Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

[drkitten]

I don't think that's true in the sciences. From what I've read on this website, you have an impressive resume as a scientist (although I'm not sure in what discipline -the biomedical sciences?) so I'm surprised by your take on this. I have some experience in that field, as an undergraduate major and in working for a pharmaceutical company, and it seemed pretty clear to me that there was no real advantage in a gimmicky undergraduate major like "neuroscience" or "genetic engineering".

Our experiences -- and companies -- may differ. And much of my corporate
experience was quite a spell ago, and the culture may have changed
(although my understanding is that it has changed for the worse -- making my observations more true rather than less).

One key inter-company difference that might explain it is the amount of autonomy given to the HR departments for pre-screening. I'm not going to name specific companies here, but I will point out that the first company I worked for post-baccalaureate kept HR on an extremely tight leash, even for lab tech/BS positions, and most of the recruitment was done through personal contact with individual colleges. HR was basically reduced to a record-keeping organization, and wasn't permitted much flexibility even there. Probably not by coincidence, it was also one of the least business-oriented and most science/tech-oriented places I've ever worked for. They tended to hire for the long term and didn't mind hiring "outside the box." But that attitude is (in my experience) most notable for its rarity.

Almost everywhere else I've worked -- or attempted to place students -- HR got in the loop too early and started whinging about lack of specialist credentials (as though a post-bac intern can get "specialist credentials" in coffee serving?)

It may also reflect the relative quality of our students and/or schools. Neither MIT nor Oxbridge needs gimmicky disciplines to place their students because the name itself has street cred. Things are a little different further down the food chain, where it can be hard to distinguish South Hudson Institute of Technology from Sam Houston Institute of Technology.... But a degree in left-handed genetic engineering might help....

 

[drkitten]

It's only 'after the getting of it' that money becomes an issue and the degreed proclaims, "darn, I just wasted four years."

Only if you let the money become an issue.

I've not checked the formal statistics, but my offhand guess is that the "average" high-school educated person makes about $20,000 per year. The "average" liberal arts B.A. makes somewhere between $20-30,000. Of course, if you major in whatever the hot engineering field is this week, you can make up to $100,000 per year (if you guessed right four years ago -- otherwise you might still be down in the $20-30,000 range) straight out of school, and if you are willing to amass another quarter million dollars in student loans, you can always get something disgustingly avaricious like an M.B.A. or a law degree.

So what? If you love what you're learning, you can still make a better-than-average living with a history degree (you're no worse off than you were before) and enjoy learning and practicing history. So your brother-in-law who went into medicine is driving a Lexus, while you drive a KIA. If you're envious of his financial success, the problem is with your envy, not your education....

 

[JamesDillon]

and if you are willing to amass another quarter million dollars in student loans, you can always get something disgustingly avaricious like an M.B.A. or a law degree.

It's not quite that bad, yet. Even funding my legal education almost entirely through student loans at one of the most expensive schools in the country, I managed to come out with only about half that amount of debt.

Which is still, unfortunately, quite a lot for anyone thinking of getting out of the law firm life...

 

[slingblade]

Certainly I can deal. In fact, I find your opinion amusing. You're essentially saying 'life ain't fair'. 'Cuse my vernacular. I'm sure you say 'is not'.

I'm essentially saying how it's a shame we don't value eduction and learning for its own sake as well as a means to a better income, rather than only as a means to make more money.

But you're probably not familiar with such esoterics as philosophy. In fact, I'm certain of it. You're one of those who makes fun of people when they don't speak well, and when they do. In other words, you're a jealous, petty little man. What a pity.

 

[SezMe]

I interview people for positions about twice monthly. I've never come across someone with a degree in WS but if I did, I certainly would NOT hire them, not matter what their other qualifications.

Rob, what about Black Studies? Would you automatically reject them? Ditto Hispanic Studies.

 

[slingblade]

Aw, gee. I get it.

Rob Lister. Raw Blister. Now it makes sense. Welcome to ignore.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Only if you let the money become an issue.

I've not checked the formal statistics, but my offhand guess is that the "average" high-school educated person makes about $20,000 per year. The "average" liberal arts B.A. makes somewhere between $20-30,000. Of course, if you major in whatever the hot engineering field is this week, you can make up to $100,000 per year (if you guessed right four years ago -- otherwise you might still be down in the $20-30,000 range) straight out of school, and if you are willing to amass another quarter million dollars in student loans, you can always get something disgustingly avaricious like an M.B.A. or a law degree.

