American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The majority of people don't have jobs specific to their degree. Almost 60% of Americans don't have a job related to their degree. This is an improvement from a decade ago when that number was just under 75%. What your degree is in is irrelevant for most jobs. Yes, there are jobs where a specific education path is required, but that is usually determined through an advanced degree rather than a bachelor degree. A bachelor degree is just proof that you can dedicate yourself to a long-term goal and learn how to think critically (at least it used to be). Any degree is proof of that.

I don't think you've phrased it the right way albeit (I think) I agree with you.

It's not that a degree is "irrelevant" based on the subject matter, but more accurate to put it like "loosely connected to" a job based on subject matter.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I have to admit I'd view it negatively as well. My preconceived notion about somebody with a gender studies degree is they'd be yappy, annoying, argumentative and always focussing on bs instead of just getting the job done. Like, it feels like they'd be a job to employ instead of an asset as an employee.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Oh, and humourless and no fun.

So like CP's brigade?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If real world application is the delineation point for majors, say goodbye to medieval studies, religious studies, and film studies.

Those fields all welcome skepticism and diversity of outlook. Challenging the currently dominant paradigm in medieval history or film studies won’t bring down censure on you.

That’s not the case with gender studies programs, which are essentially activism training. The problem and the goal are prescribed. Scholarship is around reinforcing its established ideology. I can’t think of another field where that’s the case, except maybe some newly-minted sociology programs.

[GirlySports]

There's alot of do need to knows in schools and degrees.

Do we need to know the exact to the minute details of the Battle of Arnhem and who screwed up??
Do we need to know how to derive and integrate numbers?
Do we need to know who Hamlet's BFF is?

[devo22]

ain't nobody ever suffered from a bit of general knowledge.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those fields all welcome skepticism and diversity of outlook. Challenging the currently dominant paradigm in medieval history or film studies won’t bring down censure on you.

That’s not the case with gender studies programs, which are essentially activism training. The problem and the goal are prescribed. Scholarship is around reinforcing its established ideology. I can’t think of another field where that’s the case, except maybe some newly-minted sociology programs.

You're really just saying "I have no idea what gender studies actually are but I believe the conservative talking points about them" in different words.

It's actually quite funny because it's so incredibly counter-factual. If there's one place in the university where people are least likely to just accept pre-prescribed views about the topics at hand, and where extremely different narratives about those topics are taught and accepted side by side, or fought over, it's effin' gender studies

You are much more likely to run into extemely paradigmatic (and less fact-oriented) teaching in more consevative leaning fields like economics for example.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Those fields all welcome skepticism and diversity of outlook. Challenging the currently dominant paradigm in medieval history or film studies won’t bring down censure on you.

That’s not the case with gender studies programs, which are essentially activism training. The problem and the goal are prescribed. Scholarship is around reinforcing its established ideology. I can’t think of another field where that’s the case, except maybe some newly-minted sociology programs.

And I'm guessing you have recent, relevant experience that you're basing this on, and certainly not some right-wing nonsense you read somewhere?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Itse

You're really just saying "I have no idea what gender studies actually are but I believe the conservative talking points about them" in different words.

It's actually quite funny because it's so incredibly counter-factual. If there's one place in the university where people are least likely to just accept pre-prescribed views about the topics at hand, and where extremely different narratives about those topics are taught and accepted side by side, or fought over, it's effin' gender studies

You are much more likely to run into extemely paradigmatic (and less fact-oriented) teaching in more consevative leaning fields like economics for example.

I wouldn't worry too much about Cliff. He's someone who thought Jordan Peterson was on the cutting edge of academia at one point.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I wouldn't worry too much about Cliff. He's someone who thought Jordan Peterson was on the cutting edge of academia at one point.

And that the Nazi’s did some good things. That’s my favourite Cliff-ism.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Matata

I searched "gender studies" on indeed, none of the results were strongly related to it and none of the job descriptions i looked at stated that having a gender studies degree was an asset. If I saw it on a resume, as an employer, i would consider it a negative.

Almost every major company in the fortune 500 and most governments (even our UCP one, who just hired someone for this role) have titles or departments oriented towards "Diversity and Inclusion". These people are likely to have gender studies on their resumes or within their backgrounds.

My favourite part about this type of response or comment is it just shows how useless and unimportant the person saying it is. We probably already knew that about ol' tin-tata here, but seriously, these are people who know NOTHING about how most of the world works.

