TubeNet

Recently, I had a dispute with a fellow in the UK. He insisted that the problem was mine (it did involve money) and, as if, to bolster his opinion, signed his name with a bunch (I do mean a bunch; they wrapped to the next line) of letters.

Horsepucky. I don't know what half the letters mean, nor do I care. When you're wrong, you're wrong.

But it got me to wondering if this was just very British, or was this sort of thing common universally? Is this another example of Richard Feynmann's "Greek Thinking"?

For example, I'd think that anyone with a doctorate in composition and holding a full professorship at a high-falutin' conservatory would gladly exchange all of the letters and credentials for just one-tenth the success that Irving Berlin (who couldn't read music or play the piano) had.

Or would they?

Doc wrote:

LV wrote: I'm sure the "12 tone" gang would poo-poo the achievements of the "lowly" likes of Irving Berlin.

The university systems seem to perpetuate inbreeding at its worst.

The most truthful statments I've read all week.

Doc

Whoo-hoo!!! Talk about stereotypes.

Why do we view those who can (and do) appreciate the Second Viennese School as being unable to understand Irving Berlin, Count Basie, Frank Zappa, and/or Public Enemy?

I work with a group of five gentlemen in an ensemble dedicated to music of the 20th and 21st centuries...from Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, Partch, Cowell, Smith and more. A serious, dare I say, "academic" repetoire. We have performed world premieres of contemporary composers, and even played for John Cage's birthday celebration in Santa Fe several years back (before his passing). All have university degrees, some have post-graduate degrees, and one has a DMA from ASU (hey, lookit all them letters!) and guess what....we all can appreciate all other musics.

These same five people work in a rock band that has one multiple awards for (get this) "humorous/novelty music." Hardly what one would consider inbred academic stuff. We also perform as a marimba band playing everything from Afro-Cuban, Latin, jazz and novelty tunes. If we need money, we'll even play jazz and, although I would not consider it our strongest style, we are competent, having played for such prestigious festivals as the Telluride Jazz Celebration. Rock guitarist Robbie Robertson even hired our guitarist to play percussion on his "Music for 'The Native Americans'" album...sharing the percussion credits with such well respected players as Alex Acuna. Did he think us "twelve-tone types" couldn't connect? I guess not!

So, please don't let our curious American aversion to intellectualism and education foster that stereotype. Just 'cuz you don't like no stinkin' dodecaphonic music doesn't mean that the dodecaphonic chaps don't like yours.

But back to Chuck's original observation about letters after one's name... I completely agree. The posting of all your credentials after your name seems to be a compensating mechanism for those who might be a wee bit insecure. We suggested to our guy with DMA that he replace those letters with OES - Over Educated Sh*thead. It helps to keep him down to earth. Perhaps others should consider that as well.

Craig McClelland, OES

Reminds me of the scene in The Music Box with Laurel and Hardy:


Prof. von Schwarzenhoffen: [the piano is blocking his path] Well? Either of you two numbskulls going to take this thing out of the way?
Ollie: What's it to you?
Prof. von Schwarzenhoffen: I should like to pass.
Ollie: Why don't you walk around?
Prof. von Schwarzenhoffen: Walk around? Me? Professor Theodore Von Schwarzenhoffen? M.D., A.D, D.D.S, F.L.D, F.F.F und F should walk around? Get that thing out of my way! Go on, out of the way!
[Stan slaps his hat off. It flies into the street and is flattened by a truck]
Prof. von Schwarzenhoffen: Very nice. I'll have you arrested for this! I'll have you thrown in jail! I'm professor T.D.A!

bloke wrote:When I was a kid riding in the back of our family car and we passed by a huge Southern Baptist church (on the way to an evening at a friend's home), I noted that within the wrought-iron sign in front of the church the pastor's name was there - along with his degrees:

Ph.D., D.D.

I asked my Dad what those meant. Without hesitation, he replied, "fuddy-duddy".

Bloke,

My dad used to say Ph.D. was "phony doctor!"

Doc,

Yeah, I know the people of which you speak, but it still is a stereotype and annoys me much in the way I am sure it annoys you if someone assumes that you have "junk cars and trailers" in your back yard.

But, that said, I understand. I meet plenty of academians who don't understand that Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, the Beatles, Frank Zappa etc. are Mofo's. I simply choose to pity them rather than abuse them. They are missing out on a world of music. Their problem...not mine.

bloke wrote:and yes, though Americans are quite class-aware thank-you very much, Britons and continental Europeans are geometrically more so...and yes, enough so to often believe that "class" overrules "logic".