So what? If you love what you're learning, you can still make a better-than-average living with a history degree (you're no worse off than you were before) and enjoy learning and practicing history. So your brother-in-law who went into medicine is driving a Lexus, while you drive a KIA. If you're envious of his financial success, the problem is with your envy, not your education....

Or you could be like my uncle with a phd in economic geography and works with computers that has nothing to do with his degree.

You do not need a degree to be a success and your degree can be unimportant. Then it is unimportant not part of your success.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm essentially saying how it's a shame we don't value eduction and learning for its own sake as well as a means to a better income, rather than only as a means to make more money.

But you're probably not familiar with such esoterics as philosophy. In fact, I'm certain of it. You're one of those who makes fun of people when they don't speak well, and when they do. In other words, you're a jealous, petty little man. What a pity.

So yo hold all accademic persuits equaly valid how would you evalutate funding needs and such? Do we want to encourage more philosophy degree's or more science and engeneering degree's to keep up with with india and china.

 

[Mephisto]

Aw, gee. I get it.

Rob Lister. Raw Blister. Now it makes sense. Welcome to ignore.

Back to the OP . . . Evolution isn't really a concern these days though, because we've already been told that, "fish and people can co-exist."

 

[Dave1001]

I'm essentially saying how it's a shame we don't value eduction and learning for its own sake as well as a means to a better income, rather than only as a means to make more money.

But you're probably not familiar with such esoterics as philosophy. In fact, I'm certain of it. You're one of those who makes fun of people when they don't speak well, and when they do. In other words, you're a jealous, petty little man. What a pity.

Well, I honestly don't value education and learning "for its own sake" but rather for the utilitarian value it can offer society -for which, writ large, money can be a proxy. Society's needs may differ from the individual's perception of what is most lucrative though. But that's probably due to still relatively widespread irrational decision making by humans in most sectors of society. Thus is has been a lot more lucrative to make SUV's for surbanites to drive solo in than fuel efficient cars and mass transport networks. Etc. The great thing is that education in theory can cure that. In practice I think a level of eugenics and/or enfranchisement restriction may be more effective though.

 

[Rob Lister]

Rob, what about Black Studies? Would you automatically reject them? Ditto Hispanic Studies.

Ditto White Studies too [assuming such a major existed].

If the curriculum appears activist-based, then it is less than worthless unless the job in question required an activist in that particular field. You'd be surprised at just how few jobs outside the beltway require the services of Degreed Troublemakers.

Back to the subject, as Mephisto requests, a degree in Evolutionary Biology might well be useful to many.

 

[slingblade]

So yo hold all accademic persuits equaly valid how would you evalutate funding needs and such? Do we want to encourage more philosophy degree's or more science and engeneering degree's to keep up with with india and china.

You're making assumptions about what I believe or think which aren't contained in my statements.

Our society sends mixed messages about things like intellect and learning. A person can be mocked by others both for being "stupid" and for being "smart."
A person can be derided for lack of education, and for seeking education.

I've said that education can help one get a better job, and can help one earn more money. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not in any way trying to imply there's a problem with that. But learning for learning's own sake is also valuable, albeit in a different way. To see learning only in terms of how much money it might net you is to ignore the fact that learning is valuable in and of itself, too.

Not one or the other, but both. Learning is not just an end product, but a process, as well. You learn things about learning, about the process, which can help you in all other areas of life.

A minor example: I was seeking a particular degree, and had my course of studies all mapped out for me by other people. There was one class that was not required by my program sheet; wasn't even listed as an elective for my degree. But I did have a few electives to fill, and we could take any classes we liked for electives, so I decided to take this one. Some people asked me why I was bothering with it, spending money on it, wasting my time with it. I didn't have to take it, didn't evidently need it, so what was the point?

But I found the class enjoyable as learning-for-learning's-sake. Only later did I find I was actively using what I learned in this class in every other class I took from that moment on. I found it incredibly useful, even though most people thought I had wasted my time. I mean, wasn't it obvious? If it were necessary to my degree, wouldn't it have been made part of my program of study? So what was this useless, unnecessary class?

Logic.

Not one of my classmates had bothered with it. Not one member of my cohort had a clue about it. In every education class we had, we heard about it constantly: "You must use critical thinking and logic when teaching," and yet not one other member of my cohort could name or recognize a fallacy, or identify a poorly structured argument. I'm not sure how they were supposed to teach something they'd never learned themselves.

Yes, of course it seems obvious in hindsight that logic would be an invaluable class to have taken. But I took it only for its own sake, not because it was required. Simply because I wanted to learn it.

