5 ms·

I'm not sure I agree. Either you are conflating vocation, field of academic study, political power, socioeconomic class and status, or things are just different

I'm not sure I agree. Either you are conflating vocation, field of academic study, political power, socioeconomic class and status, or things are just different in the UK. Here in the US, you rarely study computer science to become a computer scientist but rather to be a highly paid engineer or eventually obscenely wealthy founder. The same is true for philosophers, authors, politicians and composers; increasingly, the same is true for biology, physics and even law. You study these (or any of these fields) to show some ability for abstract thought to get you into the career of your choosing. In the US, notably, the field you actually study increasingly seems to have little to do with what you do later on in life; that all seems to do with your socioeconomic class, who you make buddies with in early schooling, who your parents know. It doesn't matter if you study law at Harvard if you don't come from wealth; and likewise, it doesn't matter if you study CS if you come from wealth. And inside the middle class to upper middle class, studying either field isn't very likely to break you into the upper class; only starting/scaling a business will. Looking at members of the senate is also not very useful. Sure, "computer scientists" may not be represented in the Senate. But wealthy "applied computer scientists" who started companies (Bezos, Gates, etc) hire lobbying firms that essentially purchase the behavior of these senators wholesale. They have more clout than entire nation states. Still, with that said, there's a difference between clout and high social status. But I observe that high social status is something that pertains to caste and heredity, not necessarily field of study.

usrusr 6y ago
I don't see how you two disagree. Yes, computer science people (degree or not) can become influential through economic success. That's the same way construction company tycoons occasionally become influential. But there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse and those are almost as devoid of computer scientists as they are devoid of excavator operators.
- roosterdawn 6y ago
  > there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse That's I think where I disagree. I would say that wealth is almost always a consequence of status and influence than the reverse, with maybe the express exception of CS/tech because of US entrepreneur/startup culture -- even that is debatable, but we can at least come up with examples, in large part because tech is so young as a field. If tech is, say, 50 years old compared to common law which is 2000+ years old, to what extent should we really be drawing comparisons and to what extent should we be saying "well, the /field/ is up in the air even if human socioeconomic relations are not"?
chrisseaton 6y ago
Anyone with money can have clout. Are computer scientists invited into the club before they have money? No. Do they get offered the opportunities that money doesn't buy? No. That's the difference.
- roosterdawn 6y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I think that clarifies your viewpoint considerably. If you don't mind me asking, could you elaborate on the kinds of opportunities that money doesn't buy? And furthermore, to what extent have you seen vocation give access to that which is not given by heredity or caste? I think that would help elucidate the subtle distinction between high clout and high social status.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    For example... I have a friend who is a barrister in London. He makes a lot less money than I do, and works a lot longer hours, so sounds like he has the lower status job, right? No, because he's getting invited to join elite private social clubs and organisations. He's going to dinner parties with politicians and could use that network to start a political career if he wanted. He's meeting people with capital to invest. He's on the sports team with influential people. Etc. There's a whole real-life social network out there, and they definitely aren't inviting the programmers.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Why would I want to hang out with vapid, shallow people?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
jjcon 6y ago
> In the US, notably, the field you actually study increasingly seems to have little to do with what you do later on in life Not sure that this is US specific, I think this has more to do with people studying things the economy doesn’t really have a need for (which while inefficient is fine by me)

usrusr 6y ago

I don't see how you two disagree. Yes, computer science people (degree or not) can become influential through economic success. That's the same way construction company tycoons occasionally become influential. But there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse and those are almost as devoid of computer scientists as they are devoid of excavator operators.

roosterdawn 6y ago
> there's a family of careers were wealth is more a consequence of status and influence than the reverse That's I think where I disagree. I would say that wealth is almost always a consequence of status and influence than the reverse, with maybe the express exception of CS/tech because of US entrepreneur/startup culture -- even that is debatable, but we can at least come up with examples, in large part because tech is so young as a field. If tech is, say, 50 years old compared to common law which is 2000+ years old, to what extent should we really be drawing comparisons and to what extent should we be saying "well, the /field/ is up in the air even if human socioeconomic relations are not"?

chrisseaton 6y ago

Anyone with money can have clout. Are computer scientists invited into the club before they have money? No. Do they get offered the opportunities that money doesn't buy? No. That's the difference.

roosterdawn 6y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply! I think that clarifies your viewpoint considerably. If you don't mind me asking, could you elaborate on the kinds of opportunities that money doesn't buy? And furthermore, to what extent have you seen vocation give access to that which is not given by heredity or caste? I think that would help elucidate the subtle distinction between high clout and high social status.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  For example... I have a friend who is a barrister in London. He makes a lot less money than I do, and works a lot longer hours, so sounds like he has the lower status job, right? No, because he's getting invited to join elite private social clubs and organisations. He's going to dinner parties with politicians and could use that network to start a political career if he wanted. He's meeting people with capital to invest. He's on the sports team with influential people. Etc. There's a whole real-life social network out there, and they definitely aren't inviting the programmers.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Why would I want to hang out with vapid, shallow people?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago

jjcon 6y ago

> In the US, notably, the field you actually study increasingly seems to have little to do with what you do later on in life Not sure that this is US specific, I think this has more to do with people studying things the economy doesn’t really have a need for (which while inefficient is fine by me)