It's not just golf! They're everywhere; taking our stuff!

[MRT144]

but they look better when playing softball and soccer...

but stimming...guys that swim...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


Since when is sociology not useful? There is more to life than physical science and engineering after all. (No, I won't bother to defend English majors - useless beggars).

It may be useful as a field of knowledge, but a sociology degree is as useful as tits on a bull when it comes to employability.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I don't think this is true, actually. Engineering salaries tend to start high but level off quickly; they look good when you're 22, but not so good at 40. The opportunity for continually-climbing salaries tends to be on the business side of things; and business leaders, believe it or not, actually prefer liberal arts grads, especially for positions beyond middle-management.

??? Are you sure? I thought engineers had similar levels of advancemant. Although maybe you are right as the liberal arts majors are probably more likely to get MBA and law degrees. Does anyone know what the gender ratios are for getting law and business degrees?

[DAVOUT]

It is clear that boys are handicaped when competing with girls at school. An Affirmative Action program is necessary.

From now on, no grade below C can be given to boys. Girls will continue to get Ds when they deserve it.

[Bosh]

An Affirmative Action program is necessary.

You don't think that doesn't already happen? I know at my uni we get more female applicants (who have higher average HS GPA) but to maintain gender balance, admissions admitts about the same of both genders.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Boshko

You don't think that doesn't already happen? I know at my uni we get more female applicants (who have higher average HS GPA) but to maintain gender balance, admissions admitts about the same of both genders.

I cant believe it. Really.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I don't think this is true, actually. Engineering salaries tend to start high but level off quickly; they look good when you're 22, but not so good at 40. The opportunity for continually-climbing salaries tends to be on the business side of things; and business leaders, believe it or not, actually prefer liberal arts grads, especially for positions beyond middle-management.

Thanks for pointing this out. Now a hypothetical - if you were building a society anew, who would you put priority on - engineers or businesspeople? Probably engineers because they do serious intellectual work. Businesspeople merely perform logistic tasks - they work to allocate the resources that engineers, technicians, and the rest of people with actual skills turn into products and services. Unfortunately our society values paper-pushers, aka businesspeople, over the people who actually create society. This is reflected in the fact that given the preeminence of money in our society, the highest salaries go to businessmen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Templar


Thanks for pointing this out. Now a hypothetical - if you were building a society anew, who would you put priority on - engineers or businesspeople? Probably engineers because they do serious intellectual work. Businesspeople merely perform logistic tasks - they work to allocate the resources that engineers, technicians, and the rest of people with actual skills turn into products and services. Unfortunately our society values paper-pushers, aka businesspeople, over the people who actually create society. This is reflected in the fact that given the preeminence of money in our society, the highest salaries go to businessmen.

Generally being in business requires excellent verbal and logical skills. These are not to the fore in the sciences where experiment and rule following predominate, but are essential for the humanities.

Trust me, I've marked enough papers written by enough barely literate science students to know this. Of course the converse is true - many humanities and social science students are or become poor mathematicians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's because the businesspeople decide what the engineers should do . The engineers, by themselves, normally wouldn't be in the right place at the right time if it were for the businessman steering him. As much as we disdain the paper pushers, they definetly are very useful in deciding where to allocate assets more efficiently.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's because the businesspeople decide what the engineers should do . The engineers, by themselves, normally wouldn't be in the right place at the right time if it were for the businessman steering him. As much as we disdain the paper pushers, they definetly are very useful in deciding where to allocate assets more efficiently.

We will always need someone to do the logistical tasks. I'm saying that our societal priorities are misplaced.

Moreover, we don't need businessmen to make resource allocation choices. Engineers/scientists/doctors/sociologists/artists/etc. are equally capable of making these descisions. In fact, I would argue that experts in the field are more competent to make allocation descisions. In my view, businesspeople should be secondary players who free up the more technical, artistic, and creative types to do their thing. In health care, the doctor should be at the top of the hierarchy with the executive making it happen - freeing the doctor to do medicine, research, whatever. Capitalism is a failure in this respect.

Agathon:

I used to teach philosophy at a university (grad student instructor), and yeah I saw some of the worst writing ever, and even some shoddy reasoning, from science and engineering students. On the flip side, when I was teaching formal logic, I'd get these theatre people who took the course for a math credit - thinking a philsophy course would be less rigorous. Complete dumb@$$es! You are exactly right.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's because the businesspeople decide what the engineers should do . The engineers, by themselves, normally wouldn't be in the right place at the right time if it were for the businessman steering him. As much as we disdain the paper pushers, they definetly are very useful in deciding where to allocate assets more efficiently.

This is an instance of a more general case. The sciences do not deal with questions of value; of what is worth and not worth doing. Partly for this reason many science worshippers endorse some form of subjectivism. But the joke is that, even if subjectivism is true, it has very little bearing on actual practice, since shared norms are the basis of any debate and you basically have to debate most of the time to get people around to your point of view.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Templar

Moreover, we don't need businessmen to make resource allocation choices. Engineers/scientists/doctors/sociologists/artists/etc. are equally capable of making these descisions. In fact, I would argue that experts in the field are more competent to make allocation descisions. In my view, businesspeople should be secondary players who free up the more technical, artistic, and creative types to do their thing.

I think he's saying that business people aren't necessarily uncreative. Of course there is your average pen pusher. But these people rarely have the intuitive vision to be really successful.

In health care, the doctor should be at the top of the hierarchy with the executive making it happen - freeing the doctor to do medicine, research, whatever. Capitalism is a failure in this respect.

But all the doctors keep saying that theirs is the most important research. Someone has to make an allocation decision somewhere.

Agathon:

I used to teach philosophy at a university (grad student instructor), and yeah I saw some of the worst writing ever, and even some shoddy reasoning, from science and engineering students. On the flip side, when I was teaching formal logic, I'd get these theatre people who took the course for a math credit - thinking a philsophy course would be less rigorous. Complete dumb@$$es! You are exactly right.

This is my current job. I have a hundred exams to mark this afternoon. Where were you an instructor?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We will always need someone to do the logistical tasks. I'm saying that our societal priorities are misplaced.

That may be so, but that is how societies have usually worked. The decision makers get the cash, whether it be businessmen or politicians (which is why in many countries it is made harder for politicians to agree to raise their own salaries ).

Engineers/scientists/doctors/sociologists/artists/etc. are equally capable of making these descisions. In fact, I would argue that experts in the field are more competent to make allocation descisions.

I disagree. These people would, of course, want all of the allocation in their own field or area of expertise. Someone has to decide who gets what. You can't give everything to everyone. The doctor at top of the hospital might be a neurosurgeon and thus give more to that field that is really required at the expense of others. Someone, detached from all that, should make decisions on what to allocate where, IMO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But all the doctors keep saying that theirs is the most important research. Someone has to make an allocation decision somewhere.

My point exactly. It may not be a businessman, it may be a politician, but someone has to decide which fields get what with as little bias as possible.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I disagree. These people would, of course, want all of the allocation in their own field or area of expertise. Someone has to decide who gets what. You can't give everything to everyone. The doctor at top of the hospital might be a neurosurgeon and thus give more to that field that is really required at the expense of others. Someone, detached from all that, should make decisions on what to allocate where, IMO.

In practice the division of labour is not that stark. In a hospital situation, for example, you have trained doctors who have some training in ethics on the same committee with trained ethicists who have some medical knowledge. It really isn't possible to get anything done otherwise - each side has to realise its own knowledge limitations and be prepared for open discussion and disagreement.