too. For every person who wonders aloud about your studies, there are likely many more who wonder silently.
Btw, there's a brilliant Futurama episode that deals with a number of things relating to getting a Phd in the episode - "That Darn Katz!"
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Darn_Katz!
I can clearly articulate "why I am studying that." Because all the faculty in my intended subfield are complete and total assholes, and I had to retreat and work with the only normal person on the faculty in another subfield altogether. S/he studies remote ridiculous topic X, so now I do too. Others have said it best, grad school is just a form of institutionalized hazing.
ReplyDeleteMy reason for my dissertation topic is the same as that of Anonymous 10:24am. I am researching this topic because it is the closest thing within my advisor's purview of expertise that I can combine with my own interests. Nobody on the faculty of my dept. studies my interest, and others who have studied topics more closely related than the one that I am researching have refused to mentor me. (Don't ask how I ended up in my program, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.) My solution has been to cave and research something within the purview of expertise of the only faculty member willing to serve as my advisor, while combining it with my interest. I have received advising in my area of interest by recruiting a faculty member at another school to serve on my committee, since I refuse to completely give it up. I finally got fed up with the treatment I've been receiving in my program and took a leave of absence this year in order to finish out my dissertation on "sabbatical" at the institution of that committee member, where I hope to subsequently obtain a postdoc. It's sad how many hoops some of us have to jump through to research what we're passionate about, and how we have to negate our own interests to accommodate our advisors' motives and whims.
ReplyDelete"It's sad how many hoops some of us have to jump through to research what we're passionate about, and how we have to negate our own interests to accommodate our advisors' motives and whims."
ReplyDeleteEncouraging to hear you still have some passion left. I have none, unless you count reorganizing my netflix queue.
Since I was working on my math PhD, I would have had an easy answer to "Why are you studying that?" It's mathematics! What better reason do you need?" It helped a lot, too, that I pushed to finish my dissertation quickly, due to Reason 65 (I became disillusioned towards teaching shortly after I started).
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'm still contending with Reason 36 (What do you do with it?) In theory, mathematics is a *very* easy degree to "apply" to things--and in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. I'm currently working as a computer programmer, working with data; I'm still completely lost as to how I can work as a mathematician!
The reason I am studying Pickled Apricots and Space Aliens is that it is Very Important to the Future of Earth. I speak Space Alien better than I speak any mere human language, and I have a vocabulary of some 10,000 words describing theoretical constructions very few other people have ever even heard of. Some of these words I've even made up myself. No one will ever encounter them -- except maybe my committee members, if they do more than skim my dissertation, that is. Even Space Aliens don't know these words I've made up in their language.
ReplyDeleteBut, most importantly, Pickled Apricots and Space Aliens is a Very Important Subject because no one has ever thought about what I have to say about it before. That is, I am Original. I have something Original to say. Who cares that no one gives a $hit?
I could keep ranting, but I'll spare you. It just really gets to me some days that I spent nine years studying something nobody outside a tiny academic circle cares about, and now I'm working outside academe (because working inside as an adjunct was unsustainable) for someone who gets paid, in addition to a six-figure regular salary, $750 a pop to ghostwrite 600-word op-eds that say NOTHING original or meaningful whatsoever.
And my dissertation, now sitting in a box at the back of my closet, was worth.....what??
It's a legitimate question to ask, "Why are you studying that?" And very true: "All knowledge is valuable, but it is not all of equal value." Another way of asking the post's question is: "How does the value of the knowledge you are producing through your studies correlate to the value of other things you have or would like to have in your life?" If other things outweigh the value of this little bit of knowledge you are striving sooooooooooo very hard to produce, maybe it's time to move on.
I think this question, more than many others, makes grad students very defensive. It's likely to make a grad student roll their eyes and think "well you're not a grad student, YOU wouldn't get it." However, I've seen grad students ask other grad students the same question (in a non-hostile way), and they still can't explain it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, ultimately we can study whatever we want, and we don't have to justify ourselves. However, year after year I see people try to argue that their work will help combat larger issues in the real world like economic injustice, animal abuse, gender inequality etc, or have some other major effect beyond the department - and it nearly always comes across as self-delusion to me, supported by faddy armchair activist academics who think discourse analysis can change the world. A smart, dynamic, and idealistic friend of mine who graduated last year was actually depressed to realize that "my PhD isn't going to change the world, is it?" She asked some of us why she'd done all this if there was really no point to it other than some job. As for my work, it might be a useful read for a handful students in the future. That's it. I've loved working on this project, but it hasn't done anything except provide me with a complex problem to think about for a few too many years.
"Another way of asking the post's question is: "How does the value of the knowledge you are producing through your studies correlate to the value of other things you have or would like to have in your life?""
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent way to put this. My thesis was, for years, of lower value to me than just about anything else in my life. In order to finish it, I had to promote it to an unnaturally high value, because finishing something I'd started was a big deal to me (a much bigger deal than the work itself). I think part of the reason so many people struggle to finish is because their work is quite meaningless to them in relation to other things they are, or would like to be, doing (that combined with reasons 1 - 65). I'm sure many people are interested in their topic, but maybe not interested enough to maintain the giant effort it can take to finish.
Recent PhD, I love your post. And you're right, for me it most definitely is time to move on. To what, I don't know. But I can't imagine that anything, absolutely anything would be more relevant, interesting, and meaningful. I'll pass on the next round of KoolAid, thanks.
ReplyDeleteoops--meant that I CAN (and do) imagine that anything would be better, etc. than this meaningless drudgery. Am daily getting angrier at my jolly, kindhearted adviser for pretending this isn't complete BS!
ReplyDeleteAs a junior, I studied abroad in India. One of the reasons I was excited about it was because I was to undertake a research project on Hindu temple music. How cool and unique is that? I thought to myself. During those days, I was serious about studying the music of India (and the rest of Asia!), and I'm a bookworm in general. So it's no surprise that I picked up a book (actually, several) on traditional Indian music while I was there.
ReplyDeleteAs graduation neared, I seriously considered graduate school. I thought about pursuing an MA in ethnomusicology -- but what would be the practicality of that? Why, indeed, should I study that? I'd be spending those years, those tuition dollars just to satisfy my curiosity. The traditional musical systems of Asia doesn't have much use in the "real world". Does anyone out there really give a hoot about the alap, the erhu, the nohkan?
Today, over a decade after that semester spent abroad, I took that book and shipped it to a buyer on amazon.com. Needless to say, I didn't -- and most likely won't -- pursue that graduate degree. I never did read that book, though I thumbed through it several times.
Now if only someone will purchase the other books I still have...
My husband is getting a total stiffy over the prospect of me dropping out. Not only will I not be a depressed, aggressive jackass any more, but he can finally get rid of all these useless, obfuscating books I'll never read. Naive new gender scholars, check amazon soon!
