College degrees

[Raeyh]

I mean, dude, he just said that reading books on history makes you a historian. There needs to be peer review and peer review has to do with academia.

If you publish your findings I'm sure you'll get all the peer review you need.

[Hallistar]

History, for instance, is as much about the interpretation of data and the debate over our understanding of historical narratives. At the college level, you learn less about "what this book says happened" and more about "how can we understand these historical events and documents as a coherent narrative which revolves around a centralized theme?"

Which you can do on your own.

My college education has given me opportunities to interact, debate, and chat with some of the most respected pioneers (and undergraduate peers) in my field, and to challenge their ideas, and to have my ideas challenged.

I wasn't aware they locked up all the historians in a college.

Reading a book on history and then calling yourself a historian is a bit like copying somebody else's recipe to perfection and then calling yourself a world-class chef.

You don't get practical experience in college. You become a world class chef from cooking things.

With history, there is really nothing to do but read other people's works. That's the major way they learn about what happened, from diaries and journals.

I think you're confusing 'historian' with just being well-educated/knowledgeable about history/historical events, like with my case being the latter. I suppose so that for the majority of people who are interested in history, they aren't exactly planning to base their life around it, but still like it, and as such in their case the reading on their own and discussing with others online part would work out fine. Fully fledged historians though are part of academia, so if you love the stuff and you really want to be a historian more than anything else, you would need to take the university route.

Of course, I could be mistaken, so whoever's in that field can correct me if I'm wrong.

Your line of thinking revolves around the "you can be a valuable engineer by just studying a calculus book" line of thought.

[Azakhia]

In North Carolina, the average cost of the community college degree is around $75.00 per semester hour. Also, if you earn an AA from a community college in NC, that can be transferred to almost all 4 year colleges in the US.

The main difference is that the AA you take a majority of the core courses in the field. When you transfer to a 4 year university, you will need to take all of the electives in order to earn the BA/BS.

Sorry, I'm a little rusty on this lingo, since I go to a university that uses different terminology. Are "core" courses the ones outside of your major but are required for a degree?

The "core" courses are the ones that are directly related to your major. For example, when I took my major in Emergency Management, the non core courses would have been math, psych, literature, etc.

Hope this answers your question.

[Avenio]

I mean, dude, he just said that reading books on history makes you a historian. There needs to be peer review and peer review has to do with academia.

If you publish your findings I'm sure you'll get all the peer review you need.

Can you name a paper that was published by someone that has no university training in history?

[Raeyh]

If you publish your findings I'm sure you'll get all the peer review you need.

Can you name a paper that was published by someone that has no university training in history?

You can start a new trend.

Just because academics tend to be conservative doesn't mean you have to be.

[Nadkor]

I mean, dude, he just said that reading books on history makes you a historian. There needs to be peer review and peer review has to do with academia.

If you publish your findings I'm sure you'll get all the peer review you need.

And how do you intend on persuading any respected journal to publish what you've written without having the credentials to suggest that it might be worth submitting to peer review?

[Avenio]

You can start a new trend.

Just because academics tend to be conservative doesn't mean you have to be.

So do you think a history journal would accept a paper written by someone with no academic training?

[Raeyh]

If you publish your findings I'm sure you'll get all the peer review you need.

And how do you intend on persuading any respected journal to publish what you've written without having the credentials to suggest that it might be worth submitting to peer review?

I figured you could just use the Internet to get your findings out and then go from there.

[R Ev0lution]

History, for instance, is as much about the interpretation of data and the debate over our understanding of historical narratives. At the college level, you learn less about "what this book says happened" and more about "how can we understand these historical events and documents as a coherent narrative which revolves around a centralized theme?"

Which you can do on your own.

My college education has given me opportunities to interact, debate, and chat with some of the most respected pioneers (and undergraduate peers) in my field, and to challenge their ideas, and to have my ideas challenged.

I wasn't aware they locked up all the historians in a college.

Reading a book on history and then calling yourself a historian is a bit like copying somebody else's recipe to perfection and then calling yourself a world-class chef.

You don't get practical experience in college. You become a world class chef from cooking things.

With history, there is really nothing to do but read other people's works. That's the major way they learn about what happened, from diaries and journals.

Sorry, who's the third-year Honors student in History here, and who's the college drop-out who majored in CS? I've tried to avoid getting personal before this, but you're treading into a territory which I know dramatically more about than you do.

First, AGAIN, you don't become a historian just by reading a book on your own. YOU MUST INTERACT, SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS, AND CRITICALLY ENGAGE WITH THE OPINIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS. This is most-easily facilitated in an academic setting (see: college or university).

