Degrees vs Experience vs Street Smarts

[sargeant]

As you have asked me the questions and because it is of topic I will answer it with a new thread. It will probably cause a firestorm but you never know maybe some intelligent debate
First point to get out of the way is the point you make that degree holders work hard to get them .Question for you do you think all people without degrees are lazy brain switched off people sitting on their arses doing nothing for 3or4 years, because that is what you are implying. My view is they are gaining experience (the dirty word so looked down on by the educated)
I have an OXFORD education (that’s where I come from) and between 1963 and 1969 when I would have been at university had I had the chance (which I did not) all I saw the students do were peace marches anti nuclear protests put flowers in their hair smoke dope and go to rock concerts and they still came out with degrees while I was working my arse of in the army gaining the dirty word and learning observation analysis and judgment. Oh and paying Tax to pay for the degrees some now wave in my face.
You ask the question maybe we should hand it over to the military is that a snide way of implying that all soldiers are thick if it is you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of .
Second question do you think that not having a degree makes a person unintelligent or do you imply that having one makes the holder more intelligent
My view is simple (and I have stated so on a few occasions on this forum) education does not even vaguely mean intelligence some of the most unintelligent people I have ever met in my life are graduates who stopped learning because they think they are intelligent because they have a degree and it says so. The guy that owns his own low cost airline with a Greek name was a baggage handler at Gatwick how the hell did he do that without a degree
Let me enlighten you everything I own every penny I have and receive is from my own sweat saving investment and my intelligence I have never had anyone die and leave me a single satang or razoo I have never in my life been given any sums of money and have never won any money either, I have achieved it standing full square on my own 2 feet without assistance, for a working class background with a limited time at school I consider that to be a grand achievement. I have studied and read and taught myself constantly since I left school and consider myself to be street smart and experienced and I will take those qualifications over a scroll every single time.
I retired at the grand old age of 50 and have sat on my bum here in Thailand for 11 years and never worked a day guess what I bet you cannot find a degree holder that has achieved that without a bequest or being given or winning a bunch of cash. What happened to the higher paid employment and the higher intelligent investments made by these degree holding higher intelligences. We should if what you imply is correct be up to our tits in them
My problem is not with degrees per say or even the large majority that hold them its those that wave them expecting everyone to cow tow to there supposed (self aggrandizement) higher intelligence (in my experience the intelligent ones don’t wave them they don’t have to they know that its constant learning and experience that makes them intelligent and their intelligence is stand alone)
I do have a problem with psychiatrists, psychologists, economist, journalist, sociologists, political and other degrees of that ilk because they are not science they cannot be measured they cannot be proved by experiment and that to me means it is educated guess work at best. Should you ask? a degree in Origami probably has more going for it in my jaundiced view at least I can see it and touch it
Which is why the world is in recession? It is also why so many criminals are released to commit crime again and again
It wasn’t the military that screwed any of that up now was it After all soldiers just see it kill it or blow it up simpletons really.

[lindosfan1]

great san
I bow to your post. Perfectly put.

[Spitfire]

In my opinion, agree with a lot of what Sarge said, a degree is a piece of paper that says you can be instructed/taught a subject to a certain point, depending on what level the degree happens to be, not much else.

This does not actually mean too much really when you think about it as many of the most successful businessmen/people etc have no qualifications at all.

Should you wish to become an instructor/teacher/doctor(profession of this nature) in that particular field, then it is different. Many never actually use their degrees and they are simply something that may 'open some doors'.

I don't teach in the subject field that I got mine in, so it could be argued that it is worthless and the time could have been more productively spent, maybe.

In the west it(a degree) doesn't take on the importance that it does here in LOS. Here they are completely consumed by the idea.

Never really understood why you need a degree in Thai/social studies to be a receptionist at a hotel etc. Many times I have heard the locals describe it as "No degree no hope", which is sad, and to be honest, irritates me a lot.

