• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our PhD Surplus


I agree and disagree. One should not get a PhD in Logic to the detriment of studying anything else, but I do think that everyone should develop their Logic skills as an enhancement on everything else.
 

There are plenty of jobs you can get with a degree in logic. Besides academia, you can work in jobs like those which involve algorithm design and analysis (e.g. computer programming). If an employer sees you have strong skills in logic, it's pretty safe to assume you can learn other skills like coding syntax relatively quickly. Cryptography, which is rapidly becoming of greater demand in this technological age, involves logic and number theory. Heck, we should also try a little harder to get logicians and philosophers into some political positions.
 
ReformCollege said:
I don't think its very cost efficient to train all of our sandwich makers in college level philosophy, do you?
Click to expand...

Do we have a shortage of labor?

I mean if the unemployment rates was 2%, then I could see why you would be concerned about people "wasting" time in college, but it's not like that. But now really, just how many sandwich makers really have PhD's? Seriously, how many people with PhD's do you personally know who don't make a half decent income?

It's also not very cost efficient for me to take a vacation, and my vacation isn't particularly gaining me any new job skills, but I still want to do it.

You are assuming that the only reason for education is for job purposes. People seek education for a lot of reasons. I'm currently learning Spanish and taking a course in computer engineering. Not because I need to get a job as a Mexican, or because I ever expect to be a computer engineer, but simply because I want to learn something.
 
ReformCollege said:
I agree and disagree. One should not get a PhD in Logic to the detriment of studying anything else, but I do think that everyone should develop their Logic skills as an enhancement on everything else.
Click to expand...

Generally, at the bachelor degree level, people study a wide variety of subjects, and generally one has to do that before getting a PhD.
 

A logical politician? Your being silly, it will never happen.
 
imagep said:
Generally, at the bachelor degree level, people study a wide variety of subjects, and generally one has to do that before getting a PhD.
Click to expand...

Obviously? What I'm saying is studying Logic doesn't have very much benefit if all one understands are the theories of Logic.
 

And you are doing what I completely support 100%. Getting an education to as a supplement to adding benefit to everything else you do. My username is ReformCollege for a reason, because I generally believe that courses such as that should be more available to everyone in the general public without neccesarily having to complete a degree for it, while actual degrees should be reserved for more rigorous studies. Someone with a degree in philosophy might have a benefit over someone with a general GED, but a majority of jobs don't require a degree in philosphy to get that career and someone with the degree in philosophy isn't always better then someone without it. What I think, is that college should be flexible to allow courses like philosophy to be studied by anyone, including working professionals, without actually pursing a degree of any sort. Learning for the sake of learning.

Degrees on the other hand, should be used as a step in the path to becoming a certified professional in certain careers, for example a doctor or lawyer.
 
ReformCollege said:
Obviously? What I'm saying is studying Logic doesn't have very much benefit if all one understands are the theories of Logic.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that most people with PhD's in Logic probably know some stuff about most every subject. Having a PhD in one field doesn't preclude one from being knowlegeable about many fields. Including sandwich making.
 
You can't get a PhD in logic without studying additional areas. For example, for my math PhD, I had to pass exams in three areas of mathematics. Mine were logic, algebra and probability. This was prior to research and dissertation.
 

At one of my first interviews after graduating college, the HR dude told me that the position that I was applying for didn't require any particular skills other than sound reasoning and people skills, but the company did require that the job be filled with a college grad, no particular major required. He went on to explain that they had better success with college grads in that particular position (I was a department supervisor in a manufacturing plant).

I would never even have got the opportunity to interview for that job if it were not for being a college grad. If nothing else, it proves that one has the ability to complete something from start to finish.

Sometimes it really doesn't matter what field one studies in, all that matters is that one has proven themselves in something. I have read that music majors have the highest acceptance rate to medical school of all majors. Now obviously there is no prerequisit for a doctor to have studied music, but music students have proven to do very well in med school. My son is a music major in college, it's perfectly normal for music majors to practice their primary instrument 4+ hours a day, plus take as many as 12 classes per semester (although some of them are just 1 or 2 credit hour classes), plus spend many more hours a week practicing and performing in ensembles.
 
Mathematician said:
You can't get a PhD in logic without studying additional areas. For example, for my math PhD, I had to pass exams in three areas of mathematics. Mine were logic, algebra and probability. This was prior to research and dissertation.
Click to expand...

You mean math majors know how to read and write stuff other than numbers and odd little symbols?

A non-college student friend of my music major son recently asked him why he was taking courses like biology and history to be a music major. Some people just don't get it.
 

My point is it should be restructured. Obviously, yes I agree that is what one should do given how the system currently works. But I think it is the system which needs an overhaul.
 
imagep said:
I'm pretty sure that most people with PhD's in Logic probably know some stuff about most every subject. Having a PhD in one field doesn't preclude one from being knowlegeable about many fields. Including sandwich making.
Click to expand...