Secondly, historians are virtually always professors at universities. I will elaborate over the next two paragraphs, since the answers overlap and are a little redundant. However, what you need to know for now is that, yes, the overwhelming majority of historians hang out on college campuses because they're usually professors at those colleges.

Thirdly, YES, you do get practical experience in college. Why? Because all professional historians do is do research (while funded and sponsored by a college), write (while funded and sponsored by a college), debate (within an advanced academic setting; typically at a college), and teach others (as a representative of a college).

Finally, again, I know far more about history and the nature of the profession than you do. There's a bit of diary-reading and a bit of journal-reading, yes, but a true historian must sift through data and find a coherent narrative which he/she can defend and write about. You can read a billion journals and newspapers if you want to, but you're not a historian until you try to draw broader conclusions, introspections, and perspectives from what you've learned, and can defend these conclusions and perspectives when others scrutinize them (usually within an academic setting, like a college).

Anybody who has earned the title of "expert" within their field can attest to this. Being well-versed in what people write about history does not make you a historian. It makes you a hobbyist. A true historian writes these very books and stories for others to read. You think Einstein was a genius-physicist because he memorized and could recite Newton's theories of motion? A fucking first-year undergrad could do that. He was a genius because he challenged classical Newtonian mechanics/theories and produced his own set of theories about physics. He didn't just master the content. He CHANGED the fucking content. THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU A TRUE EXPERT IN SOMETHING. YOU DON'T JUST LEARN THE CONTENT. YOU FUCKING REVOLUTIONIZE IT.

THIS IS WHAT A HISTORIAN DOES. HE/SHE DOES NOT JUST SIT IN A ROOM ALL DAY READING BOOKS. HE/SHE MUST ALSO INTERACT WITH OTHER WELL-VERSED EXPERTS AND HAVE CRITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER, IN ORDER TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

Please, please, please, don't EVER tarnish my beloved discipline with your FUCKING silly assumptions and PREPOSTEROUSLY uninformed bullshit again.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

And how do you intend on persuading any respected journal to publish what you've written without having the credentials to suggest that it might be worth submitting to peer review?

I figured you could just use the Internet to get your findings out and then go from there.

The thing is, in the real world no one has the time to go through and independently verify every single thing that everyone whose work might be relevant to their own has based their arguments on.

So in order for the state of knowledge in a given field to progress, we have to have a way of knowing whether or not someone knows what he or she's talking about so that we know whether or not to take their contributions seriously. That means credentials.

If you have a credentialing system that's better than academia, let us know.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.

[Erryeah]

Smart has nothing to do with it. It's all about the effort you are able to put in at high school. Same for college as well. You don't get an A based on IQ. Intelligence is just a tool to make the whole education bit easier. No one gives a damn how smart someone is. Employers don't either. All that matters in the end is the effort you are willing to put out.

Gotta disagree there. I didn't get good grade in high school because of effort; far from it. I got good grades because I am lucky enough to have natural aptitude at the kind of shit that gets you good grades in high school, and I also grew up in a household with ludicrously educated parents so I was extremely well-read and informed compared to my peers. I didn't put any effort into any of that, it was just the luck of my birth.

As far as employers not caring, that's also not been my experience, but then again my career path has been in the sciences so maybe that skews things. Hard work absolutely is valued, but there's a certain threshold for intelligence that you have to pass as well. It doesn't matter how hard you work, if you're not bright enough to pass that threshold then nobody wants you. (I know this because I've bumped my head on the threshold a few times. )

That still proves effort over smarts.

How did you become well-read? You weren't born with knowing the pseudo-ending to Mass Effect (example) without having experienced it. It also takes effort/practice to maintain knowledge as well.

Now, as for thresholds, that is more of a culture of academia that is used as a weeding out process. People are only able to take in a certain amount of knowledge but, that doesn't mean that they start there. They have to get to that threshold or further by ...EFFORT. Never did I say, that intelligence does not factor in the equation. Just, not as much. IOW...Intelligence without effort is just like not having any intelligence at all.

Essentially, I see INT as a numerator and EFF as the denominator. Closer to one the more efficient the employee happens to be.

Humans don't just appear out of the womb with a diploma in hand...unless bribery or something similar ensued.

[NERVUN]

Of course, mind you, there are reasons for going directly to university. That said, if cost and/or schedule issues are a concern, there really is nothing wrong with going the transfer route.

