Talk:Academic elitism

Notice: Asmodeus and DrL are banned from editing this article.

The users specified have been indefinitely banned by the Arbitration committee from editing this article. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. Posted by Srikeit 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) for the Arbitration committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist.

I nearly nominated this for deletion as original research. Since it's flagged for cleanup please add citations and represent both points of view. If nothing improves this looks like a deletion candidate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Durova (talk • contribs) .

I removed the NPOV tag. Please list the points here of NPOV if you want to put the tag in. Thanks J. D. Redding (PS., how was this original research?)

Although I think academic elitism is a real phenomenon, I agree that this article is original research. It's also biased and some of the points are basically crazy, such as equating the phenomenon of disregarding research by non-lettered people with having advanced classes for students who are not challenged by mainstream classes. Most schools have special education classes for the less intelligent - is that simpleton elitism then? No of course not. Having classes at different levels has nothing to do with academic elitism, it has to do with providing an education that is relevant and useful to each child. Xj 03:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also think there is some POV here. The article is slanted toward the idea that a person's education should not be considered as an indicator of their reliability when speaking about their field of study. This seems silly to me, and I can't believe that's the last word on the subject, though I am certainly biased.

My POV is more the opposite: that everyone is, by default, totally closed-minded in every subject, thinking they know everything. Once they get an education in a subject, they begin to see how complex it is and how much brilliant work has been done, and finally they accept that they can be mistaken, and begin to consider things in that subject in an open-minded way for the first time.

I base this position solely on personal experience, and it constitutes unreliable, original, POV chatter, and does not belong in the article. I'm just saying I think it would be nice to see a dissenting viewpoint, like some "criticism of this idea" section or something, properly based on references and written by someone with more expertise in the subject than I (wow, in that very sentence was evidence of my disagreement with the article's basic premise).

This article also may be unclear, in that I might not be understanding some things in it correctly; if I am then its claims are even stranger. For example, it looks like it is saying that even [i]hiring someone based on education[/i] is considered elitism now? I sure hope I'm misreading that. Am I really considered by the authors to be equally competent at engineering as someone with no education in the subject? I don't mean to attack or flame that viewpoint, but that seems to violate common sense. And if it were true that an education does not increase the likelihood of someone being right about something, then wouldn't education be completely useless? Why have education if it has no effect on the educatee's intellectual abilities?

I don't see how it can be denied that an expert on a subject who has spent his entire life studying that subject and tortured himself in a modern, high-pressure university to cram as much experience into his brain as possible probably really is more reliable than some random dude just making it up as he goes along. I mean maybe you can claim that some subjects don't require as much expertise as others in order to make valuable contributions of some sort, but I cannot imagine how, for example, a non-scientist could contribute significantly to science other than on a few very easy-to-phrase problems. I don't know how you could believe that a non-scientist's experiments are valid when they have never performed any past research to establish a reputation for trustworthiness, particularly since there is such great incentive to create hoaxes.

I had always been under the impression that "elitism" meant confusing superiority in a certain ability with "general superiority" as a human being. The way I understood it, it really is true that some people have achieved greatness in some subjects, and admitting that is not elitism. Rather, elitism is when those people go on to claim that because they are better than most people at X, they must also be better at everything else, and more "worthy" overall. This article apparently denies that some people are better than other people at any things, or at least denies that such superiority is arrived at through education. It then says that elitism is the belief that someone can become more skilled at something through education, if I am understanding correctly. Again, I hope I'm misunderstanding. People who are more skilled at X should certainly be preferred when one is looking for someone to do X. I mean, come on. Xezlec 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a note ... it's a common knowledge article ... not to say that it needs a clean up ... and, this is interesting "AcademicElitism 17:41, 6 February 2001 JimboWales". Sincerely, J. D. Redding

Its claims are certainly not common knowledge, but are unsubstantiated assertions coming from a specific, radical point of view. Xj 03:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Academic elitism is an important and well-known problem, and it exists right here in Wikipedia (where "reputable academic journals" are sometimes preferred for verification over mass media sources, particularly by "academic elites" themselves). It isn't confined to the supposition that someone with a degree is automatically more knowledgable than one without; it underlies the widespread assumption that those with degrees are better-qualified for various kinds of employment, and should thus be preferred for higher-paying jobs. Consequently, as the cost of a university education continues to skyrocket, those who can't afford one are further penalized by vastly lower average salaries. Academic elitism thus hits them right where it counts, in the quality of their lives. Due to its heavy socio-economic impact, this problem is most certainly common knowledge among the general populace. Although the article could use a bit of shaping up, it does present both sides of the issue (in the form of "arguments for" and "arguments against"), and offers a decent list of references. Asmodeus 05:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as very balanced; for one thing, it never discusses the positive sides of not forcing students who can read and do basic math to sit through the same basic material that they already know.--Prosfilaes 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Response: It's not balanced now, because you have attempted to skew the argumentation by removing plausible, perfectly legitimate "arguments against" on the absurd grounds that they require citation, meanwhile leaving pejorative terms like "crank" and "idiot" in place under "arguments for". They don't require citation, unless you can show the policy or guideline which says specifically that they do. However, if you were to succeed in doing that, then all of the arguments would have to be eliminated, because arguments require balance. In any event, you claim to have academic credentials, and by tampering with arguments regarding the nature and validity of your own credentials, you are engaged in a clear violation of WP:COI. Please desist. Asmodeus 13:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, You've just accused me of making three "reverts". But on your own part, I count...three reverts! When you go to report me, be sure to report yourself. Better yet, stop violating WP:COI, and go edit something you're less emotionally involved with (and invested in). Thanks, Asmodeus 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of making three reverts, I've accused you of making four. See WP:3RR. Given that we had a somewhat heated argument on the subject, I would suspect you're at least as emotionally involved. And if you are who you have loudly refused to confirm or deny that you are, you have more invested in this article than I do.--Prosfilaes 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an absurd reading of WP:COI, which says "an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it", and would exclude one side almost completely.--Prosfilaes 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the guideline. "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Asmodeus 13:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

removed a line:

"One is often Intelligent before Academic, but sometimes the order is reversed. "

--Rj 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations for Arguments

An argument without a citation is original research. When articles start accumulating uncited arguments, they start accumulating rebuttals, and the whole thing starts turning into a debate. I have responded to many of the statements that Asmodeus wants to add to the article, in an argument we had elsewhere on Wikipedia; importing that debate here would bring in a lot of unpublished and non-notable arguments that would encourage yet more people to add more arguments. I've seen it elsewhere, and hope to stop it right here.--Prosfilaes 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, an argument presented as an argument is an argument, plain and simple, and requires only logical plausibility. (The fact is, you're unable to offer coherent rebuttals to any of these arguments, as has previously been established.) This article was stable for some time before you and one or two others, one of them a bogus account, began reverting precisely those arguments added by me. That's harassment. If those particular arguments need to be eliminated, then so do all of them (for and against), because they are all uncited. Do you understand? Asmodeus 14:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of WP:OR specifically includes arguments. I removed uncited arguments, like I would have from anyone; the long list of references at the bottom of the page gives me hope that cites can be found for the existing items on the page, but you've clearly stated that you had no cites for your arguments.--Prosfilaes 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to mean: "[OR] includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"

However, we also have:

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history."

The meaning of any particular guideline can be determined only with respect to original intent. In Wales' statement, I discern no reference to symmetrically enumerating possible rationales for a given balanced pair of positions regarding a non-scientific, non-historical phenomenon which clearly exists in the real world. Any citations for such arguments would merely devolve to the thoughts of somebody who wrote an article or book about his own arguments, and would lend no weight to the argument itself.

In choosing to revert precisely those arguments that I originally added, you are violating WP:HARASS. That is, you are exporting the argument you began with me about academia (at RfAr:Pseudoscience) to this article, obviously for purposes of retaliation. As I see it, you have two choices. (1) Let the arguments stand as they were before you began to revert them. (2) Eliminate all of the arguments (a move for which, again, WP:OR does not provide you with grounds).

Do you understand? Asmodeus 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I see a third: leave a highly referenced article alone, hoping someone will reference those arguments, while removing the explicitly unreferenced additions. Original intent does not give you permission to violate the explicit wording of policy.--Prosfilaes 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not a viable option. Specific citations have not been provided for any of the arguments, and if it is your intention to demand such citations, then all of the arguments must go...not just those originally added by somebody you've chosen to harass in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. On the other hand, if some of the arguments can wait to be referenced, then so can the ones to which you take such pointed exception. Again, either adhere to the policies you cite, or stop tampering with the article. Asmodeus 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I demand that there are citations for the arguments. There are for the ones on the page; they just haven't been culled out of the references. On the other hand, you don't have citations for yours. Please at least try being polite.--Prosfilaes 15:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Prove it, or stop tampering with the article. You have no other choice except acquiescing to the removal of all unreferenced arguments. Asmodeus 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Academic elitism is also an ideological belief that only those who attended the most elite or prestigious universities (such as Ivy League schools) are capable of obtaining the wealth and power of this nation.

I am sorry, what nation? Being US centric this is not acceptable and should be at least rephrased to fit the article. --Schlossberg 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A humble plan for a new Academic Elite (Aritcle)

This article is really terrible. For a reasonably important concept, it's completely bereft of citations, but boasts a massive number of external articles that it would appear no one can be bothered to read. The article is full of weasel words and is organizationally a shameful, shameful trainwreck.

To wit:

"Academic elitism will often be expressed within communities through declarations of "Otherness", that is, non-academics will be said to be 'not good as us'. Non-academics may be represented as a danger to quality in research, and their perceived lower standard of education can lead to them being considered as members of a lower social grouping."

What on earth is that? Otherness? Lower social grouping? No citations? I understand the accusations being leveled, and the historical struggle between entrenched academic elites and competent-but-uncertified individuals should certainly be examined, but.... how low have we sunk, that we're putting words, not even very smart or meaningful words, in the mouthes of vaguely defined (and apparently very rude) communities.

I would recommend basically blanking the page and starting over, using some of the sources already gathered to provide the page with a logical structure that contains only CITED information.

A chasm cannot be lept in two bounds; I think a single, iconoclastic, and fundamentally bold edit would at least put this article on the right track towards functionality. The people cry out for a hero. I'll see what can be arranged, but if the page still looks like hell by the tine you read this, by all means, act! Act before we're rightfully pilloried by the press and the general public! Detruncate (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- I was just browsing through the academic articles and this one is just terrible. I've marked the "Expression" section as unreferenced but it would be really a lot of work to have to dig out citations for each of these various opinionated propositions. Having marked this entire section as unreferenced (there's not a single cite in it), we should give it a month & see if people can support the individual propositions within the section; if not, then we should delete this section. The references list is helpful and I have minorly rewritten the intro to be a little clearer. That should be the stub once all the uncited weasel worded commentary is deleted (unless it's rewritten & sourced which would also be a fine outcome). --Lquilter (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

I have nominated this article to be deleted. The whole article is seemingly based on original research and there is very little substance to it. Also, I don't see why we need an article on this subject when we have a sub-section on the Elitism page that has more substance than this whole article. Jcrav2k6 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Causes

Ah ... I thought "causes" meant a list was wanted of the causes the academic elite tend to support - i.e. liberal ones. I'll rename the section "Ideology of the academic elite" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.13.28 (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)