You'd be pretty surprised

I've met doctoral students who didn't know jack-**** about the scientific method, and then proceeded to teach our class about how science is a social construct and its findings are only as significant as we make them and a bunch of post-modernist jazz.

Yeah no, you'd be quite surprised at how narrow minded a large majority of those sorts of programs are.
 
ReformCollege said:
My point is it should be restructured. Obviously, yes I agree that is what one should do given how the system currently works. But I think it is the system which needs an overhaul.
Click to expand...

The company that told me that they required a degree, but no particular degree, basically decided to have that policy based upon their prior experience with people of different backgrounds holding that position. They felt like limiting that particular position to college grads was in their best interest. To them, the college experience, regardless of major had value.

So are you suggesting that this private company should have to change the policies that they have found to be successful?

And people from all over the world come to US colleges to get educations. I can only assume that they do this because we have a great college system that is recognized worldwide for quality. Education is a major export of the US. So do you really think that everyone else in the world is wrong?

If there was sufficient demand for anything, we have plenty of enterprising people in the US who would love to fill that need. Thats why we have a wonderful variety of products. If there was enough demand for whatever your vision of college is, then someone would fill that need, and create a college in whatever form that you envision.

But I totally get your frustration with college. I share such frustration, although I suspect my vision of the "ideal" college that I would create may be very different from yours. It's actually something that I have given a lot of thought to, even to the point of creating my on fantasy world college curriculum. I really have no clue why I am obsessed with educational curriculums, I graduated from college about 25 years ago, I just am.

So tell me what your fantasy world college curriculum would be like.
 

My wife runs a resume service, she always tells me that people with advanced degrees tend to be kooks. Not all of them of course, but a higher percent than people who don't have advanced degrees.
 
imagep said:
My wife runs a resume service, she always tells me that people with advanced degrees tend to be kooks. into reality. Not all of them of course, but a higher percent than people who don't have advanced degrees.
Click to expand...

Of those with degrees, I find there's a balance point of both intelligence and acquaintance with reality for many people, somewhere around a master's.

A bachelor's doesn't mean anything anymore in terms of smarts. I know lots of idiots with a BA.

And as far as PhD's, it seems like a lot of them are just totally out of touch with the world. They've been milling around in the isolation chamber of academia since they were 18, and it shows in some of the incomprehensibly ignorant things they sometimes say and think.

There are lots of exceptions of course, but it's a pretty prevalent trend in my experience.
 
Last edited:

I would like to see some specific examples of this.
 


Science isn't a social construct? I feel like te post-modernist "jazz" you are talking about often goes WAY too far, but there is no doubt that science is a social construct. The axioms that undermine scientific thought produces a specific type of scientific output. The discourses that permeate scientific classrooms create a very particular kind of thinking. It is incredibly useful for people to be critical of what are often considered objective methods of discerning scientific facts, which aren't actually objective. It is also useful to consider how the relationship between science and power also creates a certain type of knowledge. However, post-modernists often go WAY too far with their criticisms, and their attempts to "deconstruct" lead them to a sort of intellectual prison. Science needs to be self critical, but it also needs to continue to push the frontiers of human understanding, without an overemphasis on unnecessary navel gazing.
 
We've come up with a situation where lots and lots of people only have the experience of going to school! They have little knowledge of the real world or what it means to toil at a job.
 

I have literally no idea what your talking about. Produces a specific type of out put? That is like saying science predetermines what it wants to find. In which case, we would already have a cure for cancer and Viagra would be used to treat hypertension and ischemic heart disease symptoms. The only "type of thinking" science produces are results. Something is either scientifically proven, or by definition is pseudoscience. Your social constructions are pseudoscientific by definition.



What methods are not objective, and what methods are not? I need some examples, otherwise you're just giving me subjective rhetoric.



Good, at least we agree on one thing. I think science is self critical. It wouldn't be science if it wasn't.
 
longknife said:
We've come up with a situation where lots and lots of people only have the experience of going to school! They have little knowledge of the real world or what it means to toil at a job.
Click to expand...

I dunno, an awful lot work while in college, at least those not living off their parents and even some who are work if they can find something related to their major. Pretty much everyone I know has or is seeking internships for the summer. Many will be going across the country, others have done study abroad etc. Problem is the economy went down the toilet before we reached adulthood. It's not necessarily that students or PhDs 15 years ago were any more capable, except maybe at using the library.
 
I would think PhDs are typically overqualified for the average job available. It's a choice to get a PhD, we owe them nothing. If they believe it's right for them, yet no one is hiring, discussing their "intelligence" would seem appropriate at that point. What qualifications are tied to those job deficits? The author appears to assume that "jobs" means any qualified individual. Most people that want entry-level employees do not want PhDs, they are overpriced, if paid less they would likely leave as soon as they had a job that fits their education, etc.

How many PhD jobs are available in an industry vs each other entry level education bracket?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.