Of course. But, on a resume, you still get to put the same degree on the page, and, frankly, most of the first two years of college consist of general education and developing rudimentary basic knowledge. It's not until the upper-division content that you really get to delve into the topic, refine your interests as a scholar, and truly become obsessively fascinated with the material.

To a certain extent, yes.

It all depends of course. I learned a great deal from being at the university those first two years than I think I would have at the CC.

Of course, I also admit that my desire to go to university directly was partiality motivated by being told that I shouldn't go, but that's another story.

[Nadkor]

And how do you intend on persuading any respected journal to publish what you've written without having the credentials to suggest that it might be worth submitting to peer review?

I figured you could just use the Internet to get your findings out and then go from there.

And once again your opinion on academia or an academic process is shown to be based entirely in not knowing how any of it actually works.

I mean, I'm not claiming to be an actual academic (i.e. someone who has a doctorate or similar and teaches and conducts research in a tertiary institution as opposed to someone studying in a tertiary institution). I'm not. But I have a good idea of how the whole thing works, and you clearly do not.

[R Ev0lution]

I figured you could just use the Internet to get your findings out and then go from there.

The thing is, in the real world no one has the time to go through and independently verify every single thing that everyone whose work might be relevant to their own has based their arguments on.

So in order for the state of knowledge in a given field to progress, we have to have a way of knowing whether or not someone knows what he or she's talking about so that we know whether or not to take their contributions seriously. That means credentials.

If you have a credentialing system that's better than academia, let us know.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.

Actually, historians will do that (the thing about verifying sources). In my own research, I use others' research as a jumping-off point. To get an idea of where to start looking for primary source material, I'll look through (in great depth) the citations of other historians and try to find these documents/sources for myself.

By the way, nobody who cites the Internet (outside of .edu sources, and even then, it's sketchy) in a formalized academic publication will ever be taken seriously again. It's tantamount to academic suicide.

[Bottle]

Gotta disagree there. I didn't get good grade in high school because of effort; far from it. I got good grades because I am lucky enough to have natural aptitude at the kind of shit that gets you good grades in high school, and I also grew up in a household with ludicrously educated parents so I was extremely well-read and informed compared to my peers. I didn't put any effort into any of that, it was just the luck of my birth.

As far as employers not caring, that's also not been my experience, but then again my career path has been in the sciences so maybe that skews things. Hard work absolutely is valued, but there's a certain threshold for intelligence that you have to pass as well. It doesn't matter how hard you work, if you're not bright enough to pass that threshold then nobody wants you. (I know this because I've bumped my head on the threshold a few times. )

That still proves effort over smarts.

Not really, no. People who put in a lot more effort than I did still didn't get grades as good as mine in high school. I actually had several hundred hours of detention stacked up by the time graduation rolled around, due to the number of classes I never showed up for.

How did you become well-read?

My parents read to me a lot.

Seriously. I'd say that at least half of the "great classics" that I've read are actually books I never read myself...they were read TO me by my folks. If that's not low effort, I don't know what is.

Humans don't just appear out of the womb with a diploma in hand...unless bribery or something similar ensued.

I'm not saying effort doesn't play a role, but honestly I think that right now, in the American system of education, it's more about luck than effort. Are you lucky enough to be good at the type of things that help you score well on exams and hand in pleasing papers? Were you born to wealthy parents? Were you born into a family that makes it easy for you to absorb information with very little effort? Congrats, the A's are yours to lose.

I think it is a sign of how messed up our system is, that luck outweighs work by such a huge margin right now. But that's how it's been for me.

[Raeyh]

First, AGAIN, you don't become a historian just by reading a book on your own. YOU MUST INTERACT, SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS, AND CRITICALLY ENGAGE WITH THE OPINIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS. This is most-easily facilitated in an academic setting (see: college or university).

Why? Because you say so?

Anybody who has earned the title of "expert" within their field can attest to this. Being well-versed in what people write about history does not make you a historian. It makes you a hobbyist. A true historian writes these books and stories for others to read. You think Einstein was a genius-physicist because he memorized and could recite Newton's theories of motion? A fucking first-year undergrad could do that. He was a genius because he challenged classical Newtonian mechanics/theories and produced his own set of theories about physics. He didn't just master the content. He CHANGED the fucking content.

Einstein could have succeeded without college, he was a genius.

Please, please, please, don't ever tarnish my beloved discipline with your silly assumptions and uninformed bullshit again.

Please, you have no way of proving what goes on in your ivory tower to everyone else. For all I know, you could be doing fingerpaints.