[hhfarang]

Well said Sarge. I, like you have a degree in the University of the World. I didn't earn it by sitting in a classroom and taking tests, but by traveling, observing, questioning, and most importantly, listening. That last one is the one that few people do. A lot of folks are so busy talking that they never bother to listen to what everyone else has to say.

I was lucky enough to graduate high school at a time in the computer industry that was unique. The hardware was being invented and upgraded rapidly and there were very few Universities that were teaching programming. The ones that were were only teaching it for scientific use (this was the mid to late '60s). Businesses were just starting to figure out there were other uses for them but there weren't very many people who spoke computer. I went to a three month full time technical school and learned three computer programming languages; assembly, cobol, and report generator, on an old IBM 360 model 20 (probably very few of you know what that was). That got my foot in the door and by the age of nineteen I had a good paying job and my title was "computer software engineer" of all things, and me with no engineering degree!

Anyway, that served me well in the IT business for 36 years and I retired and moved here at 55. During my working years I not only worked abroad in Germany and Saudi Arabia, but I used all of my vacation time to travel abroad (approximately two trips a year). I got a better education during those travels than a sheepskin would have ever given me.

Plus, when I was nineteen I had my own apartment, car and job with spending money while most of the people I went to high school with were still living with their parents or in a dorm slogging their way through a four to six year extended formal education. I think I had the best deal!

[Wanderlust]

sarge,
I assume you are replying to the questions I asked and comments I made on the 'GBP vs THB' thread, which I will copy here for the benefit of other readers who may be wondering what you are on about!

I have to ask something though - in your posting history you have condemned 'ologists and iatrists', as well as economists in this thread, so can you explain why you have such a low opinion of people who studied hard and achieved their respective qualifications? And does this opinion extend to all professionally qualified people? Or should we all have joined the forces do you think?

and

(in response to a long post by Guess)

where you get your above statements is beyond me

But it should answer WL question in full

Err...no, sarge it does not. Guess is but one individual, and I don't have a clue what professional qualifications he has. And if your above statement means that you judge a whole profession on one individual then I'm afraid your opinion is completely worthless. I hate to think what i would say about the people in the armed forces if i took just one of them as representing what they are all like!

Not once do my questions or comments say or even infer that people who have degrees are better (or worse) than those who do not, unlike yourself and other posters in this thread; I just wondered why you had such a downer on people who had professional qualifications, and the only reasons I can detect from your post on this thread seems to be that some of these people make a point of flaunting their education, and that you don't believe that certain professions have any value because the results aren't tangible. I made a reference to the armed forces as it seems to me that it is the only profession you believe is worthwhile; while that profession is a necessary evil and does give the people who join up some valuable education and experience, it is not the only one to do so. Your comments almost come across as envy but I'm pretty sure that is not it.

None of us will meet more than a handful of the qualified people you are talking about in our lifetime, and most often it will be when you need them to help you or a loved one. Just because you have an opinion of students shaped by the hippy movement does not give you the right to deride the students and thousands of hard working people in the professions since that you feel are worthless ( I can assure you that most of them were Law students ). The very nature of their work means you cannot easily measure 'results' but I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who owe as much a debt of gratitude to them as to any of the people in the armed forces.

Don't forget that many doctors, for example, will switch to other specialities during their careers - maybe a brain or heart surgeon will become an ologist or iatrist because they lose their dexterity or eyesight, or it might happen the other way as well. Taking another from your list, a journalist might save lives by reporting on something quickly and accurately, warning of potential danger or getting crucial information out while risking their own life. The education people receive and achieve allows them more options, but that does not mean they are better than others who see it kill it or blow it up, just different.

I think the phrase is that you should walk a mile in another man's shoes so that you better understand them, but it seems to me that you have no desire to walk that mile.

