The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[Fake Boris]

The amount of money spent on liberal arts is already ridiculously low. Arguing for diminishing it is self-righteous hairsplitting.

[Dinner]

It is already to low? I'm sure the people who recieve the redistributed money from others feel that way but the departments which actually generate money no doubt feel to much of their hard earned grant money is unfairly taken away by people whose work doesn't actually generate any grant money at all.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Ah yes, the category that you'd arbitrarily apply if they didn't fit into any other of your pigeonholes

that WAS the other category.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It is already to low? I'm sure the people who recieve the redistributed money from others feel that way but the departments which actually generate money no doubt feel to much of their hard earned grant money is unfairly taken away by people whose work doesn't actually generate any grant money at all.

Isn't that specific university policy anyway? I suspect that if the wronged scientists don't form their own separate faculties, it's because the overall picture is still more beneficial if all departments unite.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Incidentally, the real rationale is that we all got tired of Agathon and GePap.

Wow, I never thought you guys were that pathetic or petty.

[Kuciwalker]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If they're poorer than you, they can't possibly be your better. Don't be ridiculous.

A person's character is determined merely by how wealthy they are?

[Kuciwalker]

Drake, is that a bite, or does funny not count (too easy)?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

This one had a BA and an MA in history. He turned out pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_B._Pearson

Who?

That one was for Krazy's benefit. I wouldn't have exoected an American trained to be a good little technician to know anything about him.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It is already to low? I'm sure the people who recieve the redistributed money from others feel that way but the departments which actually generate money no doubt feel to much of their hard earned grant money is unfairly taken away by people whose work doesn't actually generate any grant money at all.

Dude, even philosophers get grants. Not large ones, but they get grants.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That one was for Krazy's benefit. I wouldn't have exoected an American trained to be a good little technician to know anything about him.

Drake a technician

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, is that a bite, or does funny not count (too easy)?

Mr. Fun has never counted. Way too easy...

Drake a technician

[Kuciwalker]

I have to give you major kudos for the job in this thread. You almost had me convinced for a moment

[Drake Tungsten]

You people will believe anything...

A person's character is determined merely by how wealthy they are?

No, their character is not determined by how wealthy they are. Their value as a human being is revealed by how wealthy they are, however. People who are worth more to society get paid more, ergo their wealth is a sign of their superior value.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You people will believe anything...

A person's character is determined merely by how wealthy they are?

No, their character is not determined by how wealthy they are. Their value as a human being is revealed by how wealthy they are, however. People who are worth more to society get paid more, ergo their wealth is a sign of their superior value.

/me looks at Britney Spears and cries.