[NERVUN]

YET AGAIN, you make the egregious error of presuming that money is the only reason to pursue an education. People go to college because they want to learn stuff. Actually learn stuff, and often for reasons OTHER than trying to make money. Some people believe that four years of college is worth more than its cost in dollars-and-cents, and that intellectual curiosity and personal development still have meanings that transcend their value as punch-words on a resume.

The only people who succeed in college are the ones who are self motivated to the point that they don't need a college to learn things. Consider that for a bit.

Ah no.

All the books in the world will do you nothing if you have no idea what the hell you're looking for.

That was the great thing about my time at university, I learned a whole hell of a lot, some of it was even inside the classroom. The advice I got and the classes I took lead me in directions I didn't even know existed, let along contemplated about looking at them.

Also, not everything about a job. I discovered that I love Rhapsody in Blue and that classical concerts are awesome to go to thanks to music appreciation. I gained a better understanding of how media is used to sell thing (I.e. manipulate people) via journalism 100, and the Western Traditions course... dear God. I liked it then because I had an interest in history and I love reading classical novels. I enjoyed it even more when I got linked to a nation simulation game by User Friendly and found out that said game came equiped with a forum full of knowledgeable people who demand sources for everything and will contiunaly argue about destroying Carthage!

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

The thing is, in the real world no one has the time to go through and independently verify every single thing that everyone whose work might be relevant to their own has based their arguments on.

So in order for the state of knowledge in a given field to progress, we have to have a way of knowing whether or not someone knows what he or she's talking about so that we know whether or not to take their contributions seriously. That means credentials.

If you have a credentialing system that's better than academia, let us know.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.

Actually, historians will do that (the thing about verifying sources). In my own research, I use others' research as a jumping-off point. To get an idea of where to start looking for primary source material, I'll look through (in great depth) the citations of other historians and try to find these documents/sources for myself.

By the way, nobody who cites the Internet (outside of .edu sources, and even then, it's sketchy) in a formalized academic publication will ever be taken seriously again. It's tantamount to academic suicide.

The most relevant parts--the specific conclusions and arguments that translate directly to one's own research--yes. Where Victoria Frede's research into conceptions of femininity and gender roles among nineteenth-century Russian radicals intersects my own research on conscientious objection among religious dissidents in the same period (and it does), I'll examine her sources myself before I cite her own conclusions as support for my own, but oftentimes that's only one chapter or chapter-section of a book or section of an article. I have neither the need nor the time to verify every single thing she claims.

And you're absolutely right about using bibliographies and citations as a launching point--I do that quite often myself.

Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.

[R Ev0lution]

First, AGAIN, you don't become a historian just by reading a book on your own. YOU MUST INTERACT, SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS, AND CRITICALLY ENGAGE WITH THE OPINIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHERS. This is most-easily facilitated in an academic setting (see: college or university).

Why? Because you say so?

Anybody who has earned the title of "expert" within their field can attest to this. Being well-versed in what people write about history does not make you a historian. It makes you a hobbyist. A true historian writes these books and stories for others to read. You think Einstein was a genius-physicist because he memorized and could recite Newton's theories of motion? A fucking first-year undergrad could do that. He was a genius because he challenged classical Newtonian mechanics/theories and produced his own set of theories about physics. He didn't just master the content. He CHANGED the fucking content.

Einstein could have succeeded without college, he was a genius.

Please, please, please, don't ever tarnish my beloved discipline with your silly assumptions and uninformed bullshit again.

Please, you have no way of proving what goes on in your ivory tower to everyone else. For all I know, you could be doing fingerpaints.

Oh, you idiot. You didn't read a word I wrote.

1. Because universities and colleges were invented for the exclusive purpose of discussing ideas and debating about them. That's what they are. The whole "lecturing noobs to educate them" shit was always secondary. This is why schools like Harvard and Stanford and UC Berkeley call themselves "RESEARCH" universities. Because their primary goal isn't to teach undergraduates. It's to fucking research the shit, and change the way it's approached.
2. NOT SAYING THAT. I am saying that, AFTER college, where do you go to present your ideas? Who the fuck gives a shit about your theories? All the most brilliant physicists (and probably the only ones with the background and expertise necessary to actually comprehend what you're fucking saying) work at universities and/or publish in university-sponsored journals. GUESS WHERE THE BEST PLACE IS IF YOU WANT THE FUNDING AND PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES YOU NEED TO EXPLORE AND REFINE IDEAS? UNIVERSITIES! THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SO "OVERPRICED", AS YOU PUT IT. BECAUSE THEY MUST FUND THE RESEARCH AND PROJECTS OF THEIR PROFESSORS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS.
3. Really? Walk up to ANY university professor or graduate student, and ask them if I'm right. ASK ANYBODY WITH ANYTHING MORE THAN A BACHELOR'S IN ANY FIELD. NOBODY with any degree higher than a Bachelor's will say ANYTHING DIFFERENT. THIS IS ALL THAT PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS DO. WE RESEARCH, WE PUBLISH, WE DEBATE, WE INNOVATE, WE LECTURE, WE RINSE AND REPEAT. Evidently, you didn't learn much about the university system during the one year you spent being miserable and wishing you were somewhere else.
4. Yes, also because I say so, because I'm a fucking History major who has psychotically devoted the last 3 years of his life to making himself a viable candidate, and you're a college dropout whose fondest memories of his postsecondary education are worrying about money and grumbling about how shit your education is.