[sargeant]

( I can assure you that most of them were Law students ). Can I INFER from that that you have a Law degree. After our debate on capital punishment I was sure that was the case but had no proof.
Lets see what they teach at law school then
1. If one cannot attack the witnesses evidence by fact or substance Attack the witnesses credibility
2. Plant in the Judge or Jurys mind that the witness is unreliable

Your comments almost come across as envy but I'm pretty sure that is not it.
.Let us examine this quote from your post
1. If you are pretty sure it is not envy why say it.
2. Planting the doubt in readers/jury minds perchance
3. attacking my credibility maybe

it seems to me that it is the only profession you believe is worthwhile
1. Is this an attack on my intelligence
2. attacking my credibility again maybe


while that profession is a necessary EVIL (my capitals) your words and it Speaks volumes as to your attitude and the implications I drew from your original question and quite a few other posts and which I stand by

that some of these people make a point of flaunting their education,.
Yes exactly what I have a problem with but glossed over and ignored in your post which then proceeds to paint me as anti all university education
not very intelligent IMHO. Another attack on my credibility.

I do not as you say have a downer on education far from it I have a downer on those fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of it making stupid unintelligent presumptions that those without it are thick. Some of us were never given even the chance of a university education (so resentment may be a word you could have used instead of envy) should you be interested to ask why I will be happy to explain as it happened probably before you were born

Not once do my questions or comments say or even infer that people who have degrees are better (or worse) than those who do not, unlike yourself and other posters in this thread;

Unlike yourself being the operative words Again another incorrect statement I have never said anyone with a degree is stupid (except one individual and I am sorry but he is the top of the christmas tree in my book) I have said and I will reiterate it those that wave their degrees prove themselves to be not as intelligent as they think they are, those that don’t, do not need to, they let their intelligence speak for itself in actions and conversation. I have said that people without degrees can and are on many occasions as and equal in intelligence as those with degrees.
It seems to me people with degrees don’t like the idea that those without can be and are as intelligent as they are.

Finally I can wholeheartedly agree that education is a good thing but my rider to that is that experience and intelligence have equal worth, it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an individual with or without a degree is intelligent not a piece of paper

I don’t care if the guy has a degree in architecture is a fully qualified clerk of works and has an economics degree and a degree in law if he hasn’t got any experience he ain’t going to build my house full stop period

With that I rest my case M,Lud but reserve the right to come back in cross examination

[lomuamart]

I've got a Law Degree and Law Society Final Exams, but never practiced.
I could get involved in this debate, but........

[Wanderlust]

( I can assure you that most of them were Law students ). Can I INFER from that that you have a Law degree. After our debate on capital punishment I was sure that was the case but had no proof.
Lets see what they teach at law school then
1. If one cannot attack the witnesses evidence by fact or substance Attack the witnesses credibility
2. Plant in the Judge or Jurys mind that the witness is unreliable

Your comments almost come across as envy but I'm pretty sure that is not it.
.Let us examine this quote from your post
1. If you are pretty sure it is not envy why say it.
2. Planting the doubt in readers/jury minds perchance
3. attacking my credibility maybe

it seems to me that it is the only profession you believe is worthwhile
1. Is this an attack on my intelligence
2. attacking my credibility again maybe

sarge,
It was a JOKE, hence the smiley afterwards. I never studied Law but I came across a lot of Law students, and the joke is that they probably had the most numbers of hours in lectures or seminars or burying their heads in books and writing essays; however when they had some spare time they partied damn hard! So your thoughts about me using any courtroom tactics in my post are completely off the mark.

I couldn't quite think of the right word to describe how your feelings came across when I was writing that post, but you have given it to me (thank you), so I was right in saying it wasn't envy - it is resentment.

