41–50 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you ask: Yes, actually, it does.
By what moral standard?
If you don't care, then you don't care. And there's probably nothing that can be said in this thread that will change your position on the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people only have one passion. I personally have a passion for pure mathematics and number theory. My passion for software and hardware comes in a close enough second that I chose to focus my career on development rather than pure mathematics. I was all set to double major in mathematic when I got married. When my wife and I had our first kid I decided to finish up a Computer Engineering degree and enter…
i read the article twice. something in it really hit home with me. i have an offer from a prof at the local univ to pursue a math phd, and i might do so in the fall. my employer is ok with it, so i get to keep my job as well. however, its a fairly useless part of math ( useless in the GH Hardy sense ) in commutative algebra, specifically prufer groups ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%BCfer_group ) Now, I could do…
And that's the point. Once we make a choice, we must accept the consequences. The article indicates there was some sort of agreement between life and students that says "If you study hard and get an advanced degree you won't have financial troubles." Since that wasn't the case, the world seems unfair. There is no such agreement. I'm not raining on the parade of students studying things that interest them. I feel strongly that their studies are beneficial and they become better people and better members of society because of them. But they were never promised financial success and not having it is not a breach of contract in any way shape or form. That's why this article rubs this crowd the wrong way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oversupplied compared to what? Just because there's no immediate industrial benefit to medieval studies doesn't mean that there's no overall societal benefit from liberal arts programs. If you took a strict Econ 101 view of this, there would be no medieval studies professors in the whole country.
"If you took a strict Econ 101 view of this, there would be no medieval studies professors in the whole country." I don't believe that. (note that I am the guy who originally made the "zero pity" comment) Knowing how society developed from medieval times into the Renaissance is very valuable, especially from the point of view of someone who studies history of technology, markets, and means of production. Within that…
Your contention that we're producing a couple too many, ok, I can buy that. But the people in the article have jobs -- and it doesn't seem to stand that the depts in question would pay more for medieval history experts if there was a smaller pool of talent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people only have one passion. I personally have a passion for pure mathematics and number theory. My passion for software and hardware comes in a close enough second that I chose to focus my career on development rather than pure mathematics. I was all set to double major in mathematic when I got married. When my wife and I had our first kid I decided to finish up a Computer Engineering degree and enter…
i read the article twice. something in it really hit home with me. i have an offer from a prof at the local univ to pursue a math phd, and i might do so in the fall. my employer is ok with it, so i get to keep my job as well. however, its a fairly useless part of math ( useless in the GH Hardy sense ) in commutative algebra, specifically prufer groups ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%BCfer_group ) Now, I could do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would colleges want to hire tenure-track professors if adjuncts can teach the same number of students for less money? The full-time vs. adjunct debate has nothing to do with whether college is over- or under-supplied. It's a problem with how colleges supply whatever it is that they supply.
"Why would colleges want to hire tenure-track professors if adjuncts can teach the same number of students for less money?" That is precisely the point. There is an oversupply of people willing to do the job and thus people are willing to do it for less money (teaching adjunct). If there were a shortage, then the university would be forced to pay more and give more benefits (hire tenure track).
This article is tailor made for a lot of Nelson Muntz-ish "HAHA"s. 1) Gloating over your own skills being in demand can be short-sighted. How many of the people here were thinking, "wow, I'm really passionate about medieval history, but I'll go into software development because that's where the big bucks are?" I'd hazard to say none: people choose to do what they enjoy, not what will make them money. Just because you…
The smarter a person is, the more likely they suffer from the myopic perspective that things will be different for themselves.
In particular, young people make all sorts of uninformed choices based on the biases of people around them. For instance, youths are exposed to 8 hours of indoctrination that school and the life of the academic represents the highest ideal. But look who's telling them?
The same goes for startup communities which glorifies sleeping on the couch. Ideals and realities are often two different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is more complicated than basic supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for college education. Enrollment is higher than it has ever been, and the people profiled in this article have jobs. The problem is that in order to cut cost colleges are hiring more and more adjunct professors as opposed to full-time, tenure track professors. It's not uncommon for these adjunct professors to take on jobs…
It is still over supplied. If it weren't then colleges would be forced to hire tenure track professors to fill the positions since there wouldn't be enough people to teach.
The problem is that university administrations have tried to transform their institutions into profit-making businesses, and have insisted on cutting corners. They are hell-bent on the notion of teaching an order of magnitude more students without hiring any more tenure-track professors.
What? No one needs an expert in medieval studies?
An important part of the investigation was Elisabetta Gnignera, a costume historian and expert in renaissance hairdos, identifying the bound ponytail of the girl in the portrait as being a style that only ever became prominent in Milan, and only for a few years--the same years when da Vinci served the Milan ruling family as artist and engineer.
I thought it was cool that there are people who are experts in renaissance hairdos--and that their knowledge can actually be put to practical use.
(There is much more than the hairdo evidence to tie the painting to da Vinci. It's worth watching the Nova episode if they show it again. The combination of historical research and modern scientific analysis was quite intriguing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you took a strict Econ 101 view of this, there would be no medieval studies professors in the whole country." I don't believe that. (note that I am the guy who originally made the "zero pity" comment) Knowing how society developed from medieval times into the Renaissance is very valuable, especially from the point of view of someone who studies history of technology, markets, and means of production. Within that…
Ok, so a dozen every 5 years, according to who? Nobody pays specifically for medieval history education, it's usually part of a larger liberal arts program, so there's pretty much zero Econ 101 factors in play as far as the employment of medieval history experts. Your contention that we're producing a couple too many, ok, I can buy that. But the people in the article have jobs -- and it doesn't seem to stand that the…
The bottom line is that if the price is low there is high supply relative to low demand. Econ 101 factors are always "at play". While a more advanced econ class may explain more complex pricing concepts, it really isn't necessarily here since this basically a classic econ 101 example.
What is even more interesting is that every time someone graduates with a history PhD they are in a position where they either go in to the field where their low paid professors already work or go to a different job. The ones that don't want food stamps take the second choice.
Those people who decide to sacrifice for the first 3 or 4 years out of the program and take jobs to get experience in a new field which can yield higher pay later will make more than those that stay in low demand history PhD positions in academia.