[Norstal]

Oh, you fucking idiot. You didn't read a word I wrote.

Don't flame him. I know it's tough, but, let's keep this thread in pristine condition.

[Saiwania]

nobody who cites the Internet (outside of .edu sources, and even then, it's sketchy) in a formalized academic publication will ever be taken seriously again. It's tantamount to academic suicide.

Whether universities/colleges like it or not, the Internet/online education is the future! Old media such as newspapers, books, and TV, are falling out of favor for more electronic forms of information and communication.

[NERVUN]

Oh, you idiot. You didn't read a word I wrote.

*Mod hat on* Settle down there. There's no need for flaming or name calling. If this topic is getting you hot under the collar, take a break from it for a bit and go enjoy a walk or a good book.

[Nadkor]

By the way, nobody who cites the Internet (outside of .edu sources, and even then, it's sketchy) in a formalized academic publication will ever be taken seriously again. It's tantamount to academic suicide.

Yeah, this isn't actually the case.

Especially if you're not studying in a country where academic resources are published on ".edu" sites.

But, you know, mind numbingly desperate Americocentrism! Yeah!

[Raeyh]

Oh, you fucking idiot.

This is how college graduates view the rest of the world.

1. Not because I say so. Because universities and colleges were invented for the exclusive purpose of discussing ideas and debating about them. That's what they are. The whole "lecturing noobs to educate them" shit was always secondary. This is why schools like Harvard and Stanford and UC Berkeley call themselves "RESEARCH" universities. Because their primary goal isn't to teach. It's to fucking research the shit, and change the way it's approached.

If you want to research then research. Stop swindling money out of people in the false guise of education.

2. NOT SAYING THAT. I am saying that, AFTER college, where do you go to present your ideas? Who the fuck gives a shit about your theories? All the most brilliant physicists (and probably the only ones with the background and expertise necessary to actually comprehend what you're fucking saying) work at universities and/or publish in university-sponsored journals. GUESS WHERE THE BEST PLACE IS IF YOU WANT FUNDING AND COLLEAGUES TO HELP YOU EXPLORE AND REFINE IDEAS? UNIVERSITIES! THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SO "OVERPRICED", AS YOU PUT IT. BECAUSE THEY MUST FUND THE RESEARCH AND PROJECTS OF THEIR PROFESSORS AND GRADUATE STUDENT.

Really the same thing as above.

3. Really? Walk up to ANY university professor or graduate student, and ask them if I'm right. ASK ANYBODY WITH ANYTHING MORE THAN A BACHELOR'S IN ANY FIELD. NOBODY with any degree higher than a Bachelor's will say ANYTHING DIFFERENT. THIS IS ALL THAT PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS DO. WE RESEARCH, WE PUBLISH, WE DEBATE, WE INNOVATE, WE LECTURE, WE RINSE AND REPEAT. Evidently, you didn't learn much about the university system during the one year you spent being a miserable little shit.

Using caps doesn't make you more believable.

4. Yes, also because I say so, because I'm a fucking History major who has psychotically devoted the last 3 years of his life to making himself a viable candidate, and you're a college dropout whose fondest memories of his postsecondary education are worrying about money and grumbling about how shit your life is.

Well if you invest that much time and money into something, it's no wonder you are so fanatical about it.

Maybe you shouldn't have.

[Hallistar]

nobody who cites the Internet (outside of .edu sources, and even then, it's sketchy) in a formalized academic publication will ever be taken seriously again. It's tantamount to academic suicide.

Whether universities/colleges like it or not, the Internet/online education is the future! Old media such as newspapers, books, and TV, are falling out of favor for more electronic forms of information and communication.

I think they're referring to primary sources and useful secondary sources rather than the medium they are presented in.