Comment by InsideOutSanta
1 day ago
It's always funny to me when people say "overeducated", as if knowing things is only good up to a point. If you know too much, you suddenly turn bad.
1 day ago
It's always funny to me when people say "overeducated", as if knowing things is only good up to a point. If you know too much, you suddenly turn bad.
When people use the term, it is obviously not a reference to just "knowing things" but rather 1) the distinct socialization one gets in academia that leaves one rather divorced from the real world (and I say that as an academic), and 2) hyperspecialization to the point one loses the big picture, a problem in education today.
I knew one or two profs like that when I was studying, but the vast majority of people in academia are just regular people with families and interests outside of academia. It's kinda disheartening to see the anti-intellectual bent this discussion has taken.
> but the vast majority of people in academia are just regular people with families and interests outside of academia
If most people realized that, we would have much less problems: academics are often shrouded in an aura of virtue and wisdom they don't deserve in the least. Like what you see in this thread, that their narrow (or worse, illusory) knowledge will somehow help them being good rulers/leaders.
1 reply →
I've worked and known many, many academics in my life. I'm sorry, but if you think this is anti-intellectual, then there are some basic things you don't understand about people.
Academics really are naive and out of touch people. In a weird sort of way, being an academic means sacrificing your personal growth for either a) a deep love of their area of research or b) love of teaching. This means that the wider life skills one gains as an adult, they never get. They get to avoid consequences for being wrong but at quite a price. One of the worst things I have seen are what happens to academics who leave for the private sector later in their career. When they can't make it in the private sector, it is pretty crushing to many of them.
That being said, one of the prices of being an academics is being very "out of touch" with the rest of society. And that will take away your ability to read political situations or govern things well. Academics injecting themselves into such situations will almost always be disastrous as a result. Its just a consequence of how academia works. It doesn't have to be that way, but unless academia changes profoundly, it will be.
4 replies →
I definitely agree existing in a particular silo gives you a narrow view of the world, but I've never understood the idea that the silo of academia is somehow worse or less representative of the broader world than small town living or being in the military or any of the other silos many people exist in. The real world almost by definition is made up of the combination of all the things people do and the environments in which they exist.
Obviously being a truck driver is different than being a physics professor. But I'm not sure there is much of a coherent argument supporting the idea that the former exists in the real world while the latter does not.
People use the term to manage their cognitive dissonance. They do not want to put the work in to become educated, and do not want to admit that this puts them at distinct disadvantage in many ways that matter.
> distinct socialization one gets in academia that leaves one rather divorced from the real world
It is absurd claim. Academia is part of real world. It is not an isolated island cut off from everything else.
It is no more divorced from real world then any other group of people. No more divorced then rural farmer are divorced from it, businessmen are divorced from it, sports fans are divorced from it. They are all having limits of understanding other groups.
Tech workers as likely more divorced from average person even.
At this stage, one would have to be intentionally ignorant of the history of academia and its current trajectory to believe that, or lying.
Rural farmers are responsible for whatever the fuck this is supposed to be:
Course name at Melbourne University:
Global Intersections: Gender, Race, Class - What is the relationship between gender, globalisation and identity?
Queering Europe -investigates the social and linguistic contexts, cultural production, and representation of LGBTIQA+ communities in Europe.
Gender, Care and Everyday - How do we care for ourselves, others and our environment? What are the dynamics of gender, race, sexuality, class, ability, and citizenship in relation to care?
Have you bothered to look at the literature the whack jobs who take these courses put out?
This redacted is paid for, supported by, and student loans granted by our governments here in Australia.
The worst marriage of government and academia modern democratic society has seen.
1 reply →
That is true.
The problem is not in that they are divorced from the real world. The problem is in the model that science get financial support, which leads to the existence of filtering that eliminates from the science anyone who is not far-left loyal dog and supporter of the "current thing".
5 replies →
Yes, this was, obviously, my intended usage.
Not the wet lettuce straw man usage posited by the other comment.
A Jack of all trades is a master of none, but better than a master of one because he has broad, intersectional knowledge. Academia is designed for specialization and the more you specialize in something the more you lose the forest for the trees.
Everything looks like a nail if you are a hammer and all that.
https://www.oglaf.com/labyrinth/
While the extreme "master of one" exists, most academics I know have cross-cutting interests.
We also shouldn't forget that the vast majority of politicians today are lawyers by education. To whatever degree your assumption holds, it is true of the status quo today as well. Even in that case, having a more diverse set of "masters of one" would be an improvement.
I was only addressing what "overeducated" refers to. Politicians of western democracies I know of have the problem that each leader is afraid to surround himself with people more capable than themselves, for the people around him are competitors for his position.
Unfortunately, eventually one of the people selected for being less capable get to be at the top and continue the whole play again, getting rid of anyone that is not less capable than themselves.
This is one disadvantage democracies have over monarchies, for a king can surround himself with more capable people all he wants as they are not direct competitors.
Slight correction (can't edit): law education is most common for politicians in Western countries, but not the majority.
For the US, 32% of the house and 47% of the senate holds a law degree.
Academic credentials and knowledge have very little correlation. A master electrician knows things. So does an airline pilot in charge of hundreds of lives. Yet neither has letters after their name.
Aren’t the letters after their names essentially signifying their level of understanding on a subject?
Just like “Master” before electrician or “Captain” or “PIC” for airline pilots.