7 ms·

Do you do what you love? Then you must be very lucky. I know that I thank my lucky stars every day that what I love doing also happens to be fabulously lucrati

by jnovek 17y ago

Do you do what you love? Then you must be very lucky. I know that I thank my lucky stars every day that what I love doing also happens to be fabulously lucrative. It disgusts me that we live in one of the most wealthy societies in the world and arbitrary criteria, such as the class or gender you were born with, still determine much about your ability to succeed in and enjoy life. Rhetorical question of self-examination: how would you feel if she were a math professor instead? Being an academic mathematician is just as self-indulgent as anything in the humanities.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
pwnstigator 17y ago
On humanities and "self-indulgence": I hate the corporatization of academia in general, but professors really dicked themselves over when they took the attitude that their research was their "real work" and that teaching was commodity grunt work to be delegated to TAs as much as possible. Star physics researchers can get away with this-- just as, to use a fictional example, Dr. House can slough off his clinic duty-- because they are retained for their brilliant ideas. Most academics can't. This attitude fails the humanities especially, because the entire point of these departments' existence is to transmit culture from one generation to the next (e.g. teaching). Most humanities research (unlike in the sciences) is not very useful, especially if only academics can understand it.
catzaa 17y ago
Even the poorest American have boundless opportunities. Unfortunately most people chose not to take these opportunities and then demand equality of outcome.
- pwnstigator 17y ago
  Even the poorest American have boundless opportunities. You know nothing about poverty. Unfortunately most people chose not to take these opportunities and then demand equality of outcome. Almost no one expects or even wants "equality of outcome", but we do want a world where people are free from worries about health care (due to our third-world health care system) and meeting basic needs. You simply have a better society (more innovation, more creativity, happier and healthier people) if peoples' lives aren't clogged up by maintenance.
  - catzaa 17y ago
    > You know nothing about poverty. I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions. > but we do want a world where people are free from worries about health care (due to our third-world health care system) and meeting basic needs. These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand. Btw, Europeans go to the USA for advanced health care (such as Cancer treatment). Ever heard of the MD Anderson cancer centre? It is the best in the world. Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you). I am quite sceptical of this – someone has to pay for it. It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it. > You simply have a better society (more innovation, more creativity, happier and healthier people) if peoples' lives aren't clogged up by maintenance. It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter. Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it. I think that this says more about the current generation of young Americans than of the American system.
    - pwnstigator 17y ago
      I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions. Correction: You know nothing about poverty in the United States. These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand. The discrete right/privilege distinction is a meaningless distraction from the more subjective issue of social justice. If the resources exist to give everyone healthcare, then everyone should have healthcare. If the resources don't exist, well... there's no such thing as a right to something that doesn't exist. Obviously, no one has the right to live to be 200. On the other hand, we shouldn't have people dying of third-world diseases in the U.S. just to keep insurance bureaucrats rich; that's not a reasonable trade-off. Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you). Wrong. I want to pay for it through the tax system. We're spending trillions on "defense"; why not spend money to be defended against things like cancer, which are far more likely to kill most of us than any terrorist? It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it. Ridiculous assertion. No one with half a brain considers that possible. Someone has to pay. It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter. That's what happens as society improves. On the list of responsibilities shrinking: are you arguing that we should go back to an era when people spent a substantial fraction of their time making their own clothes, instead of buying cheap factory-made clothing at the store? Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it. The idea that the government could guarantee anything about a person's emotional state is patently ridiculous, and you know this. Also, how can someone pursue happiness if he can't afford treatment for basic medical conditions, and can't work because, untreated, that condition is too painful? People wouldn't get into messes like this in a more reasonable society.
defen 17y ago
> how would you feel if she were a math professor instead? Being an academic mathematician is just as self-indulgent as anything in the humanities. The academic mathematician who wants to make more money can probably get a job in industry, or learn an in-demand skill such as programming, stats, etc. An assistant professor of Native American studies probably doesn't have the same capacity (to put it bluntly: is not as smart), so it was a much bigger gamble for her to take on so much debt to become a professor.