I have not been attacking or even judging your intelligence, just questioning your position because I couldn't understand it - you could say that I am trying to walk the mile in your shoes.

while that profession is a necessary EVIL (my capitals) your words and it Speaks volumes as to your attitude and the implications I drew from your original question and quite a few other posts and which I stand by

As I have said above I am just trying to understand your position. The phrase 'necessary evil' is commonly used to describe something which we would rather not have to have, and is in no way any criticism of the good men and women who fight for their countries. I make reference to the armed forces a lot because both your name on here and your experience and opinion is dominated by your time spent there - nothing wrong in that but it sometimes, i believe, blinds you to the validity of others points of view. I think the very implications you have (incorrectly) drawn supports my thinking.

that some of these people make a point of flaunting their education,.
Yes exactly what I have a problem with but glossed over and ignored in your post which then proceeds to paint me as anti all university education
not very intelligent IMHO. Another attack on my credibility.

I didn't gloss over it, but the impression given by your posts is that pretty much all the people in the professions named flaunt their education, and I was clarifying that you could only mean that some of them do. The general tone of your posts do come across to me as anti-university education, yes.

I do not as you say have a downer on education far from it I have a downer on those fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of it making stupid unintelligent presumptions that those without it are thick. Some of us were never given even the chance of a university education (so resentment may be a word you could have used instead of envy) should you be interested to ask why I will be happy to explain as it happened probably before you were born

I'm glad to hear that you don't have a downer on education, and I appreciate the fact that many people did and do not have the chance of further formal education due to any number of reasons. My Mum could have gone on to further education but Hitler decided to bomb London when she was 16 just as she was taking crucial exams (in underground shelters), and after the war the chance was no longer there. If you want to explain your personal circumstances it is up to you, and it will certainly help give a greater understanding of your views.

Not once do my questions or comments say or even infer that people who have degrees are better (or worse) than those who do not, unlike yourself and other posters in this thread;

Unlike yourself being the operative words Again another incorrect statement I have never said anyone with a degree is stupid (except one individual and I am sorry but he is the top of the christmas tree in my book) I have said and I will reiterate it those that wave their degrees prove themselves to be not as intelligent as they think they are, those that don’t, do not need to, they let their intelligence speak for itself in actions and conversation. I have said that people without degrees can and are on many occasions as and equal in intelligence as those with degrees.
It seems to me people with degrees don’t like the idea that those without can be and are as intelligent as they are.

I am not going to trawl through your posts on this board, but the overwhelming impression i have always been left with after reading your views on 'iatrists etc is that you think you are better than them, smarter than them and more intelligent than them. If that is not how you intend your views to come across and rather as you have laid out above, then maybe you should amend your language from what you have written in the past. I completely agree with you that formal qualifications do not prove that someone is more intelligent, smarter or whatever, but the world we live in tends to judge otherwise in terms of jobs or attitude, particularly when dealing with people in the upper echelons of companies, government or similar organisations. This pecking order exists in all walks of life, including the armed forces - that's just the way it is. Your last comment in this section is just tripe in my opinion, but I'm sure there are some people who are like that, and again you generalise your comment to everyone with degrees rather than just some. As I have said before, if you are going to base an opinion of a group on just one or two people, that opinion is worthless.

Finally I can wholeheartedly agree that education is a good thing but my rider to that is that experience and intelligence have equal worth, it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an individual with or without a degree is intelligent not a piece of paper

I don’t care if the guy has a degree in architecture is a fully qualified clerk of works and has an economics degree and a degree in law if he hasn’t got any experience he ain’t going to build my house full stop period

With that I rest my case M,Lud but reserve the right to come back in cross examination

I'm glad you have cleared up your views on education for me. And again i completely agree that all the qualifications in the world mean nothing without practical experience or the intelligence to go with it; I firmly believe that all university courses should include a placement in work for part of it, whether just as an observer or hands on, depending on the work - maybe they do now but they didn't when I was educated. I would actually place experience - in work, travel, culture etc - as a far more important attribute than education, but in employment it becomes a vicious circle - kid leaves education to find work but can't get a job because of no experience - lower their sights and try to get manual work but are told they are over qualified and that they would leave as soon as something better comes along so don't get the job. I'm not saying this is always the case but it is quite common. Very often they will go back into the education system if they are able.