ReplyDeleteThis question was always awkward for me. As a graduate student in the sciences, it was difficult enough to explain what I did to other scientists, much less the general public. The "what do you study" question always preceded the "why do you study it" question.
ReplyDeleteBy year three, I had a pretty cut-and-dried, watered-down explanation which I could use to dismiss the "what" question fairly quickly. About half would then ask me "Why are you researching it?". In early years, when I was still a believer, I would respond with the same propaganda that my adviser might have used when writing the opening paragraphs of a grant application for funding his research projects.
By year four, I had figured out the game that is called graduate school, and I started telling them the blunt truth. Namely, I said, the reason I am doing this research is to fill up enough pages in my dissertation to get a degree. I would assure them that there would be nothing of importance yielded from my little research project, and that the project merely existed to humor the intellectual curiosity of my adviser (and his fame and fortune within his niche group of colleagues) while at the same time "getting me my degree".
The wiser ones would then ask who was paying for me to do all this research. I would look at them and say "you are" via the tax dollars that flow from the US government, through the various scientific research foundations (such as the NSF), and then into the coffers of the R&D universities and the pet projects of the professors.
Only a very few would persist in asking the next question, which was "who decides to give this money to the professors?". The answer to that question was "well, the professors themselves, of course". Then I had to explain how the teams of people who review grant applications are made up of a select group of professors who evaluate grant applications and decide which of their colleagues to reward with grant money. Because, of course, most in the Congress are not scientists and only know how to throw money at a problem. Only a science professor can determine whether another science professor's research is worth funding.
And, of course, all such grant rewards are made solely on the basis of the merits of the proposed research, in much the same way as all tenure decisions are made solely on the merits of the research work performed by a faculty members.
Politics never enters into either type of academic decision.
STEM Doctor, I love you.
ReplyDeleteI think this post touches on two related issues that deserve posts in their own right: 1) the overspecialization of academic research, making the life of the mind bogged down with technicalities and minutea rather than big ideas 2) the limited audience due to 1 and hence limited impact of ones writings
ReplyDeleteWell I can definitely sympathize with this! I've been perusing your blog and love it so far. I just started a blog highlighting my experience with the big "should I go to graduate school" question. Check it out if you're interested: http://2daysingradschool.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeletegreat blog post, save the seals!
ReplyDeletewish i'd done the same--got a big red flag the day of my phd orientation, but ignored it--much to my woe. sometimes you CAN just tell right away.
one small thing--you may encounter some resistance to framing an MSW as "grad school." the degree is typically understood as a professional degree since it's a usually achieved through completion of a highly-structured program that teaches students to competently perform a trade (as opposed to exploring "the life of the mind.")
I am right now working on a collection of literary essays about a brilliant and underappreciated American short story writer. I can’t say it hurts me to be writing it outside of academia, but for some intellectual pursuits, it’s next to impossible to do it without institutional support. Perhaps you should ask this question: in order to pursue my intellectual goal, do I absolutely require an academic institution to accomplish it? Note that we are no longer talking about career goals; we are talking about intellectual goals. Even if you require enrollment in a graduate program to write a book or conduct research, it doesn’t automatically follow that it will help your career. You need to have already accepted the fact that your intellectual goal is worth pursuing for its own sake.
ReplyDeleteThe difference here is that I arrived on my topic outside of graduate school, not to fulfill some graduate school requirement. If grad school were nonexistent, I'd still write the book.
I think it's an unrealistic burden for the grad student or scholar justify the subject's worthiness. That's a given. Anyway, you can never really know the worthiness of a project until you finish it.
Finally, I just wanted to mention my love of this blog!
Robert Nagle
Good question. But I really think that it ought to be reframed since what's really not being understood by the person asking the question is what's the inherent value of the subject matter. It’s not really the subject matter that’s the issue. The subject matter is just the body of data that you (the student) is using to learn how to effectively apply and use a bunch of skills (critical thinking, critical analysis, management of people, team work etc etc)...to a body of knowledge which becomes more in-depth and complex as one proceeds from being an undergrad to grad school. Ideally, one learns as a student how to deploy and redeploy a set of skilled sets within a specific discipline such as history, literature etc (I'm just giving examples here)...and be able to subsequently redeploy these same analytical and critical thinking skills in the non-academic world. What's sadly often forgotten by many academics is that they ought to be indicating just how this transferral occurs since not everyone who does graduate work can continue or wants to continue to have an academic career. So, the question..."why are you studying that?"...should be answered as follows: “So, I am able to learn and practice a wide range of skills effectively and efficiently that I will deploy in my work life after I've finished grad school.”
ReplyDeleteOk...I should have also added this to my previous comment. I did some more thinking about the question after answering it. I think that what's being studied by a grad student or scholar only matters to the person doing the studying. I agree with Robert Nagle since as he says:
ReplyDelete"I think it's an unrealistic burden for the grad student or scholar justify the subject's worthiness. That's a given. Anyway, you can never really know the worthiness of a project until you finish it."
Yes, yes and yes...I agree. It's why I think the question should be reframed by the person asking the question in the first place. I think the question itself says more about the person asking the question since why does the graduate student or the scholar have to justify themselves to the questioner? This is ridiculous since who on earth to they think that they are...they're not the arbiteurs of life and everything?!
I used to get/still get annoyed when I was asked/still am asked this question. I think that why I chose what I examine for my PhD is really my business. It's really not anyone's business. It is, as Robert says, connected to our own personal intellectual goals as knowledge is worth pursuing for its own sake.
"So, the question..."why are you studying that?"...should be answered as follows: “So, I am able to learn and practice a wide range of skills effectively and efficiently that I will deploy in my work life after I've finished grad school.” "
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think that any regular person asking above question and receiving above answer would see the response as pompous and smart-ass. It might even lower their impression of you further than it already was.
I think the problem lies with people's assumption that once you receive a graduate degree in a particular (sub-)field, you are only an expert in that (sub-)field and the skill set you develop while studying that (sub-)field cannot be used elsewhere.
Second, aren't "a wide range of skills" such as "critical thinking and critical analysis" etc skills one should be introduced to, if not able to "deploy and redeploy", as an undergrad? Not saying that I got an Ivy education, but I do remember thinking critically and analytically about topics discussed in class. (Assuming that one can be introduced to, and use, said skills at the Ivies...) If people just took their undergrad education more seriously, graduate studies really would be only for those truly passionate about their (sub-)fields, not just for those who want to learn how to think in order to find and keep a job.
If people are born with brains, why can't they use them?
"First off, I think that any regular person asking above question and receiving above answer would see the response as pompous and smart-ass. It might even lower their impression of you further than it already was."
ReplyDeleteA large, sloppy kiss for Anon 7:34.