Chuck(G) wrote:

I love that- can I add UnderMinisterofSillyWalks after my name?

bloke wrote:... I'm seriously thinkin' about playin the (complete) Hartley Sonata with the Buescher CC helicon...

Who votes yea or nay?

Go for it!

windshieldbug wrote: I love that- can I add UnderMinisterofSillyWalks after my name?

Yes, you certainly can-can.

Ecclesiastes 6:10

Whatever one is, he has been named already,
For it is known that he is man;
And he cannot contend with Him who is mightier than he.

Chuck(G) wrote:Yes, you certainly can-can

Cool!

_________________
Michael Keller SOB BATP TADD UMSW

My Great-grandfather explained degree progression to me when I was very young...

BS= What Bulls do in the pasture (don't step in it)
MS= More of Same
PhD= Piled Higher & deeper

Yorkbrunner wrote:I find it interesting that the very people who are being the most negatively vocal about this topic are the very ones who lack any letters after their names at all...

Chuck(G) does! So there!

Yorkbrunner wrote:I find it interesting that the very people who are being the most negatively vocal about this topic are the very ones who lack any letters after their names at all...

No, it's what I referred to in my original post at the head of this topic.

It seems to me that there are those who think that what one does provides all of the certification one needs and then there are those who think that external certification, regardless of one's own accomplishments, provides validation of one's abilities.

Witness the music business, where a DMA will get you nothing in particular other than the letters after your name if you can't walk the walk.

Having been part of an effort originating a field in which univiersities now provide post-graduate degrees (no, I did not invent the internet, but you can catch some of my work on old episodes of "The New Detectives"), I'm of the "works provide the certification" school myself.

There are certainly people around who can claim both sides of the fence--those who have lots of letters and who have also had a fertile professional life.

Come to think of it, there are schools of religion like this--the ones who claim that works are secondary to faith and the ones who claim that works are the way to salvation. (But this is a taboo topic, so I'll let it drop there).

I belive that by and large, the university system is one of the least effective ways to impart an education. It might have had some merit when information was less readily available and true expertise was uncommon, but now exists largely because of interia.

To those who would disagree, allow me to make a rather modest proposal. That a major university open the undergraduate (or graduate) degree program to direct examination. In other words, one would pay, say $500 to take an exam, the passing of which would entitle one to an undergraduate degree. Sort of a GED for the college crowd. Think of the money spent on facilities that could be saved! Think of the teaching positions that could be eliminated!

My guess is that it'll never happen (I'm a university graduate and value the time I spent outside of class more than the time spent listening to some fossil drone away in a classroom.

My wife has a cousin who has been a professional student much of his life. He has a whole pile of letters that he's entitled to put after his name and yet has never held a full-time job in his entire life for more than a couple of weeks (He's 63 and lived with his mother). I wouldn't trust him to walk the dogs.

Chuck(G) wrote:Yes, you certainly can-can.

Do they have a little Orpheus in their Underworld?

Mark wrote:Do they have a little Orpheus in their Underworld?

I'm resisting the temptation to make an off-color pun on Jacques Offenbach...

From Forbes...

Richest self-made Americans
without a college degree:

William H. Gates III
Harvard University, dropout
Net worth: $43 billion
Source: Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people )

Paul Allen
Washington State University, dropout
Net worth: $21 billion
Source: Microsoft; Charter Communications (nasdaq: CHTR - news - people )

Larry Ellison
University of Illinois, dropout
Net worth: $15.2 billion
Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people )

Michael Dell
University of Texas Austin, dropout
Net worth: $11.2 billion
Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people )

The list goes on and on.

bloke wrote:The only thing thing that really matters in regards to participating in the world of academia is a terminal degree

Keyboard 180° ?

bloke wrote:Possibly the job of a person pursuing a Ph.d is to study the works, discoveries, accomplishments, and inventions of those many to whom it never occurred to stop and acquire a Ph.d...

...Funny:

The only thing thing that really matters in regards to participating in the world of academia is a terminal degree.

As someone with more than 25 years of working experience (mainly in IT management) who is currently pursuing a Ph.D. (in business), I feel somewhat qualified to weigh in on this. What Bloke says may be true in many fields, but it is definitely NOT true in business, science, or engineering. The vast majority of what we study, and what I studied while working on my earlier degrees, were researched and written by people with Ph.Ds.