One final point, not about the subject matter, but on how you perceive my posts; you take them as being personal attacks whereas I am trying to understand your point of view. I don't perceive any attempt on your part to try and understand mine. I feel I have now walked more than a mile trying to be in your shoes and I've got blisters (damn army boots) so I'm going to take them off now, alright?

[sargeant]

but in employment it becomes a vicious circle - kid leaves education to find work but can't get a job because of no experience - lower their sights and try to get manual work but are told they are over qualified and that they would leave as soon as something better comes along so don't get the job.

I will deal with this post first because i agree it is a problem and come back to why iatrists etc in my next post

WL I could not agree more it is a vicious circle for some and I took part in a 2 hour quite heated debate with Managers union reps and personnel staff when at BA on this very subject.
Management wanted to employ them and the Unions were dead set against on the grounds you state that they would leave as soon as something better comes along plus why should they the degree holders come and take the better paid manual jobs. I said nothing at this meeting which my Manager affectionately known as “Pig in a Suit” commented sarcastically on to which I said I can see both sides and cannot think of a compromise. Let me reiterate this meeting was to say the least heated.
What made me laugh was when we were in the transport back to my office the Union Rep said and I quote “Not very bright these students are they if they want a manual job DON’T tell the interviewer you got a degree:”
WL let me reiterate i could not agree with you more its a problem but i have to give the Union rep his due it was a simple solution

[sargeant]

I am only going to nit pick on 2 points
1. My statement that it MAY be resentment was changed by you to IT IS resentment you must wear my shoes better than me or you are an iatrist/ ologist
2. 'iatrists etc is that you think you are better than them, smarter than them and more intelligent than them The problem with that statement is I don’t say I am more intelligent than them what I say is they are not as intelligent as they think they are.

Iatrists and Ologists
In 1958 (51 years ago)I was 10 years old and my teacher gave us a talk and a letter to take home it explained that in the September I would be sitting my 11 plus exam pass= grammer school fail secondary modern. My father (a great man) impressed on me and I was made to study an hour every evening cramming for these exams.
In June or July it was announced that the 11 plus exams were now scrapped and grammer school entrance would be done by selection. Who made this wondrous decision and why you may ask well it was Iatrists Ologists and politically motivated teachers that’s who made the decision. Why? it was quote after extensive research , decided that a child failing the 11 plus exam would feel a failure and thus be scarred.
I was about 15th in the TOP class of 30 and 20/25 kids from my primary school would go to grammer school.
I never got selected however 2 kids in the second class did I wonder if that was because their parents were teachers in other schools just in case you are wondering the selection process was a farce it had absolutely nothing to do with ability at all It was as bad and corrupt as it is here in LOS
Grammer school kids were streamed and class numbers were limited and all the best and state of the art teaching aids all available
I went to secondary modern My class was excellent training for a Liverpool supporter it was like trying to learn physics stood in the Kop at Anfield. Lessons were repeated until the slower learners got it another words in 5 years I probably got 2 years of teaching I was bored shitless I skipped school and got into trouble with the law. I was sent for Iatric evaluation quote the finding "this boy is highly intelligent with a very active mind the schooling he is receiving is failing to give the challenges he needs"
Join the Army says the Judge and I am eternally grateful for that

Question how come the Iatrists did not think that rejection on class and social status would not affect a child but failing a test would ????
The fact that I can see the stupidity of those decisions does not make me more intelligent just more logical

My views on Iatrists/ ologists is based on fact and simple logic
maybe you can explain why not one but 4 iatrists/ologists who have all studied so hard at the same subject all achieved their degrees and worked for 10/15 years and so are not just qualified but experienced in that field
And yet in a court of law 2 i.e. 50% said Myra Hindly was as normal as you and someone else (I did not say me) and 2 i.e. the other 50% said she was the most dangerous mentally deranged human on this planet.
This is not a nuance or minor difference of opinion this is planets apart it is directly opposite from the same education system

I don’t know which 50% was correct what I do know is 50% were wrong hence to me Iatrists/ ologists are just guessing well I have to say I can do that but if I did you and others would be all over me like a rash and quite correctly so

[Farang]

Also sparch sargeant:

,,,snip,,,
I was sent for Iatric evaluation quote the finding "this boy is highly intelligent with a very active mind the schooling he is receiving is failing to give the challenges he needs"

,,,,,,,,snip ,,,,

to me Iatrists/ ologists are just guessing ,,,,snip,,,

Was this good guess or yet another miss?