Moving on...not only do most undergrads (let's just call 'em like they are: UGs) steadfastly refuse to use their undergraduate education to develop "'a wide range of skills' such as 'critical thinking and critical analysis,'" but I don't see much evidence that grad students use their graduate education to do this either. At least on paper, academia is supposed to be about training grad students to become independent scholars in a particular discipline and socializing us to be professors, not about training us for ANYTHING to be applied in the "real world." That may be a particular grad student's goal, but it's certainly not academia's. Try telling your adviser that you're really there to develop critical thinking skills and apply them to the "real world" and see how long it takes before you're on the hunt for a new mentor. And anyone who consigns themselves to grad school with the goal of improving their critical thinking would be better served overcoming their elitism and snobbery and simply going the autodidact route. $5.00 in library fines is easier to repay than $60,000 in grad school debt.
Moreover, the grad students I know develop critical and analytic skills (when they do at all) that are specific to their areas of academic study. I see little evidence that these skills are applied beyond the scope of their work. Revisit the fallacious arguments that not only grad students, but profs use to discredit others' work and you will see that critical thinking isn't what's operative here.
Reza Aslan (with degrees from Harvard Divinity, Iowa's creative writing program, and a doctorate in sociology from UCSB, as well as best-selling books) said it best:
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/28/reza-aslan-on-the-academy/
If you visited the above link, you'll notice that bestselling author Reza Aslan, who is actually accomplishing what's being proposed here (taking one's academic skills and applying them beyond the academy) doesn't use words like "deploy" or "redeploy."
ReplyDeleteIf the goal is to learn the skill set to apply outside the academy, isn't going for a terminal masters a better idea than slogging all the way to a PhD and early middle age?
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider (my degrees are "professional") I keep thinking that the problem is in the structure of the Ph.D. program and not in the quality of the graduate student or the worth of the subject matter. English history needs to be studied by someone, after all!
"If the goal is to learn the skill set to apply outside the academy, isn't going for a terminal masters a better idea than slogging all the way to a PhD and early middle age?"
ReplyDeleteTHAT'S NOT THE GOAL OF THE ACADEMY, AND THE BEST IDEA YET IS NOT GOING TO GRAD SCHOOL AT ALL. DUMB PEOPLE LIKE ME GO BECAUSE WE GET CAUGHT UP IN THE STATUS OF BEING CALLED "DOCTOR" OR BECAUSE WE NEED REASSURANCE WE'RE SMART. IN GRAD SCHOOL YOU TEACH YOURSELF ANYWAY, SO ALL YOU ARE GETTING IS A PEDIGREE/ALUMNI NETWORK.
As an outsider (my degrees are "professional") I keep thinking that the problem is in the structure of the Ph.D. program and not in the quality of the graduate student or the worth of the subject matter. "
YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THIS BULLSHIT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T APPLY TO GRAD SCHOOL. CONGRATS! IF YOU WERE IN A PHD PROGRAM, YOU'D BE USING WORDS LIKE "REDEPOLY" AND MAKING EXCUSES FOR ACADEMIA.
I think a graduate student shouldn't have to justify what they're studying as long as the following things are true:
ReplyDelete1) They are financially independent and likely to continue to be so (that is, their livelihood after grad school isn't going to become the taxpayers' responsibility because they elected to spend their time studying Venetian feminist christologies while the rest of us sucked it up and entered the boring workforce like mere mortals);
2) They don't complain about the state of the world/society/country, OR have some means of implementing what they've studied so that they can effect social change. (In case you can't tell, I view most PhD programs - in the humanities, at least - as a selfish and irresponsible disengagement from the wider world and its troubles);
3) They endeavor not to become sanctimonious and myopic windbags.
Sorry. Not at all bitter, obviously :)
"So, the question..."why are you studying that?"...should be answered as follows: “So, I am able to learn and practice a wide range of skills effectively and efficiently that I will deploy in my work life after I've finished grad school.” "
ReplyDeleteYou think grad school actually does this? Seriously? I wish it had. Then I'd feel much better about the experience.
"3) They endeavor not to become sanctimonious and myopic windbags."
ReplyDeleteSorry. Simply not possible.
"2) They don't complain about the state of the world/society/country, OR have some means of implementing what they've studied so that they can effect social change."
This last one is a hoot. Our school is big on "social movements," but the folks who study this topic are a motley crew of privileged babies and elitist snobs. For most of them, the closest any of them actually ever came to a movement was each morning in the commode.
Applied fields have some merit, but the rest of academia is just a playground for wealthy kids who need strokes to feel smart.
Heehee. Yes, yes, the parlor pinks who come from privilege and occupy endowed chairs at upper-crust law schools yet engage in "critical legal theory" and claim to be the Voice of the Underclass...I don't have a word that describes these pampered folks adequately but "trained weasel" comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteThe only ones worse than the privileged are the “no try, ordinary, don’t think, don’t care, go with the program types” who
ReplyDeleteA.
Did bad in high school, ended up in cheap, zero challenge state (high)school (masquerading as a university) and are doing ok a few years later (with little debt) and think they “beat the system” and worse that know what college (in their minds: keg parties, socials, going to class in pajamas) is all about
B.
Idiots who skipped college altogether, did bad in high school, don’t think critically about anything and worse yet, completely refuse to even begin to think about anything and a few years later are doing ok (working a trade, for a union, or as a bartender or waitress) and think they “beat the system” and are “smarter than everyone else” (b/c they have no education debt)
Do you really think working a trade - becoming a plumber or electrician or someone else who is at least less likely than the average PhD candidate to become a drain on society - is really that bad? You can make good money as a plumber, and it doesn't necessarily mean you "refuse to think about anything." Some people just aren't academically inclined. There are many different kinds of intelligence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what with the insanely bloated cost of undergraduate education, I wouldn't blame anyone for opting out of it to self-educate and plan to do something useful and necessary. And obviously the same goes (times ten) for grad school.
That said, amen to what you said in "A." Though I would point out that many state schools offer a stellar education. I transferred from a big state school to a small, far more prestigious liberal arts college, and the smartest people I've met in my life were at the state school.
Agree! One of my friends works in fast food and is now an assisant manager-easily making around 40,000/yr and never once went to college. Of course, people don't respect you because you work in fast food, but I highly doubt any of those pompous T-T professors would last a week in service. Anyways, you may have a Ph.D, but even as an adjunct barely getting by, possibly on welfare/food stamps, you can't beat that. Not when you have accumlated so much debt, so really the smart people are somewhere else.
DeletePlus, in my field, everything is bullshit! Everything. We are just throwing our opinions back and forth and do nothing to help the "other".
One of the smartest (and best) men I know is a plumber. He's also pretty well-off.
ReplyDeleteMy friend's ex-boyfriend had the opportunity to study abroad in Europe. While there, he sent her hand-written letters (decades before Facebook, email) in which his major, "business," was misspelled. More tuition dollars well spent.
ReplyDeleteMost of the folks I know who went to SLACs are precious, dainty, spoiled, expect to have their way, overly-concerned with appearances--need I go on? I say if you have the money to send your kids somewhere fancy, send 'em to an Ivy, not Special Snowflake College, where all they learn is to snub their noses at the public school kids, many of whom are better educated (in part because they've had the opportunity to work in world class research labs).