[nfotiu]

I'm an IT manager, and have recently hired someone with a pschycology degree, and someone with an electrical engineering degree. Both had solid IT job experience and both are working out very well. A computer science degree is a definite assett, but outside of that, any degree would be a positive, and work experience and interview are much more important deciding factors.

Hiring someone directly out of college would be a different story though, and much more weight would be given to a relevant degree.

Taking something that aligns with your interests and passions in University, and then supplementing it with training or associate degree that provides more relevant job skills is a pretty normal path for a lot of professional people I know.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And that the Nazi’s did some good things. That’s my favourite Cliff-ism.

I know it’s your favourite. You’ve kept it in your pocket and brought it up, what, seven times now? Gotta score those CP dunk points.

And for anyone interested in the context, I was speculating that a proposed curriculum on the subject of WW2 might want to explain what it was about the Nazis that appealed to Germans rather than go with the facile narrative that they were mesmerized by an evil monster.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Matata

I searched "gender studies" on indeed, none of the results were strongly related to it and none of the job descriptions i looked at stated that having a gender studies degree was an asset. If I saw it on a resume, as an employer, i would consider it a negative.

LOL.. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering (wireless and signal processing) and I work in retail.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I know it’s your favourite. You’ve kept it in your pocket and brought it up, what, seven times now? Gotta score those CP dunk points.

And for anyone interested in the context, I was speculating that a proposed curriculum on the subject of WW2 might want to explain what it was about the Nazis that appealed to Germans rather than go with the facile narrative that they were mesmerized by an evil monster.

In defence of a curriculum review that very clearly suggested that teaching the negative things Nazis did should be balanced with teaching the positive things Nazis did. You know, if context is important.

I’ve also enjoyed your vision of CP as speaking to an audience that is awarding points, to be fair. It must make it feel so much more important. A true arena of the minds!

[Blaster86]

+1 Point to Pepsifree
-147 points to CliffFletcher for inexplicably thinking you need to teach about good things Nazis did.

[White Out 403]

Isn't Cliff just trying to make the point that chalking up the Nazis as evil monsters is lazy and if there's real reasons why people can be suckered into this kind of #### and we should know about that so we can prevent it from having again?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Isn't Cliff just trying to make the point that chalking up the Nazis as evil monsters is lazy and if there's real reasons why people can be suckered into this kind of #### and we should know about that so we can prevent it from having again?

He was trying to make the case that the nazis did good things and that's why people fell for it.

What he's ignoring is that it wasn't the good things they did that got them in power. It was their blatant jingoism and giving the German people an enemy to blame for all their woes in the Jews and minorities. When people try and play the "The Nazis actually did some good" card in any fashion, it's usually a sign they don't understand why things happened the way they did or that they're not making the point in good faith which is usually a sign they're not a good person.

For the record, we're very aware of what the Nazis did to get in power and we literally just watched it happen again in 2016 with Trump. We are seeing it being attempted here in Canada. Knowing how populist fascists get in power doesn't stop it from happening. It had nothing to do with the "good they did" and everything to do with the hate fostered.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

He was trying to make the case that the nazis did good things and that's why people fell for it.

What he's ignoring is that it wasn't the good things they did that got them in power. It was their blatant jingoism and giving the German people an enemy to blame for all their woes in the Jews and minorities. When people try and play the "The Nazis actually did some good" card in any fashion, it's usually not a good sign that they're on the up-and-up with history and why things unfolded the way they did.

For the record, we're very aware of what the Nazis did to get in power and we literally just watched it happen again in 2016 with Trump. We are seeing it being attempted here in Canada. Knowing how populist fascists get in power doesn't stop it from happening. It had nothing to do with the "good they did" and everything to do with the hate fostered.

Hrmm, this seems a lot like like the play book of Danielle Smith. Blame Ottawa, get the populace riled up with a fire hose of lies, declare sovereignty. Maybe one day people will listen to the warnings. Probably not, but it sure wold be nice.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by kermitology

LOL.. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering (wireless and signal processing) and I work in retail.

That's.....awesome? What does it have to do with gender studies and it's horrible degree:job ratio?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Matata

That's.....awesome? What does it have to do with gender studies and it's horrible degree:job ratio?

The degree someone has is irrelevant to their career options.

We had a member of our team who was a retired model and had her masters in economics.

She was working in IT.

I started my career in GNSS and Airborne imaging and I've now been in retail for a decade.