The "value" of a degree....

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by sbagman

(I've been in a university environment since 1994!)

Why? 8 years is a long time to be sheltered from society.

I'm not accusing you of this, but when I went to uni, the people who had stayed in the academic system rather than finding 'real' jobs were absolutely clueless. I had lecturers who were well-respected and had all these papers published and they were absolutely clueless! And the worst thing was, they had no idea - they had never had a real job so had nothing to compare themselves and their careers with. But you just get the feel that these people loved their environment because people naturally assume that professors and lecturers are intelligent and competent.

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Why? 8 years is a long time to be sheltered from society.

I'm not accusing you of this, but when I went to uni, the people who had stayed in the academic system rather than finding 'real' jobs were absolutely clueless. I had lecturers who were well-respected and had all these papers published and they were absolutely clueless! And the worst thing was, they had no idea - they had never had a real job so had nothing to compare themselves and their careers with. But you just get the feel that these people loved their environment because people naturally assume that professors and lecturers are intelligent and competent.

Define "society".

I enjoy the university lifestyle (although not so much here). I get paid reasonably well and I figure I have plenty of time to get a "real" job later in life. Right now, being in a uni environment enables me to travel, something I love doing, so I'm happy with that.

As for being clueless about the "real" world (whatever that is), I've worked in a factory, as a waiter, done all that stuff. I think I know what the "real" world is like. I work normal hours like you, get a normal wage, I just happen to work at a university... what's wrong with that?

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by bunsen burner
But, whilst being at uni, I noticed that many of my friends and fellow students, although academically intelligent, were naive when it came to real life. This is not their fault of course, for they have not had the opportunity to broaden their horizons YET.

That may be more an age thing rather than a uni thing. It may also be due to their own particular upbringing. As I said, my brother's never been anywhere near a uni, he's naive about life too.

 

[brampta]

Originally posted by daicos4ever


Plus if I earn enough I will be eligable for youth allowance, so I won't have to worry about casual work while I'm at uni. It works out perfectly.

Copout.

It was attitudes like that, that made me so upset while I was working Friday and Saturday graveyard shifts at McDonald's to pay for my public transport and photocopying for uni, and new clothes? forget it! At one point in 2001 I was working three jobs plus studying full time and I seriously think that experience put me in better stead for the real world rather than living off youth allowance and copping it sweet. You really think your future employer is going admire the way you lived off the government instead of showing some enterprise??

And guess what?? I did an arts degree. A 3 year arts degree. When I started at uni I had no idea what I wanted to do, where I wanted to go, and I still don't know. But an arts degree is not about knowledge, it is about the skills that you pick up along the way and that's why I was employed 6 months before I even finished my degree with a starting salary of $38K.

And I think you'll find that in many organisations they'll only let you advance so far before a degree becomes a requirement for promotion, especially as far as management is concerned.

And do you know why I pinch myself every day?? because I earnt my job...on my own merits, under my own steam and will get promoted and recognised for the work that I do!

But my sister has walked out of high school into a traineeship on a similar income to me and is doing a tafe course as part of her traineeship. And I'm so proud of her too. So I agree, it is possible to make a killing without a degree but you're immediately limiting your options

 

[Portia]

A degree has value in the same way that a driver's license has value.

It says you can do something, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can.....however its accepted on face value by employers.

I'm pretty aware that my career options are limited by not having completed a degree, but putting up with university again is too big a headache.

 

[Nic]

It is all about who you know. Fortunately the head of my course at uni knows everyone from Kevin Sheedy to the Sri Lankan cricket team to the Dalai lama. I **** you not.

 

[Rohan_]

A degree gives you options. That's the biggest advantage of it.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by sbagman
Define "society".

What I mean is this:

You have a person who is an economics lecturer as opposed to an economist who actually works as an economist. This can be hotly debated, but it would be a waste of time. Others might consider different, but I would consider the lecturer to be an academic, and the practising economist to be in the 'real' world.