I've always suspected that most SLACs were really about making sure your kid settles down with another rich kid. Sure, they'll fuck the townies when you're not looking, but they'll eventually marry Joe or Suzy Oldbucks. For many parents, that's easily worth $160,000-200,000 in tuition.
I probably should have asked this question the first time I saw the acronym, several posts back, but what's a SLAC?
ReplyDeleteSpoiled
ReplyDeleteLittle
Asshole
Children
~
No, actually it's:
Small
Liberal
Arts
College
Actually, it's the same thing. Costs Mommy and Daddy >$40,000/year to go somewhere like "Pomona College." Probably not including room and board. The point is not to have to rub noses with any of us nasty savages in the public school system.
Okay, that's just bitter. Lots of my fellow students at my "Spoiled Little Asshole Children" paid for it themselves through financial aid, or by taking out loans, and working. Many of them were the first of their family to attend college at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd, having attended a big public university for two years, and a SLAC for two years, I am in a position to tell you that you will find plenty of entitlement and snobbery at both.
"Okay, that's just bitter."
ReplyDeleteWhy would I be bitter about not attending an inferior school for a higher pricetag?
"Lots of my fellow students at my 'Spoiled Little Asshole Children' paid for it themselves through financial aid, or by taking out loans, and working. Many of them were the first of their family to attend college at all."
Yes, unfortunately that is the point of this and other scamblogs--folks are gettin' scammed. The "First in Their Family/Doin' It For Their People" crowd is precisely the demographic the student loan folks prey upon. Check out Scholastic Snake Oil--or send your friends to the blog once they figure out what a terrible choice they've been conned into making. Harvard may or may not be a pedigree worth paying for; Special Snowfake College* is definitely not.
*Here I previously inserted the name of real SLAC. Edited it out after realizing what I'd get in return was, "My friend is an alum of Special Snowflake, and it was a fine institution that set her on a magical life trajectory..."
Oh, and if you, for example, are the first in your family to snub the family plumbing business in order to go major in film studies at a SLAC, god help you.
I just want to give a big "hell yeah" to the last comment about "first in the family" types who get scammed by student loans. I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of people taking out $40,000++ in student loans to get a liberal arts degree at non-public (i.e., $$$) schools are first in their family to go to college students.
ReplyDeleteI know I was.
And I know that practically every other person at my school I know of who was in that situation was also the first person in their family to go to college.
@ 3:10
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear it. I think it's admirable to be the first in your family to get a BA, and obviously there's special meaning there--for you, your family, your community. What's really shitty is that there are organizations and individuals (including the schools themselves) who take advantage of this. For the student it's: "I'm showing my family that the sacrifices they made to give me a better life have paid off. I appreciate all that they've done and now I'm going to accomplish great things and give back." For the loan orgs, it's "There's a sucker born every minute. They'll be paying for that diploma until their own kids are ready for school. Oh look--even more fresh meat!!"
@ 4:49
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words. I was fortunate that, after a year of searching after finishing school, I found a good job with a stable company, albeit located in the middle of nowhere in Iowa. This is, I have found, apparently *the* formula for paying off loans. I am on a plan to have them finished sooner than I would have hoped.
My heart breaks for my friends still under this situation, however, and for the millions of people who take up a political science (etc.) major each year, all on the back of huge loans. It is possibly the most soul crushing experience possibly outside of terminal illness.
"My heart breaks for my friends still under this situation, however, and for the millions of people who take up a political science (etc.) major each year, all on the back of huge loans."
ReplyDeletePoly sci--ouch! I chose sociology, which in my opinion is like volunteering for a lobotomy.
One of my pals hates every minute of her diss--wants to quit desperately. But can't/won't walk away without a diploma she never intends to use because of the student loan debt. She won't tell me how much, but her extreme embarrassment suggests it's in the mid-5 figures. I feel really rotten for her.
I'm fortunate and even with the stupid sociology thing, I'm NOT in student loan debt, so I think of my time in grad school more like a prison sentence. Someone (and in this case it's me) stole 5, soon to be 6 years of my life. If I want to "finish," we're probably looking at adding another 4-5 years to my sentence for bad behavior.
^ soc isn't that bad.
ReplyDeleteRe '*Here I previously inserted the name of real SLAC. Edited it out after realizing what I'd get in return was, "My friend is an alum of Special Snowflake, and it was a fine institution that set her on a magical life trajectory...";: Well, yes, I hate to admit it, but I WOULD say that - of friends and of myself. Maybe not a "magical life trajectory," but a solid and worthwhile experience. I don't know whether spending $40-50,000 per year on schools like these is worth it - for some people maybe; for others, no, depending on what they want to do. But lumping all SLACs together as if they're the same school and assuming all of their students think the same way seems overly simplistic. Some have more to offer than others, but they are not all inferior to state schools - that's a pretty ridiculous claim.
ReplyDeleteAlso, sorry to keep bringing up my personal experience, but I'd run through the most advanced coursework in my major by my sophomore year at my public school, which was why I transferred - I had a hope that the private college I was considering might have more to offer. I'm sure not all of them would have, but it turned out that this one did, both in coursework and extracurricular stuff. I now have a full-time job directly related to what I studied in college (English literature), so I feel that the choices I made made sense. (Sorry if this sounds smug.)
Sorry, again, for getting off-topic.
smug bastard with your false sorries
ReplyDeleteBeautifully argued point.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:21:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound smug, you just sound like you either had some good guidance and/or figured out the system pretty easily and made the right contacts. It's not completely impossible to get what you achieved. If it were no one would bother taking their chances trying it. The problem is that there are no "second tier" jobs out there for people who aren't as talented/lucky/motivated, and there is a huge oversupply of people who get into lit and humanities that have no hope of using it anywhere.
There are some fields that people can be involved in without spending over a decade becoming an official "specialist."
@2:21
ReplyDeleteOne of my SLAC pals said that at the end of the year they had to throw lavish parties to "get rid of" all the parental money in their fund for the year. So of course, I can see why some might find this option more worthwhile than studying at a world-class research university with a law school, med school, 13+ libraries, and world-renowned researchers, where incidentally, enterprising undergrads can get permission to take grad classes and sometimes do MAs concurrent with their BAs. Makes nothing but sense.
So one question: Who forked out the $100,000 for your two SLAC years? You realize that's probably what it cost with living expenses, right? Even if you commuted from a relative's house we're probably looking at a minimum of $80,000 for two years with books and fees. Would you be as fulfilled if you were still paying that off a decade from now? Would it have been "worth it" then??
You've actually made my point either way. If no one you know was self-funded and took out loans, then you really did go to Precious Baby College. If everyone took out loans, I'm guessing a lotta people are singing the blues right now. Do you think everyone in your graduating class got jobs related to English lit??