Yes, I also doubt a degree in women's studies would get you that dream job. I agree with much of what's been said in that regard. But it is applicable to certain jobs, as has been proven. It's not totally useless. And I am of the opinion that learning of any kind has its own value, though it might not be monetary value. IOW, I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I'm simply saying that learning has more value than just earning a dollar.

Surely agreement with that is not impossible?

 

[slingblade]

In practice I think a level of eugenics and/or enfranchisement restriction may be more effective though.

I suppose asking you to define eugenics, specify to whom you would apply it, and specify for whom enfranchisement should be restricted would be a waste of time?

You're a scary person, Dave. I wonder if you mean to be?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I also doubt a degree in women's studies would get you that dream job. I agree with much of what's been said in that regard. But it is applicable to certain jobs, as has been proven. It's not totally useless. And I am of the opinion that learning of any kind has its own value, though it might not be monetary value. IOW, I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I'm simply saying that learning has more value than just earning a dollar.

Surely agreement with that is not impossible?

As this was about federaly recognised degree's to start with and I was particularly asking about funding, you apear not to have adressed the questions. Does any learning have some value to society? Yes, but does all learning have the same value? No.

So should there be more grants and such for people persuing sceince and engeneering than womens studies? I would think so, to encourage studies that produce the most benefit to soceity.

 

[slingblade]

As this was about federaly recognised degree's to start with and I was particularly asking about funding, you apear not to have adressed the questions. Does any learning have some value to society? Yes, but does all learning have the same value? No.

Okay, if that's the only point I'm "supposed" to be addressing, then I'd have to agree that not all learning has the same monetary value. English teachers can't earn as much as astrophysicists. Nurses can't earn as much as doctors. By that logic, no one should seek to be a nurse, as s/he can never earn as much as a doctor, so why waste your time and money? And who needs English teachers? They don't do anything of value, as is obvious by their comparatively low incomes.

What I quibble with is the definition of "value." Money is only one kind of value. If one thinks the value of an education lies only in how much potential income it can generate, one is missing a significant part of the picture.

So should there be more grants and such for people persuing sceince and engeneering than womens studies? I would think so, to encourage studies that produce the most benefit to soceity.

That depends on what one considers valuable to society. Evidently, our measures vary. You, for instance, have made a couple of small spelling errors in your post (the underlined bits). Making similar small errors in a scientific endeavor could be enough to get people killed, depending. Think about it.

Women are different from men. If one plans to go into an area such as social science, and in doing so plans to deal primarily with women, then an understanding of women and their societal roles in history would be highly beneficial.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. I see much more value to learning than just how much potential income might be generated. I also see how certain studies can be disparaged by some as being "useless," and therefore not worthy of funding through grants or scholarships, when in fact they are quite valuable.

By this reasoning, we should not just eliminate Women's Studies, but also all arts, all history, and all philosophy. They are all "useless."

Or are they?


http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-viewthread.php?thread=21881

"The barbarians are at the gate, and Western civilization needs defending like never before.

The humanities, or the liberal arts, are the ultimate source of liberal values. They are the product of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which largely left the Islamic world untouched, but which led to the French and American Revolutions and to Western individualism, to the growth of democracy in the place of theocracy and monarchy.

Ignorance of classical literature gives rise to a cultural autism in which our responses to Milton, Pope, and even Tennyson are deadened. Ignorance of philosophy moves the centre of Western ideas from Athens to Washington, Islington, and Notting Hill, with serious consequences for our civil liberties. Ignorance of history dooms us to repeat it."

So, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, if that's the only point I'm "supposed" to be addressing, then I'd have to agree that not all learning has the same monetary value. English teachers can't earn as much as astrophysicists. Nurses can't earn as much as doctors. By that logic, no one should seek to be a nurse, as s/he can never earn as much as a doctor, so why waste your time and money? And who needs English teachers? They don't do anything of value, as is obvious by their comparatively low incomes.

The english teacher vs astrophysicist thing is likely off. I know at the college I went to the professors where not any better paid than high school teachers and such.

I was talking about funding. How much funding in the terms of research grants should the womans studies department get?

I was talking about not individual salaries but funding of institutions and such.

What I quibble with is the definition of "value." Money is only one kind of value. If one thinks the value of an education lies only in how much potential income it can generate, one is missing a significant part of the picture.

So professors of womens studies shouldn't be paid? Teaching is work and most people need to be paid for their work, so there needs to be some money in there.

There are more kinds of money than just potential income involved in this.

That depends on what one considers valuable to society. Evidently, our measures vary. You, for instance, have made a couple of small spelling errors in your post (the underlined bits). Making similar small errors in a scientific endeavor could be enough to get people killed, depending. Think about it.

