Thursday, April 26, 2007
Another point to my growing hatred of academia
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that my feelings toward the academia have been going downhill for the last two years. I have my own list of reasons, mostly based on pragmatism vs. head-in-the-clouds ideology, but now I have another.
Apparently MIT's dean of admissions has been ordered to resign because she falsified her resume in 1979. Nineteen-fucking-seventy-nine. Seriously?!? According to the chancellor of MIT it's because the institution is founded on the basis of trust and integrity. Never mind that she's held this position for 28 years. Never mind that she's teamed up with pediatricians to tame the college admissions process via writing books for parents on how NOT to stress the hell out of their children during the process. Never mind that she signed letters to kids "your mom away from mom," to make the transition easier. Never mind that NOBODY realized she did not in fact hold a master's degree because she's actually intelligent all on her own.
At 55 years old, one of the sweetest ladies in academia is being ousted from her position because she doesn't have a master's degree. This is one of those very few positions where the government knows how to handle this sort of thing. Fucking lie about it! If she's done good enough for 28 years to land the respect of the entire profession of college admission officers, let her keep her job. Cover it up. Spin it. Who really cares? What principle are we standing for? The not-lying-on-resume principle?
I think this is why nobody in any company I have ever talked to has stressed academic eduction. Google comes close, but even they stress practicality. I strongly feel there should be a rule that when you've done something extremely successfully for 25+ years you get an automatic master's degree in whatever it is you do. But no, not in academia. There you get a big "fuck you" despite everything you've done and all the lives you have enhanced, because what's on paper, and entirely in the realm of concept, is more important. It's rooted in principle.
Apparently MIT's dean of admissions has been ordered to resign because she falsified her resume in 1979. Nineteen-fucking-seventy-nine. Seriously?!? According to the chancellor of MIT it's because the institution is founded on the basis of trust and integrity. Never mind that she's held this position for 28 years. Never mind that she's teamed up with pediatricians to tame the college admissions process via writing books for parents on how NOT to stress the hell out of their children during the process. Never mind that she signed letters to kids "your mom away from mom," to make the transition easier. Never mind that NOBODY realized she did not in fact hold a master's degree because she's actually intelligent all on her own.
At 55 years old, one of the sweetest ladies in academia is being ousted from her position because she doesn't have a master's degree. This is one of those very few positions where the government knows how to handle this sort of thing. Fucking lie about it! If she's done good enough for 28 years to land the respect of the entire profession of college admission officers, let her keep her job. Cover it up. Spin it. Who really cares? What principle are we standing for? The not-lying-on-resume principle?
I think this is why nobody in any company I have ever talked to has stressed academic eduction. Google comes close, but even they stress practicality. I strongly feel there should be a rule that when you've done something extremely successfully for 25+ years you get an automatic master's degree in whatever it is you do. But no, not in academia. There you get a big "fuck you" despite everything you've done and all the lives you have enhanced, because what's on paper, and entirely in the realm of concept, is more important. It's rooted in principle.
Labels: academia
Comments:
<< Home
Man, that is so true! What you actually contribute to society and your job should be more important than a piece of paper. I mean, how many people get degrees in this or that and then end up going into a totally different line of work?
If you have a PhD in, say, physics, and you have only worked as a landscaper all your life, can you still call yourself a physicist? Where's the line between paper and reality?
Post a Comment
If you have a PhD in, say, physics, and you have only worked as a landscaper all your life, can you still call yourself a physicist? Where's the line between paper and reality?
<< Home