@ 8:26
ReplyDeleteI think you might be reading 2:21 incorrectly. I don't think s/he has an academic job, just "a full-time job directly related to what I studied in college (English literature)." I think if s/he was T-T s/he would have said so to bolster her/his argument. "Directly-related" to English lit could be publishing job, writing coverage for Hollywood--anything. If s/he did get a real academic job--good for her/him. But you're correct--one wealthy person's luck doesn't debunk the corruptness of the whole system.
The folks I know who went to SLACs were no more intelligent (in many cases, less so, really), motivated, interested in learning, independent, or creative than the public school kids. In fact, some of them got parents to come along to grad school meet-n-greet! What they do have more of (and here I speak from MY personal experience), to a person, is an air or entitlement.
@8:31am: I can definitely understand the frustration about the lavish parties. Twenty-year-olds with lots of cash don't do really great things with it, as a rule. I don't know of anyone who did that where I was. The frat scene at the public school I first attended (and the money put toward the new football stadium) didn't strike me as a great use of funds, either, though.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why you think having a law school or medical school, etc. is that great for all undergrads. For those interested in one of those fields, maybe, but obviously not everyone is. And of course it's impressive to have 13+ libraries, but I never failed to find what I needed at my school's library or the public library. Does any individual actually NEED 13+ libraries? Also, while some people might have wanted a master's, it would have been useless to me. The university you describe sounds like a great fit for some kids - not for all of them.
I think one theory behind SLACs is that since the professors aren't devoting so much of their time and energy to research or teaching grad students, they're spending it teaching the undergrads. Which is what (in theory) the undergrads are there for. You could argue that the best professors in the world are the ones at the research universities, and I would agree, but as an undergrad you might get less face time with them/more face time with a T.A. I have no idea if this was actually your experience, but to someone trying to make a decision ahead of applying, it's a legitimate factor to consider.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the expense. I'm probably going to regret going into this amount of detail about my private life to total strangers, but...no. I did not foot rent or tuition bills - my parents did, and I intend to pay it forward for my kids. I had jobs throughout college and paid for books, food, travel expenses, etc. (I'm sure you're going to think that all this means I'm lazy and entitled, but I have a hard time believing that in my position you'd have cover over all noble and turned the money down.) I believe that if my parents hadn't been so generous, I would have taken out loans. I do have friends (at my college) who did that. Some of them think it was worth it, and some don't.
And of course not everyone I know got a job related to English lit, for God's sake. I graduated smack in the middle of the recession - not everyone got a job, period. (By the way, @2:21, I did mean that I have a 9-to-5, NON-academic position. I should have made that clearer in my post.)
I can't figure out what your problem is with SLACs if you had such a good experience doing what you did - why even bother to be insulting about them?
So let me get this straight:
ReplyDelete1. You're parents paid an exorbitant amount so you could study English literature.
2. You somehow got a job you seem to like, and it's non-academic.
So why exactly are you doing on this blog? You've indicated you don't even desire an MA. Oh wait--I gotta go post on a blog for unemployed folks and tell 'em how much I like my job!
obviously I meant "your parents"--showing my inferior public school background, no doubt! I guess my smug employment post will have to wait.
ReplyDeleteWoo-hoo, comment thread class war! To the barricades! We'll expropriate the SLACs like Henry VIII did the monasteries.
ReplyDelete@Anon 10:20 – Ha. I think the previous poster would argue that there’s nothing worth confiscating from the SLACs…they don’t have 13+ libraries. Oh, well.
ReplyDelete@Anon 2:30 – For crying out loud. I actually wouldn’t have mocked you for a typo that’s easy for anyone to make. And for the fifteenth time, I have NEVER thought there was anything inferior about a public school education. In fact, in an earlier post I said that the smartest people I’ve met in my life were students at the public school I attended first. I would never have gone into ANY of this if you (or whoever) hadn’t started taking cheap and not particularly clever shots at SLACs.
What I’m doing on this blog (when not wasting time/space arguing with you) is reading about reasons not to go to graduate school. It’s imprecise to describe this as a “blog for unemployed folks.” It appears to be intended for anyone who has gotten/is in the process of getting/is thinking about getting a graduate degree in the humanities or social sciences, which I was seriously considering until a few months ago. (I’d have applied to PhD programs that would have made me repeat the MA if I’d bothered to get a joint BA/MA.) I only mentioned that I have a job because it’s the only tangible sign I can offer that the decisions I made earlier on (i.e., to transfer to a SLAC) worked out for me, and it wasn’t even the main point of any of my posts. So I’m not sure why you’re fixating on it (or why you’re assuming I like my job. I never said that).
If I can resist, I’m going to stop commenting – I’ve subjected everybody to enough boring personal history, and anyway, you haven’t made any sort of argument that doesn’t involve resentful – and, frankly, lazy – repetitions of “your parents paid too much money for your education,” and “SLAC graduates are pretentious, childish, entitled snobs.”
MY REPLIES IN CAPS:
ReplyDelete"@Anon 2:30 –I have NEVER thought there was anything inferior about a public school education."
MAYBE Y-O-U HAVEN'T. IF YOU HAD GONE TO GRAD SCHOOL, YOU'D KNOW THAT MANY OTHERS, INCLUDING PROFS AND ADMINISTRATORS AND HIRING COMMITTEES DO IN FACT TREAT THE SLAC CROWD DIFFERENTLY, AS THOUGH BEING RICH MEANT SOMETHING BEYOND WINNING THE LUCKY SPERM/OVUM LOTTERY.
What I’m doing on this blog (when not wasting time/space arguing with you) is reading about reasons not to go to graduate school. It’s imprecise to describe this as a “blog for unemployed folks.” It appears to be intended for anyone who has gotten/is in the process of getting/is thinking about getting a graduate degree in the humanities or social sciences, which I was seriously considering until a few months ago.
IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, THIS WARRANTS CONGRATULATIONS. YOU ARE SMARTER THAN MANY HERE IN THIS REGARD.
I only mentioned that I have a job because it’s the only tangible sign I can offer that the decisions I made earlier on (i.e., to transfer to a SLAC) worked out for me, and it wasn’t even the main point of any of my posts. So I’m not sure why you’re fixating on it (or why you’re assuming I like my job. I never said that).
WELL, ACTUALLY HAVING A JOB IN A FIELD RELATED TO YOUR UG DEGREE WAS PART OF YOUR "ACTUALLY I DID GET SET ON A POSITIVE LIFE COURSE TRAJECTORY AFTER SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE COLLEGE" REBUTTAL. IT WARRANTED FURTHER DISCUSSION BECAUSE ANOTHER POSTER MISTOOK YOU FOR AN ACADEMIC.
If I can resist, I’m going to stop commenting
REALLY? HOW BIG OF YOU AFTER A LONG SCREED--"I'VE WRITTEN 500 WORDS IN THIS POST, BUT NOW I'M GONNA STOP!"