I just met people who had been in the uni system for years and years and they were different to people in other jobs. I
expected that uni lecturers and professors would have at least been half competent. Most of them were a joke - incompetent, bad work habits, lazy, and most didn't even know their material!

I enjoy the university lifestyle (although not so much here). I get paid reasonably well and I figure I have plenty of time to get a "real" job later in life. Right now, being in a uni environment enables me to travel, something I love doing, so I'm happy with that.

Just out of interest:

What have you studied?
What do you do at uni now? (student, lecturer, tutor etc)
Have you worked in a full time job for at least 2 years?
and the all important one:
have you had a full time job for at least a few years in the industry that you have your degree in?

As for being clueless about the "real" world (whatever that is), I've worked in a factory, as a waiter, done all that stuff. I think I know what the "real" world is like. I work normal hours like you, get a normal wage, I just happen to work at a university... what's wrong with that?

I can't make assumptions whether or not you know about the real world or not. It has just been my experience that 90% of the people who I came across who work at universities are idiots. It was funny that the students who were fresh out of school were none the wiser, but any student who had worked a full time job for a few years was horrified at the incompetence of these people. Most of them were losers - some couldn't handle a real job, some weren't good enough for a real job, some liked the slack system that they enabled them to bludge, some of them were interested in research rather than teaching, and very few were actually interested in passing their knowledge (or lack of) on.

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by bunsen burner

What I mean is this:

You have a person who is an economics lecturer as opposed to an economist who actually works as an economist. This can be hotly debated, but it would be a waste of time. Others might consider different, but I would consider the lecturer to be an academic, and the practising economist to be in the 'real' world.

I just met people who had been in the uni system for years and years and they were different to people in other jobs. I
expected that uni lecturers and professors would have at least been half competent. Most of them were a joke - incompetent, bad work habits, lazy, and most didn't even know their material!

Why is one in the "real" world, and the other isn't? I mean, both are necessary to economics... if there is noone to lecture in it, we will have no economists.

I think it's easy to make generalisations. Yup, I've met alot of losers in academia. I've met alot of losers outside of it too. The world is full of losers. But I'm not going to judge people on what kind of career they want to pursue. We need academics. We need "real world" people as you call them too.

Originally posted by bunsen burner

Just out of interest:

What have you studied?
What do you do at uni now? (student, lecturer, tutor etc)
Have you worked in a full time job for at least 2 years?
and the all important one:
have you had a full time job for at least a few years in the industry that you have your degree in?

Studied chemistry at the University of Melbourne, where I got my degree.
Completed a doctorate at the University of Queensland in drug design and development. Thesis centred around designing of drugs for inflammatory diseases.
Part of thesis was conducted at the University of Perugia, Italy, researching potential drugs for neuro conditions.
Currently employed by the University of Florence, Italy, as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of cancer research.

I'd class all these things as being pretty important in the real world, wouldn't you?

Finally, no, I have not had a full time job for at least a few years in the industry I have my degree in. However, since I have only finished my schooling a few months ago, this isn't really relevant.

I do agree with you that universities need to be relevant to non-university employment. But if people want to hang around at university and are good enough to contribute, that's their decision. I don't see how the university is not "the real world", whereas if I worked in an office, that would somehow be "the real world".

I just don't see the difference.

 

[sbagman]

Apologies to all that had to read my last post.

I just get annoyed when people assume things about people from what they do.

 

[mantis]

Agree with you sbagman, the world needs academics, but also needs labourers, who else is going to build & maintain the residences of the academics.

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by sbagman

Why is one in the "real" world, and the other isn't? I mean, both are necessary to economics... if there is noone to lecture in it, we will have no economists.

Like I said, it is up for debate, I am not interested in pursuing this point. Whether you want to call it 'real' world or not, the fact is that they are different. 'Real' world is just my way of describing this difference.