Not so much. As in the scientific endavors that I have been involved with do not require memorization of equations and constants. There is no need they are easy to look up.

Women are different from men.

Didn't a president of harvard get forced to quit for saying that?

 

[Dave1001]

I suppose asking you to define eugenics, specify to whom you would apply it, and specify for whom enfranchisement should be restricted would be a waste of time?

You're a scary person, Dave. I wonder if you mean to be?

You ask me to define eugenics in the context of my post: I think restricting the ability to procreate to people that meet certain critical thought threshholds will probably improve the quality of economic and political decision-making quicker and more efficiently than mass education in critical thinking. How could it be done? There are many ways. Probably one way folks would find to be among the least objectionable would be to give men vasectomies in exchange for a free studio apartment and basic cable television for life. This not an endorsement of eugenics by the way, its an observation and a personal opinion about its likely relative efficiency compared with mass education programs.

As for calling me scary, I think it detracts from the discussion. Let's keep it about ideas, rather than about people. I'm too busy trying to become a decabillionaire to waste time with large public works eugenic projects to benefit the commons.

 

[slingblade]

The english teacher vs astrophysicist thing is likely off. I know at the college I went to the professors where not any better paid than high school teachers and such.

I apologize for this, but it keeps happening: the word you want is "were," not "where." They aren't even pronounced the same. And I didn't say "professors." I said "astrophysicists." Please don't change my focus so that it fits your argument, thanks.

I was talking about funding. How much funding in the terms of research grants should the womans studies department get?

I thought the discussion was about students paying 4-5 years of tuition and fees to earn an "unmarketable" degree. How'd we get off on departmental funding? Women's studies doesn't necessarily have its own department. At my school (YMMV), it was part of the Humanities and Social Sciences department. Women's studies is a largely literary field.

I was talking about not individual salaries but funding of institutions and such.

Really? Again, I cry goal-post shifting. The original argument was that one supposedly can't make a living with a degree in women's studies, not one of departmental concern.

So professors of womens studies shouldn't be paid? Teaching is work and most people need to be paid for their work, so there needs to be some money in there.

That's not my argument, sorry. I never said or implied anything of the sort and you know it.

There are more kinds of money than just potential income involved in this.

I'm sure there are, but that's not the question you asked to which I have been responding:

No one is questioning it as a field of study, people are questioning if it is an employable degree. Or rather asserting that there are is nothing outside of accademics that someone can do with that degree. And what is the utility of having an accademic degree if you are not involved in accademics?

A degree in women's studies has been shown to be an "employable degree."

My argument is that there are other tangible benefits to any kind of education, apart from the paycheck it will help you bring home. And this is still my point. Sorry if it isn't yours.

Didn't a president of harvard get forced to quit for saying that?

No. Again, if you persist in resorting to fallacy, there can be no meaningful discussion.

 

[slingblade]

You ask me to define eugenics in the context of my post: I think restricting the ability to procreate to people that meet certain critical thought threshholds will probably improve the quality of economic and political decision-making quicker and more efficiently than mass education in critical thinking. How could it be done? There are many ways. Probably one way folks would find to be among the least objectionable would be to give men vasectomies in exchange for a free studio apartment and basic cable television for life. This not an endorsement of eugenics by the way, its an observation and a personal opinion about its likely relative efficiency compared with mass education programs.

As for calling me scary, I think it detracts from the discussion. Let's keep it about ideas, rather than about people. I'm too busy trying to become a decabillionaire to waste time with large public works eugenic projects to benefit the commons.

Tough. You have scary ideas, if that makes it more palitable to you. When the vasectomy truck rolls into your neighborhood, do you plan to step on board? Or is that just for the "commons," hoi polloi, the Great Unwashed?

 

[Dave1001]

Tough. You have scary ideas, if that makes it more palitable to you. When the vasectomy truck rolls into your neighborhood, do you plan to step on board? Or is that just for the "commons," hoi polloi, the Great Unwashed?

I think you're overpersonalizing the discussion to the detriment of intellectual exchange of ideas. Also you're conflating my take on the efficiency of different policy approaches with an endorsement of a particular policy approach. Which some folks may find to be scary themselves.

As do your questions, I think it overlimits policy analysis to shoot down policy ideas that individuals will rationally seek to avoid to have apply to them personally. For example most socialists support taxes and most free marketers support anti-monopoly measures. Yet an individual will rationally not want to pay taxes nor have competition introduced to a monopoly that they own. It doesn't make the ideas bad for society as a whole just because self-interested individuals will rationally not want it applied in their case.