“SLAC graduates are pretentious, childish, entitled snobs.”
I NEVER SAID THEY ALL ARE, BUT YES, SOME ARE. IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT'S THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC: ENTITLEMENT. BUT THAT'S MUCH LESS INTERESTING THAN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE (KIDS WHO GO INTO DEBT AND YES, THEIR WEALTHY PARENTS) ARE GETTING ROOKED BY THE SYSTEM. THE FOLKS I REALLY FEEL FOR ARE THE ONES WHO BOUGHT INTO THE IDEA THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL AND SUPERIOR ABOUT SLACS (RELATIVE TO PUBLIC ED) AND PUT THEMSELVES INTO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT. THIS IS THE REAL TRAGEDY OF A SYSTEM WHICH PRIVILEGES PRIVATE OVER PUBLIC--IT LEAVES PARTICULAR GROUPS OPEN TO EXPLOITATION.
SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO RESIST FURTHER COMMENT, I'LL BID YOU ADIEU.
We are all here because we know the system is not running smoothly, so to speak. That doesn't mean that you gang up on a person who achieved what we all hoped to by going to University and grad school - A relatively secure job in a field related to that we trained to work in.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, with or without parental assistance, the fees for an education in a SLAC are obscene. Someone has to take on the burden and pay that money, even if it isn't the student themselves.
And honestly the content of a so called "Liberal Arts" degree is horribly outdated and needs to be brought into the 21st century. Some computer programming, using a variety of software, info management online, the use and morality of social media, etc etc etc. should be more prominent than 18th century British literature (that's not to say that people shouldn't learn about this as well, but it's not relevant to 90% of the jobs out there!
I also think the organization and execution of a PhD education is horribly outdated, and does not reflect the needs of the market in any way. Even if you end up obtaining the full T-T academic holy grail.
Things I came out of college knowing how to do:
ReplyDelete-Analyze/scan poems
-Write academic papers
-Calculate the area under a curved line on a graph
-Calculate the distance between two stars
Things I still do not know how to do:
-Drive a car
-Cook anything besides grilled cheese sandwiches and coffee
-Do my taxes correctly in less than four hours
-Manage my finances in a remotely strategic way
-Perform basic maintenance on my computer
Yeah. It's a broken system. I know individuals (and parents) are and maybe should be responsible for the second list of items - I certainly hold myself responsible for not knowing how to drive a car, etc. - but there are a few basic adult things that I think colleges could work in, even to a liberal arts degree. And the cost across the board is just insane.
DeleteA human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
If you can read well, you can teach yourself these things.
Things I came out of high school knowing how to do:
Delete-Analyze/scan writing
-Write academic papers
-Calculate the curved area under a graph
-Drive a car
-Ride horses
-Herd animals
-Mow lawns
-Swim
-Read, write and speak other languages
Things I came out of college knowing how to do:
- Read, write and speak another language
- Write longer academic papers
- Teach
Things I came out of graduate school knowing how to do:
- Work with undergraduates
- Analyze and manage businesses
- Write book-length papers
- Write computer programs
- Calculate statistics
- Conduct experiments
- Solve logistical problems
Things I still do not know how to do:
- Cook anything besides cheese crisps and coffee
- Anything beyond basic repairs and maintenance
- Do my taxes correctly in a short time
- Get paid to work
Things I am no longer interested in doing:
Most of the above
"We are all here because we know the system is not running smoothly, so to speak. That doesn't mean that you gang up on a person who achieved what we all hoped to by going to University and grad school - A relatively secure job in a field related to that we trained to work in."
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the SLAC alum? S/he doesn't have an academic job or even a masters degree. It's all above.
That's irrelevant to the main point, which is that s/he has a job using the skill set and knowledge he/she paid and worked for. I think that is a basic goal for *almost* anyone who gets an education.
ReplyDelete"I now have a full-time job directly related to what I studied in college (English literature)."
ReplyDelete"That's irrelevant to the main point, which is that s/he has a job using the skill set and knowledge he/she paid and worked for. I think that is a basic goal for *almost* anyone who gets an education."
Well...maybe. How many 9-5 jobs can you think of which are "directly related" to English lit? Without even an MA? If there were many out there, don't you think the hordes of unemployed humanities docs would have found some of them? S/he could be writing blurbs for Groupon for all we know.
Probably the hordes of unemployed humanities docs HAVE found these jobs. I would conclude that they either don't want them, or are overqualified. They're competing with people who don't have a graduate degree and therefore would (in theory) accept a lower salary. Not great logic, but it seems to be what's happening.
ReplyDeleteA few jobs I would consider directly related to a degree in English lit are:
1) Screenwriting
2) Journalism of some kind - writing a column, editing, etc.
3) Book publishing
4) Teaching (maybe Teach for America - do you need a master's for that? Not sure)
5) Teaching English abroad
6) Teaching at a private school (there are one-two year programs that don't require a master's)
7) Some kind of professional tutoring
8) Copyediting
Obviously, this is all more related to the "English" bit than the "literature" bit, but I don't know anyone who just gets a major in English, without the lit part. Maybe creative writing. I don't know.
Is writing for Groupon a 9-5 job? I have no idea. And would you believe this person if he/she said she didn't do that?
Some of the above jobs might be the kind of jobs to which English lit grads (with BAs or grad degrees) might aspire. But none are "directly related" to English lit, with the possible exception of working in the publishing industry. The publishing industry seems to like that Old Money upper crust, which-private-school-did-you-attend thing. Teaching, I guess, if English lit is the subject.
ReplyDeleteMost of the people I know who are doing some form of professional writing either have BAs in areas other than English lit, or no BA at all.
You know what's "DIRECTLY RELATED" to English lit? Academic jobs.
Teach for America is a program for fresh-faced BA grads. Alternative to the Peace Corps. Send well-meaning white suburban college grads into the inner city to fix things for the underclass and then act surprised when things go awry.
In defense of the hapless Teach for America young-uns, I know a retired federal employee (degreed), liberal and idealistic as they come, who tried to teach high school in D.C. After a year, he was working in a bookstore.
DeleteSome things can't be fixed - inner city public schools among them.
And who cares anyway? If SLAC-Alum has parents willing to shell out six figures for a humanities BA, s/he'll always land on her/his feet. Note the intention to "pay it forward" by sending as-yet-unborn children to fancy SLACS, with never a thought that in the current job market, s/he may not have the resources to do so. This person doesn't seem too concerned about her/his financial future.
ReplyDeleteWho I'm really worried about is all the people who've been conned, for whatever reason, into believing that private education, even at a small institution with relatively few resources, is inherently better than public education. People who can't afford it, and are now indebted, maybe for decades. Why would people who could access a comparable, if not better, public education sink themselves S50,000-100,000 in non-dischargable debt for a BA if not for the popular discourse that "private is better"? People should be outraged. Isn't that the point of the "scamblogs"--that we've been scammed?