by jnovek 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

pwnstigator 17y ago

On humanities and "self-indulgence": I hate the corporatization of academia in general, but professors really dicked themselves over when they took the attitude that their research was their "real work" and that teaching was commodity grunt work to be delegated to TAs as much as possible. Star physics researchers can get away with this-- just as, to use a fictional example, Dr. House can slough off his clinic duty-- because they are retained for their brilliant ideas. Most academics can't. This attitude fails the humanities especially, because the entire point of these departments' existence is to transmit culture from one generation to the next (e.g. teaching). Most humanities research (unlike in the sciences) is not very useful, especially if only academics can understand it.

catzaa 17y ago

Even the poorest American have boundless opportunities. Unfortunately most people chose not to take these opportunities and then demand equality of outcome.

pwnstigator 17y ago
Even the poorest American have boundless opportunities. You know nothing about poverty. Unfortunately most people chose not to take these opportunities and then demand equality of outcome. Almost no one expects or even wants "equality of outcome", but we do want a world where people are free from worries about health care (due to our third-world health care system) and meeting basic needs. You simply have a better society (more innovation, more creativity, happier and healthier people) if peoples' lives aren't clogged up by maintenance.
- catzaa 17y ago
  > You know nothing about poverty. I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions. > but we do want a world where people are free from worries about health care (due to our third-world health care system) and meeting basic needs. These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand. Btw, Europeans go to the USA for advanced health care (such as Cancer treatment). Ever heard of the MD Anderson cancer centre? It is the best in the world. Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you). I am quite sceptical of this – someone has to pay for it. It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it. > You simply have a better society (more innovation, more creativity, happier and healthier people) if peoples' lives aren't clogged up by maintenance. It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter. Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it. I think that this says more about the current generation of young Americans than of the American system.
  - pwnstigator 17y ago
    I grew up in a relatively poor family in a third world country (in a rural area). So, don't make baseless assumptions. Correction: You know nothing about poverty in the United States. These (healthcare, education, etc...) are privileges. You are lucky to have it – but it is still a privilege and not something that you can demand. The discrete right/privilege distinction is a meaningless distraction from the more subjective issue of social justice. If the resources exist to give everyone healthcare, then everyone should have healthcare. If the resources don't exist, well... there's no such thing as a right to something that doesn't exist. Obviously, no one has the right to live to be 200. On the other hand, we shouldn't have people dying of third-world diseases in the U.S. just to keep insurance bureaucrats rich; that's not a reasonable trade-off. Guess what, hospitals and doctors do not just pop into existence. They have to be paid and everything costs money. You want all this to be free (at least for you). Wrong. I want to pay for it through the tax system. We're spending trillions on "defense"; why not spend money to be defended against things like cancer, which are far more likely to kill most of us than any terrorist? It looks like everyone wants free healthcare and no-one wants to pay for it. Ridiculous assertion. No one with half a brain considers that possible. Someone has to pay. It seems that the list of entitlements only gets longer and the list of responsibilities gets shorter. That's what happens as society improves. On the list of responsibilities shrinking: are you arguing that we should go back to an era when people spent a substantial fraction of their time making their own clothes, instead of buying cheap factory-made clothing at the store? Wasn’t the USA founded on the principle that everyone can pursue their happiness? It seems more like you want government to guarantee it. The idea that the government could guarantee anything about a person's emotional state is patently ridiculous, and you know this. Also, how can someone pursue happiness if he can't afford treatment for basic medical conditions, and can't work because, untreated, that condition is too painful? People wouldn't get into messes like this in a more reasonable society.

defen 17y ago

> how would you feel if she were a math professor instead? Being an academic mathematician is just as self-indulgent as anything in the humanities. The academic mathematician who wants to make more money can probably get a job in industry, or learn an in-demand skill such as programming, stats, etc. An assistant professor of Native American studies probably doesn't have the same capacity (to put it bluntly: is not as smart), so it was a much bigger gamble for her to take on so much debt to become a professor.