Studied chemistry at the University of Melbourne, where I got my degree.
Completed a doctorate at the University of Queensland in drug design and development. Thesis centred around designing of drugs for inflammatory diseases.
Part of thesis was conducted at the University of Perugia, Italy, researching potential drugs for neuro conditions.
Currently employed by the University of Florence, Italy, as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of cancer research.

I'd class all these things as being pretty important in the real world, wouldn't you?

Never said they weren't. Sounds like you are doing some important stuff. Make sure you remember I'm not having a go at you. I am however having a go at people who are both incompetent and spend their whole life in academia. You expect this with council workers, but you expect better from 'allegedly' intelligent people.

Finally, no, I have not had a full time job for at least a few years in the industry I have my degree in. However, since I have only finished my schooling a few months ago, this isn't really relevant.

It may not be relevant to you, but this was sort of the crux of my point. I met a lot of people at uni who had no proper life experience (through no fault of their own - similar situation to you), but a lot of them thought they were 'the sht'. I fail to see how they could think this with so little life experience. They've never had a full time job and most still live at home.

I do agree with you that universities need to be relevant to non-university employment.

I have never said this either.

I don't see how the university is not "the real world", whereas if I worked in an office, that would somehow be "the real world".

I just don't see the difference.

Have you ever considered that the reason you may not see the difference is because you have only seen one side? Not saying that you are right or wrong, I'm just asking you how you know the difference between what you do and something you haven't done before?

 

[jim boy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by sbagman

Completed a doctorate at the University of Queensland in drug design and development. Thesis centred around designing of drugs for inflammatory diseases.
Part of thesis was conducted at the University of Perugia, Italy, researching potential drugs for neuro conditions.
Currently employed by the University of Florence, Italy, as a postdoctoral researcher in the field of cancer research.

Sbagman, A bit off topic, and should be in it's own thread, but I was reading a fascinating article the other day about William Coley's experimentation with deliberate infection of cancer patients with an agent in order to fire the bodies own immune response systems, with the intention of causing regression spotaneous or otherwise of tumours or even metastatic disease. Given hospitals natural antipathy to introducing bacteria, as well as the popularisation of radiotherapy, his research died out. Do you think there is merit in what he was working at, considering that it harnesses the bodies own defences as opposed to introducing new defences such as radiotherapy or chemo. Or am I just talking shît?

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by bunsen burner
It may not be relevant to you, but this was sort of the crux of my point. I met a lot of people at uni who had no proper life experience (through no fault of their own - similar situation to you), but a lot of them thought they were 'the sht'. I fail to see how they could think this with so little life experience. They've never had a full time job and most still live at home.

This reads very much like you are telling me I have no life experience. I hope that is not the case. I don't know what you think "life experience" is, and why it cannot be obtained at a university. I think you have a chip on your shoulder because you have met some arrogant naive people who happen to be from university environments. Do you have to work for a profit making organisation to have "life experience"? Please, define for me what this "life experience" is.

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Have you ever considered that the reason you may not see the difference is because you have only seen one side? Not saying that you are right or wrong, I'm just asking you how you know the difference between what you do and something you haven't done before?

There is no difference as far as I am concerned. I have certain skills, just like everyone else. Society has deemed that academic research is important, and therefore is willing to pay me to do it. It I replaced "University of Florence" with "Pfeizer Pharmaceuticals", what difference would it make? None. I earn a wage like everyone else, I work the same hours as anyone else, I live independantly like anyone else... just because I work for a university, this makes me somehow different?

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by Jim Boy

Sbagman, A bit off topic, and should be in it's own thread, but I was reading a fascinating article the other day about William Coley's experimentation with deliberate infection of cancer patients with an agent in order to fire the bodies own immune response systems, with the intention of causing regression spotaneous or otherwise of tumours or even metastatic disease. Given hospitals natural antipathy to introducing bacteria, as well as the popularisation of radiotherapy, his research died out. Do you think there is merit in what he was working at, considering that it harnesses the bodies own defences as opposed to introducing new defences such as radiotherapy or chemo. Or am I just talking shît?