"Teach for America is a program for fresh-faced BA grads. Alternative to the Peace Corps. Send well-meaning white suburban college grads into the inner city to fix things for the underclass and then act surprised when things go awry."
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously just the opinion of some I've heard talk about this program. They probably do a lot of good, but they've drawn criticism as well.
http://www.ryanvanwagoner.com/teach-for-america-the-truth-behind-the-organization/
http://theurbancampfire.com/page77/education-teach-tfa/issue3theurbancampfirelearn.html
"Note the intention to "pay it forward" by sending as-yet-unborn children to fancy SLACS, with never a thought that in the current job market, s/he may not have the resources to do so. This person doesn't seem too concerned about her/his financial future."
ReplyDeleteWhat? Pretty sure that post read "wherever [the kids] want to go," not "to fancy SLACs" - as in, the person is willing to repeat his/her parents' generosity. Also, it's a plan. Who knows what will happen in the future? Maybe this person WILL have money to do that AND retire comfortably. Or maybe he/she won't, and it won't be an option. How can you jump to conclusions about financial irresponsibility?
The problem isn't just with parents and students. It's with employers who seem to value private over public. If parents are willing to pay to see that their kids have an advantage, and can do so without compromising themselves financially, that's their right. It's a free world (sucktastic though it can be).
Do employers value private over public? I doubt this very much.
Delete"The problem isn't just with parents and students."
ReplyDeleteI think the critique is of the system in general, not individual parents and students. Everyone wants the best for their kids. It's the way we define "best" that's the problem--along with the accompanying price tag, that is. The discourse by which private is valued over public makes certain folks vulnerable to exploitation. And that certain folks really are targeted by institutions to take on terrible amounts of debt.
@ Anon 10:03am,
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure employers value private over public, unless you're talking about Ivy private over public. If a person attends a #100+ USN&WR ranked school that is private, he can pretty much guarantee that no one outside of the state he attended said school will have heard of it.
I definitely agree with you there! (Both of the last two posters, actually.) Paying through the nose to go to a 100+ LAC isn't much better than paying to go to a sub-par law school these days - you get a degree, but it's nearly worthless - and yet incredibly costly.
ReplyDeleteThough the only SLAC mentioned by name throughout this whole series of comments is Pomona, which to my knowledge is not a 100+ school, and which is part of a really excellent university system. So I've had a hard time determining which SLACs are a waste of time and which aren't...
When I first got to my PhD program, there were a bunch of SLAC-ers (tee-hee) who were unfamiliar with TAing--they'd never had TAs when they were undergraduates, and on the eve of TAing their own classes, weren't sure what their new job entailed. I'd explain that where I went, we'd have 250-400 person lectures, accompanied by smaller, (dumbed down) discussion sections led by TAs. Without exception, their faces would screw up and they'd say, "Oh, I could NEVER do that" [attend a 250-400 person class].
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought these comments were laced with a kind of dippy admiration--"I could never do that--but you are very brave for doing so." But the more I got to know the private school kids, the more the "I could never do that" response seemed to be about them needing more reassurance and contact with the teacher. And even more importantly, feeling ACKNOWLEDGED by the teacher. It wasn't admiration--it was revulsion, with more than a bit of snobbery mixed in. "I'm too special an individual to be swallowed by the teeming masses." As if you couldn't get to know professors at large universities via office hours, volunteering for their labs, etc.
I learned plenty sitting alongside the teeming masses. If I won the lottery, I'd consider paying private school tuition for my kids if the institutional rank warranted the price (pretty much Ivies only). Otherwise the little fuckers would go to a good public school and learn how to learn alongside everyone else without needing constant reassurance and hand-holding.
Anon 7:34 here...
ReplyDeleteWow -- I didn't realize that mention of "UGs" would bring such a flood of comments, from both sides of the "is college worth the cost?" debate. But it's not surprising to me that there would be so much angst and anguish (and perhaps even anxiety) coming from TAs and inspired by undergrads. Having never been to grad school myself, I have only to reflect on my undergrad experience. Anon 11:51 says it best:
"Paying through the nose to go to a 100+ LAC isn't much better than paying to go to a sub-par law school these days - you get a degree, but it's nearly worthless - and yet incredibly costly."
Yes, I was one of those naive, immature children who went to a private SLAC, expecting that attaining a (supposedly) prestigious degree from a (supposedly) prestigious school would propel me forward. It definitely did NOT do that, and it definitely was NOT worth the cost. And my schoolmates? "Spoiled Little Asshole Children" only begins to describe them. Try racist, xenophobic, chauvinistic, homophobic...
Sorry to turn the subject of these comments from graduate school to undergrads, but I think it was therapeutic for everyone to let out some steam, no?
I've attended two private schools and two public schools (one each for both undergrad and grad). In both cases, the private schools had worse resources and dumber students than the public schools. There was more "teacher contact" in one of the private schools, but they had to dumb the curriculum down to accommodate the subpar students. In the other private school the teachers really were no more accessible than at the big state school. I think they managed to keep the curriculum less challenging so the students wouldn't bug the profs, but would stick around to keep shelling out the $$$.
ReplyDeletehow is "Spoiled Little Asshole Children" become racist, xenophobic, chauvinistic, homophobic...???
ReplyDeleteSpoiled = Liberal = anti - racist, anti xenophobic, anti chauvinistic, anti homophobic etc.
"how is "Spoiled Little Asshole Children" become racist, xenophobic, chauvinistic, homophobic...???
ReplyDeleteSpoiled = Liberal = anti - racist, anti xenophobic, anti chauvinistic, anti homophobic etc."
Whaaa? Clearly not an English major.
That's not the point. I am in Engineering, not in English.
ReplyDeleteI am pointing out that the statement of college students being more racist and xenophobic is simply not true. Otherwise Obama will not be in the White House today.
Obama is in the White House primarily because of financial and political support from:
Delete1) the people he purports to disdain - extremely rich liberal whites and extremely wealthy activist groups;
2) the people who run the government (SEIU ensures that most government employees are politically partisan, and will abuse their positions to retain the party most aligned with their interests);
3) the "chattering classes" - "educators," traditional news media, and Hollywood;
4) the "identity classes" - ethnic groups who thought they had something to gain by Obama's election;
5) white liberals trying to be progressive or "atone."
Original poster of xenophobic etc comment here.
ReplyDelete"I am pointing out that the statement of college students being more racist and xenophobic is simply not true."
I didn't say that college students tend to be *more* racist, xenophobic, etc than the general population -- I meant to say that UGs may be not just spoiled but that they may also have those other qualities. It surprised me that there were any of those qualities in my (supposedly) prestigious SLAC, as I had wrongly assumed that learning engenders enlightenment.
"Spoiled = Liberal = anti - racist, anti xenophobic, anti chauvinistic, anti homophobic etc."