This leads to an interesting discussion that takes place among academics all the time of rigor vs. relevance. Rigor refers to how "scientific" the approach taken by a particular study was. Was the data captured in an unbiased way, was the analysis statistically sound, does the data support the conclusions. Relevance refers to how useful the conclusions may be in a real world setting.

There is a lot of rigorous research done, that has no direct application in the real world. Even so, much of the research that led to many innovations used in practice were considered irrelevant when first published. The work of John Nash has been used to create hardware and software, and to explain phenomenon that had nothing to do with what he was considering.

I perform my job consciously using only a fraction of what I learned in my earlier degrees, but every day I will suggest something or make a decision that I realize had its roots in something I learned in college. There are things that I do and relationships that I see that I think work due to experience, but I would never bother to try to understand why they work for me, or under what conditions they work or don't work. Academic research allows people the time to consider such things, and some fraction of that work will come back and allow people practicing in their discipline to be more effective.

Universities may not be the most effective way to impart information, or to teach someone a profession, but that's historically not been their objective. The primary goal used to be to teach young people how to have open minds and to think. It's about opening up to possibilities. Only recently have colleges become more like trade schools.

I believe that the arts are somewhat different. It is next to impossible to teach someone to have a creative spark that they don't have. Whether that's in music, or other arts. The best you can hope to do is expose them to a variety of works, and to give them the tools, basic or advanced, of their art, and their talent, and hard work/determination will do the rest.

In either area, the degree doesn't make a person. Someone can have just as much, or more knowledge, and certainly capability without a degree. In business though, having a degree differentiates candidates when coming in the door of a company. I have done a lot of hiring, including with companies that have used multiple levels of behavioral interviews, and case studies and other tests. There is only so much that you can learn during an interview, no matter how long or comprehensive. If 2 people come in and appear to have equivalent skills, but one has a degree and the other doesn't, you know who will get the job.

Somone mentioned a few of the most famous billionaires who didn't have degrees. I think that there is something of the entrepreneurial spirit in those people that would have allowed them to succeed no matter what they chose to pursue. The facts are still that people with college degrees have significantly higher average lifetime earnings than someone with a high school diploma. Of course there are exceptions of people who have been extremely successful without degrees, but on average having a degree does make a difference.

This has changed over the past 100 years. College used to be a very different animal than it is now. A college degree used to be something only a very few people got, so it didn't make as much of a difference. With the number of schools and degreed people out there, one is at a real disadvantage in business without a degree.

None of this means that someone with a degree, or degrees is any better in any way than someone without. It is obnoxious to try to "flaunt" one's degrees, and a piece of paper doesn't mean anything unless someone has the capabilities to go along with it.

I'm not arguing against folks going out and getting and education, accompanied by bits of paper or not. I do, howver, find it maddening when someone uses his degree as a way of squelching debate or putting on an air of superiority.

To me, this is tatamount to reciting the list of one's ancestors and expecting to be respected as a better because of it.

I suppose that if we fall into the trap of acquiescing to these people, we deserve what we get.

How often have you thought because someone wears a roman collar or holds a divinity degree that he also holds the moral high ground?

How often have you simply gone along with your physician when it came to treatment for an ailment because, after all, he went through med school and is called "doctor" by the nurses?

The list is endless.

When we begin to allow bits of paper and breeding histories to trump our judgement and thought, we're setting ourselves on the road to disaster.

If you expect me to be impressed because you have "good" breeding (or your the offspring or relative of someone important) or that you somehow are mentally superior because you have done time in an institution, you are insulting me--and you should not be suprised if I act insulted.
-------------
A related tangent...

I don't call my physican "doctor", I call him "Pat" and he calls me "Chuck". And he knows that anything he prescribes will be subject to intense scrutiny and most likey, an argument. After all, I'm the one who has to live in my body.

My wife has her third case of kidney stones (calcium nephrolithiasis, if you want to be technical) in 5 years. After the second session of sonic lithotripsy, the urologist didn't put her on a course of potassium citrate and a diuretic. Maybe he intended to, but I've long suspected that that physicians in the managed care system are seldom the sharpest pencils in the box--and usually, they're far too busy to think straight.