OK, bear in mind I am a chemist, not a biologist, or even a biochemist, so take what I say with a huge grain of salt.

The problem I have with this is, which seems to be the problem with cancer in general, is that it is very difficult for either the body, chemicals in the case of chemo, or radiation in the case of radiotherapy, to distinguish cancer cells and tissue from normal stuff. This is why there are some nasty side effects with chemo and radiation therapy... while destroying cancer cells, they are partially destroying you too. So unless there is some way to selectively deliver this infection to cancer cells, I can't see how the immune system is going to be able to distinguish good from bad. Maybe a biologist here can clarify this.

Interestingly, I have worked on agents for both radiotherapy and stimulation of the immune system.

 

[sbagman]

By the way Bunsen, I know you weren't referring to me. I'm just saying it's silly to assume things just because someone says "I've worked in a university for 10 years".

 

[sbagman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by Jim Boy

Sbagman, A bit off topic, and should be in it's own thread, but I was reading a fascinating article the other day about William Coley's experimentation with deliberate infection of cancer patients with an agent in order to fire the bodies own immune response systems, with the intention of causing regression spotaneous or otherwise of tumours or even metastatic disease. Given hospitals natural antipathy to introducing bacteria, as well as the popularisation of radiotherapy, his research died out. Do you think there is merit in what he was working at, considering that it harnesses the bodies own defences as opposed to introducing new defences such as radiotherapy or chemo. Or am I just talking shît?

After doing a bit of reading, seems there are tumor specific proteins (or at least they think there are). The belief is that when these are attached to heat shock proteins, they can be targeted by immune cells, so a "cancer vaccine" can be created.

I'm yet to be convinced... do these proteins mutate? But it sounds feasible. Coley, from what I read, got lucky and introduced an infection which WAS able to discriminate.

Or do you already know all this, Jim Boy? Trying to test me?

 

[London Dave]

If you have a degree and need to ask this question, you didn't learn much at uni!

 

[jim boy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dammit

Originally posted by sbagman


After doing a bit of reading, seems there are tumor specific proteins (or at least they think there are). The belief is that when these are attached to heat shock proteins, they can be targeted by immune cells, so a "cancer vaccine" can be created.

I'm yet to be convinced... do these proteins mutate? But it sounds feasible. Coley, from what I read, got lucky and introduced an infection which WAS able to discriminate.

Or do you already know all this, Jim Boy? Trying to test me?

Certainly no expert in this stuff, although I do read the odd article, I'm definitely a layman in these matters, so I'm not testing you.

I find cancer a interesting subject simply because the mechanism that kicks it off varies, different mutations in RNA must have different effects, most of them dead-ends, but those that progress become cancers fo the same name. Whatever has triggered the cancer, in the end it's your own body that is killing you. I'm sure my ignorance is shining through at this point.

I've heard of various subtle differences with cancer cells, proteins are one, maybe sugars are another as well. I was reading somwhere that some sugars have a role to play in regulating growth, maybe the immune system targets cancerous cells through identification of certain sugars. Maybe the immunisation system, when in full swing, shuts down these vital components of growth, even temporarily and maybe some cancers need continous growth to survive.

Every week, there seems to be at least one new hot-shot potential cancer treatment. This week it seems be some new altered gene that makes the immune system block the growth of blood vessels to tumours. Don't know about humans, but mice seemed to have a fantastic array of weapons to fight cancer.

 

[shiva25]

Originally posted by Mcchawk
Degree's mean crap if you can kiss ass in business you can go anywhere.

Completely wrong! You need a degree to get your foot in the door. Then the amount of ass kissing you do will determine how far you go

 

[sandeano]

I never actually completed high school for the reason that there was a good movie on TV the day of a HSC exam and I decided to stay home and watch it (true!) Anyhow, I worked a number of jobs following - cutting cane in North Queensland, baking bread in Mordialloc, running a X-rated bookstore in Preston, being a bouncer at an illegal brothel in Glenhuntly, a spruiker at the Vic market, a clown at a travelling show, a builder's labourer, a Protective Services Officer, a nightfill manager at Safeway, a piano removalist, a French Polisher....among many other things, by the time I was 24.

