The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why does anyone troll?

I actually haven't yet trolled in this thread.

I dont think MRTs question was specifically addressed to this thread, or even necessarily to you in particular.

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you ...."

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Then youd have to thank an economist for teaching you that. And, Id suggest, youd have to thank a really good economist for showing you the limits to that, and the need for philosophy, sociology etc to fill in the gaps.

I think you're missing my point.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144
From what you've said the liberal arts programs don't require vast sums of money, and from what I can tell they recieve a large sum of income

Liberal arts programs make do with less money than science programs do, of course. But the difference in their teaching budgets is not that dramatic. Science departments have better facilities, but much of this is paid for out of grant money. The professors and TAs get paid more, but same as above.

It's not obvious to me which direction the cash flows in here.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Why does anyone troll?

I actually haven't yet trolled in this thread.

And if this subsidization doesn't require a solution then why are the Sci&Eng students using it as ammo for putting down liberal arts students?

I'm not using it as ammunition...yet. I'm explaining why scientists are interested in the value of the liberal arts. In a real sense part of our money goes to them, so we'd like to know whether it's being used well or not.

how significant an amount is this money though? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill or are you outraged at the principle?

Is another source of friction, the idea that scientists are taken for granted or not valued as much as you think they should be?

[Provost Harrison]

Don't liberal arts 'researchers' just need a few books, a pen and a piece of paper? What fancy equipment could they possibly need?

A laptop you say? They don't do anything that justifies it.

[KrazyHorse]

how significant an amount is this money though? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill or are you outraged at the principle?

Significant enough. Like I said, you see ~half of grant money disappear straight off.

Some of that pays for infrastructure we need, but a significant amount is simple redistribution. That amount is not easily disaggregated.

Is another source of friction, the idea that scientists are taken for granted or not valued as much as you think they should be?

Scientists are already far more valued in our society than are liberal arts professors. I don't see why I'd want to pick on them if I wanted to raise up the esteem scientists are held in. I'd be going after businessmen, engineers, doctors, lawyers and politicians if that was my goal.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
A laptop you say? They don't do anything that justifies it.

[MRT144]

I would also think that it's not the student's or graduates job to be concerned with any notion of subsidization. Faculty, Administration and most importantly grant writing organizations should be.

[KrazyHorse]

I would also think that it's not the student's or graduates job to be concerned with any notion of subsidization. Faculty, Administration and most importantly grant writing organizations should be.

Errr...what? Why not? I'm directly interested in how much grant money is around. I obviously don't get to make a decision on it, but it's ridiculous to say I shouldn't be concerned.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

how significant an amount is this money though? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill or are you outraged at the principle?

Significant enough. Like I said, you see ~half of grant money disappear straight off.

Some of that pays for infrastructure we need, but a significant amount is simple redistribution. That amount is not easily disaggregated.

Is another source of friction, the idea that scientists are taken for granted or not valued as much as you think they should be?

Scientists are already far more valued in our society than are liberal arts professors. I don't see why I'd want to pick on them if I wanted to raise up the esteem scientists are held in. I'd be going after businessmen, engineers, doctors, lawyers and politicians if that was my goal.

Well I just wanted to make sure it wasn't the feeling of being undervalued that drove any portion of this disdain for liberal arts.

And I would also like to emphasize again that if half the grants are for overhead costs, then you should be more concerned not with where the overhead money gets redistributed to, but that HALF of it is taken off.

[KrazyHorse]

Huh?

I understand that the university needs to pay janitors, tech support etc.

When the money from a grant goes to those services I'm using I understand. When it goes to somebody else is when I start to be concerned.

[MRT144]

I want amend the above. If the reason half of it is taken is solely for redistribution then that'd be bad, but it doesnt sound like that.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not, but a significant fraction is.

Again, I can't tell you immediately how much is used for what, but it's my feeling that you might be talking 20-40% of what's taken as overhead.

[MRT144]

I don't know at what point people learn this; being concerned about things that don't affect you, you don't have control over, and will most likely never have control over, is a waste of time.

[KrazyHorse]

things that don't affect you

???

will most likely never have control over

???