The urologist she's been referred to has just mailed her a prostate questionnaire. You better believe he's getting a call tomorrow morning.

bloke wrote:

it is definitely NOT true in business, science, or engineering

I fairly consistently read how business, research, and design corporations are getting a lot smarter about this and are doing a lot more testing and evaluation of what their potential highly-paid young employees can actually do, rather than where they studied and for how long. Again, my middle-aged friend who is a power plant superintendant (formerly a non-degreed professional trombonist - true! ) continues to be offered positions over those young applicants with very impressive degrees because of his proven profound knowledge, abilities, and extremely responsible record of behavior.

My grandfather was afforded no baccalaureate liberal arts degree whatsoever, but was extraordinarily well-versed in literature, the arts, sciences, mathematics, speech, and composition.

My statement had to do with whether people working on Ph.D.s are primarily studying works of those without such "letters," as you implied in your post. In the subject areas in whcih I have my degrees, the answer is the majority of the work studied is that of people with PhDs. Most of the PHD seminar time in business school is spent reviewing academic papers published by people with PhDs, primarily professors in other institutions. Masters programs are different. MBA programs don't spend almost any time on theory, they're all about "how" to do things, not about the "whys," which are the primarly focus of doctoral programs.

...

bloke wrote:

In business though, having a degree differentiates candidates when coming in the door of a company. I have done a lot of hiring, including with companies that have used multiple levels of behavioral interviews, and case studies and other tests. There is only so much that you can learn during an interview, no matter how long or comprehensive. If 2 people come in and appear to have equivalent skills, but one has a degree and the other doesn't, you know who will get the job.

I would think it would be highly unlikely that two applicants for any job would have equivalent skills. Whatever has happened in the American business world in the last few decades apparently hasn't been completely satisfactory to top level management, as many businesses are trying to determine as many ways as possible to have as much work as possible done outside the States.

I have run into many instances in the hundreds of positions I have hired for over the years where 2 people were close enough as to be equivalent, and one of the deciding factors was education.

The reason for moving work offshore has nothing to do with the quality of the people in the US who would perform the work, but is pure economics. With the growth of Global communications, much of the work of corporations can be performed anywhere in the world. I can hire an Indian programmer in Chennai to do for $20/hr, what I have to pay a US based person $80/hr to do. Even if their productivity is a third of that of the domestic person, the total cost is significantly less, especially on 50,000 hour projects. The education system in India in many ways is stronger than ours, so the programmers I have been hiring there typically have stronger academic backgrounds than many of the US based people. Some of them don't have as much experience, but I find that they pick up things very quickly and have been delivering high quality work.

bloke wrote:

Of course there are exceptions of people who have been extremely successful without degrees, but on average having a degree does make a difference.

but might any statistics that point to this be sort of like some statistics that would point to the fact that those who make more money seem to live longer? The two statistics tend to go up together, but are not at all causal.

You are correct that there is not necessarily a causal relationship when there is a correlation. Those with degrees could earn more because they were more dedicated, or have greater perseverence, and the degree is the thing that demonstrates that. There could be any number of reasons why people with college degrees earn more over their lifetimes. The fact that they do makes me want to have the degree, just in case there is a causal relationship. Who knows, I might learn something along the way.

This is NOT true for PhDs. The studies have shown that people with Bachelors degrees earn more than those without, and Masters earn more than those with Bachelors, yet PhD don't earn any more than Masters.

bloke wrote:

This has changed over the past 100 years. College used to be a very different animal than it is now. A college degree used to be something only a very few people got, so it didn't make as much of a difference.

That's curious. I would find quite the opposite to be true. My Dad's biz admin degree from the U of Iowa caught the eye of the up-and-coming Sears, Roebuck, and Co. (though the country was in the middle of the Great Depression) and they immediately began grooming him for a "really big" job in Chicago. (However, when the "big" offer came to move to the Chicago headquarters in his first upper-management job, he turned it down )

bloke "who was just put on the payroll of a very large university...once again"

You are correct, my wording was sloppy. What I meant to convey was that because fewer people had degrees, not having a degree didn't put one at as much of a disadvantage. Those with degrees had more of an advantage than they do today. A degree is a prerequisite for many more positions today than it used to be.

I agree with Chuck(G) though. Someone's worth is determined by their deeds, not by a piece of paper. A piece of paper should never be used to try to prove that one person's point is more valid. I don't care how many degrees a person has, if they're wrong, they're wrong!