Spoiled = liberal? So... the more your parents dote on you, the more you are given everything you could ever want (and more than that even!), the more you live a life of comfort and lavishness and laxity, the more you see that there are more facets to the world than the trinkets and tawdriness surrounding you? Sadly, no, not the case. If anything, being spoiled makes you LESS liberal and LESS open-minded -- "I have everything I could want because Mommy and Daddy have it. If I want to have a good life and be able to throw money at MY kids, I better do everything they do!"
It may look like Spoiled children are liberals, hipsters, more likely to vote democrats etc., but based on my field experience this is simply not true.
ReplyDeleteI have seen more and more sluts who go to church. These people talks about the bible during the day, but when the sun goes down, everything is changed.
This is more prevalent in colleges located in the southern portion of the U.S.
I have also done research about youth cultures in the other countries, and the problem mentioned above is only a phenomenon in the USA. In Japan for example, the heirs of prestigious family are actually well behaved and well disciplined. Same with certain royalties in the UK.
So to modify the equation above:
American WASP families= Spoiled = Conservative = Republican = Racist = Xenophobic = Islamophobic = (any anti-humanity qualities goes here)
"That's not the point. I am in Engineering, not in English.
ReplyDeleteI am pointing out that the statement of college students being more racist and xenophobic is simply not true. Otherwise Obama will not be in the White House today."
9/15 7:02 here. My flip comment about you obviously not being an English major was related to the incomprehensibility of your previous post. Not that all English majors write and reason well either. But really, attempting to use Obama's election to disprove the existence of contemporary racism is preposterous.
"American WASP families= Spoiled = Conservative = Republican = Racist = Xenophobic = Islamophobic = (any anti-humanity qualities goes here)"
ReplyDeleteEgad! NO. You will find these qualities in people in every walk of life. We can all generalize based on personal experience till we're blue in the face, but every time I think I've got a group of people pegged an example occurs to me, and then five more, that belie whatever I was thinking. My parents are extremely fiscally conservative, and WASPy on my mom's side, and they're among the kindest, most open-minded people I know. And the hardest-working. It's corny, but I really think you have to take people as individuals.
oh, gosh, i'm sorry. you're absolutely correct. the fact that you like your mom and the rest of your family disproves everything on this site.
ReplyDeleteI think you just missed the point, Anon 5:35. Again.
ReplyDelete@ Anon 0729:
ReplyDeleteYou are talking about your parents. Old nice working church ladies / nuns are a thing of the past. All I see right now is WASP = tea-party racist, especially the younger generation who are taught to hate.
Inflation is the only way to save the economy. Government spending is the only way to create jobs.
"All I see right now is WASP = tea-party racist, especially the younger generation who are taught to hate."
DeleteSpoken like an individual who has never attended a tea party rally, has no WASP friends, and knows very little about the world in general, but has swallowed all the liberal chub that was thrown out there.
"Inflation is the only way to save the economy. Government spending is the only way to create jobs."
Well, you've had policies that promoted both of these for 7.5 years now. Over 2/3rds of the U.S. states still have unemployment levels higher than those of 2007. Estimated levels of long-term unemployment and workforce withdrawals are at their highest since the Great Depression. The workforce has the lowest participation rate in decades. Where is your recovery?
Churches were used to be the place to find nice, good looking, clean (STD-free) , conservative woman. Now all i Find is sluts and racists.
ReplyDeleteBecause there were no sluts or racists in the church in the past.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's the way WASP is being defined that is the problem. What is inherently wrong with being white, of Anglo-Saxon descent, and Protestant? Is your problem with kids who have trust-funds? If so, say so. Assuming you know anything about the parents of somebody you've never met is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete"Inflation is the only way to save the economy. Government spending is the only way to create jobs." Sure, if you trust the government to spend wisely and with integrity. If other organizations - corporations, or really anybody else - can't be trusted to do that, why would a group of crooked politicians (on either side of the aisle) be capable of it?
Also, WASP = Tea Party is the most baseless, wildly unfounded conclusion you've made yet, I think. I'm sorry if you've had a few bad experiences, but you need to grow up.
What does slutty behavior have to do with anything?
Why are folks talking about "sluts" or "slutty behavior" as if they actually exist? If folks commenting on this blog don't believe that adult women have a right to be sexual beings, then being asked "why are you studying that?" is really the least of your problems.
ReplyDelete"Why are folks talking about "sluts" or "slutty behavior" as if they actually exist?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they actually exist.
I don't mind sluts. I just don't want girls that has STD loves me because of my $ that I made trading stocks during grad school.
ReplyDeleteThat is how I got my funding.
"Why are folks talking about "sluts" or "slutty behavior" as if they actually exist?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they actually exist."
NO, they don't. "Slut" is a label for a woman who is having more sex than you are, or more sex than you think she should. What business is it of yours?
Women who like sex exist.
So do people who uphold the sexual double standard.
So do sexists and misogynists.
You just defined a term you claim does not exist. Maybe you don't like the societal implications of such a label, or what it means, or whatever. But sluts and slutty behavior exist regardless of your feelings towards the labels.
ReplyDelete"You just defined a term you claim does not exist. Maybe you don't like the societal implications of such a label, or what it means, or whatever. But sluts and slutty behavior exist regardless of your feelings towards the labels."
ReplyDeleteIt looks like graduate study hasn't improved your ability to detect sarcasm.
We could go on like this all day. "Slut" is just a label which is used to demean and control women's sexuality. Resign from the Sexuality Police.
"B.
ReplyDeleteIdiots who skipped college altogether, did bad in high school, don’t think critically about anything and worse yet, completely refuse to even begin to think about anything and a few years later are doing ok (working a trade, for a union, or as a bartender or waitress) and think they “beat the system” and are “smarter than everyone else” (b/c they have no education debt)
August 31, 2011 10:17 AM"
1. It's badly, not "bad."
2. Going to college does not equate automatic genius and the staving off of idiocy.
3. Maybe those who avoided a ton of debt are smarter; after all, they are not contributing to the national debt (student loan debt recently outweighed credit card debt [link below]) and thus, are arguably more intelligent.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/08/09/student-loan-debt-surpasses-credit-cards/
Suck on that.
Could all of you please get back to the point of the original post? I thought that the 100 Reasons comments were generally well-informed and courteous, but the replies to this article are proving me wrong.
ReplyDeleteReason #91 - Witch Hunts
ReplyDeleteReason #92 - Fascist Political Atmosphere
and
Reason #93 - Self-Righteous Factually Ignorant Class/Gender/Race Warfare.
We already have Reason 91, but let's by all means incorporate these! I've experienced them all, and it is grim...a stomach-churning travesty of the ideal of learning and the search for enlightenment to which our universities purportedly aspire, at least if you read the pabulum they dish out to the public.
ReplyDelete"Is it worth years of your life to be an expert on the 'performative aspects' of anything?" Well, duh. If you have to ask a question like that, I think graduate school might not be for you.
ReplyDelete