At that point I decided to settle on something so studied hard and became a horticulturalist and, after futher study, a greenkeeper. Great, wonderful work. Paid a pittance and I would love to be doing it now. Preparing a bowling green or cricket pitch then maintaining it through the entire season was very rewarding and a lot of fun. However, being 6'4" and of thin build, my body was not made for such work and my developed hip problems from constantly turning the mowers and rollers and chronic back ache from the manual lifting involved.

So I packed it in, qualified for adult entry into university and did an arts degree majoring in cinema studies. Ironically, the essay for which I received the highest marks focused on that very same film I had skipped my HSC exam for, back in the late 1980s. The world works in mysterious ways.

I loved it and, to tide me over as I studied I worked as a carer for the intellectually disabled. Getting paid $29 an hour to spend a Sunday afternoon helping a guy make model aeroplanes is not only financially nice and a pleasant way to make a living, but also very, very satisfying. Absolutely ideal work.

My degree does not 'offer' a great deal in a vocational sense, but I enjoyed every moment of it, found it both exciting and mentally stimulating and, most of all it left me damn proud that I could accomplish it, long after many people had left me on the educational scrapheap.

I'll never be a millionaire and it may be a while till I own my own house. Yet my wife and I are very happy in the respective paths we have chosen together.

The point is that a university degree is what you want it to be. If you think that its sole purpose should be a hefty paycheque then good for you, if such empty and superficial values mean so much to you. However, like a trip upon the Orient Express, the journey is often may more interesting than the destination.

Like life, make of it what you will.

 

[bluechampion]

Yep.

Originally posted by sandeano
I never actually completed high school for the reason that there was a good movie on TV the day of a HSC exam and I decided to stay home and watch it (true!) Anyhow, I worked a number of jobs following - cutting cane in North Queensland, baking bread in Mordialloc, running a X-rated bookstore in Preston, being a bouncer at an illegal brothel in Glenhuntly, a spruiker at the Vic market, a clown at a travelling show, a builder's labourer, a Protective Services Officer, a nightfill manager at Safeway, a piano removalist, a French Polisher....among many other things, by the time I was 24.

At that point I decided to settle on something so studied hard and became a horticulturalist and, after futher study, a greenkeeper. Great, wonderful work. Paid a pittance and I would love to be doing it now. Preparing a bowling green or cricket pitch then maintaining it through the entire season was very rewarding and a lot of fun. However, being 6'4" and of thin build, my body was not made for such work and my developed hip problems from constantly turning the mowers and rollers and chronic back ache from the manual lifting involved.

So I packed it in, qualified for adult entry into university and did an arts degree majoring in cinema studies. Ironically, the essay for which I received the highest marks focused on that very same film I had skipped my HSC exam for, back in the late 1980s. The world works in mysterious ways.

I loved it and, to tide me over as I studied I worked as a carer for the intellectually disabled. Getting paid $29 an hour to spend a Sunday afternoon helping a guy make model aeroplanes is not only financially nice and a pleasant way to make a living, but also very, very satisfying. Absolutely ideal work.

My degree does not 'offer' a great deal in a vocational sense, but I enjoyed every moment of it, found it both exciting and mentally stimulating and, most of all it left me damn proud that I could accomplish it, long after many people had left me on the educational scrapheap.

I'll never be a millionaire and it may be a while till I own my own house. Yet my wife and I are very happy in the respective paths we have chosen together.

The point is that a university degree is what you want it to be. If you think that its sole purpose should be a hefty paycheque then good for you, if such empty and superficial values mean so much to you. However, like a trip upon the Orient Express, the journey is often may more interesting than the destination.

Like life, make of it what you will.

Hear hear.
That's just about the best post I've ever read on this site.