[sargeant]

At that time it was probably a pre printed tear of form there were enough of us that got rejected but that was what was read to the judge and i dont put a lot of store in it. At least i got out of the suffocating system i was in and ended up in a system suited to me by luck certainly not my judgement
I have read and studied ever since based on sound advice from my Father "never stop learning because when you do thats when you die " I have done well and succeeded in 2 careers but not because of more in spite of iatrists and ologists

[hhfarang]

Sarge, as a follow on to my personal story (not that anyone cares )... I actually did start attending university night classes for a few years after starting my career with the idea that if I got an actual degree in business, I could ultimately go further.

I wasn't even political at the time, that is to say, I didn't even think about politics (could care less). After about three successful years of night classes I got an English Lit professor that was so radical liberal left (that's when I realized which side my political leanings drifted to) that I quit going.

I decided that some of the so called teachers there were just promoting their own agenda rather than trying to educate.

...so, not wanting to be brainwashed by these impostors, I quit , and grew up to be an avid FOX news fan!

[sargeant]

HH that doesnt surprise me and is why i have no time for iatrists or ologists most universityies are politically oriented and i dont care much which way. What i object to is as in my case they come up with phsycho babble to get there political objective achieved and then expect me to applaud.
I am sure some readers will put bitter resent envy together but at the time i couldnt give a rats i was 10/11 years old i had not for a single second considered uni or colledge and had no idea how important this was .All i knew was it was important for my father and that was good enough for me to study hard for nothing nana zero my card was already marked

But i was savvy enough to know how my fathers dreams and ambitions had been destroyed when the selection sorry non selection letter arrived.
I only found out later his dreams for me had been destroyed by faceless people with no idea except the left wing doctrine they had learnt in uni and hiding behind their degrees in iatry and ology

[Wanderlust]

sarge,
Ok, it may be resentment, but there was something there in your words so that will have to do.
As for your other nitpick, you don't say it but it is how you come across.

Your story about your experience at school is interesting, unfortunate, fortunate and puzzling. Interesting because it helps give a much better idea as to why you think the way you do; unfortunate because you were not able to fulfil your potential at school; fortunate because you found a career that you may not have gone into otherwise but that suited you; and puzzling, because when I was at school at the age of 10/11 (1972) they still had the 11 plus which was used to select children for either grammar or what were then comprehensive schools. We didn't know we were taking the 11 plus, but it was there nonetheless. The system in 1972 was not based on anything other than academic ability as far as I can tell. Having said that I was fully expecting (and in many ways hoping) to go to the school nearest to me, the comprehensive, but was shocked to discover that I had been 'selected' - the same terminology you notice which makes me think the system had not changed that much.

From a little research I have done on the internet it seems that the 11 plus and selection system did go hand in hand and was the same in 1958 and 1972, so i think your recollection, or what you were told at the time, is/was incorrect. I know Wikipedia is not completely accurate all the time, but it is normally fairly good on historical things - have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleven_plus_exam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System.

Farang has already picked up on the fact that the 'iatrist seemed to have their assessment of you as a teenager spot on, while the use of the Myra Hyndley trial to try and undermine their profession is astonishing; I haven't researched it at all, but I wouldn't mind betting that the two who said she was normal were prosecution experts, while the two who were saying she was not were defence experts, to support an insanity plea or something similar like diminished responsibility. They weren't guessing, they were doing what they were asked to do by the lawyers; still not very palatable but hardly something that you should judge the whole profession on.