What academics are you referring to?

That irony.

My experience at Griffith University (usually lecturers and senior PhD students) and the few I've had to professionally deal with at work. Engineering academics. My experience is that they want certain information but often cannot understand the limitations of the drilling equipment that is available to get what they want. This is somewhat technical but a common issue is carrying out triaxial testing on samples recovered from a CPT rig deeper than 10m. A CPT rig is described as a machine that pushes a load cell fitted cone into the ground and measures resistance. The test apparatus requires a 50mm diameter sample. The CPT takes 30mm diameter samples below the 'pre-bore' depth which is usually 3-6m. Explaining this to academics over and over has been difficult. I understand the information they want, however, they have absolutely no idea how much of a stuff around it is to get it. It is the same thing with drilling on sloping ground. If its more than 10 degrees or so you're going to struggle. The drill rods bend and get jammed in the casing. Once again, try telling that to someone who deals in data.

It's just my experience. These are probably just isolated incidents. This stuff happens a lot with the general developer/builder clients as well. I guess I just expected more from academics who spend so much time studying our field.

See my above post. I guess that's what I mean by reality. Perhaps you could argue that it is unreasonable to expect people who have next to no (recent) field experience to understand the limitations of the equipment available in the industry. I don't profess to know everything about drill rigs myself.

In civil construction a PhD can pigeonhole you. Experience is key. Experience allows you to 'tweak' solutions to solve problems. The way I got that experience was to be dropped in the deep end where I had to think on my feet. It's terrifying. University didn't cover short term working platform design!

I think over-reliance on hard data is a slippery slope in some fields. An example is working platforms for things such as piling rigs and cranes on soft ground. It happens often when say Main Roads wants to build a new bridge over a river or something. The ability and time constraints would usually not allow someone in my position the time to obtain hard data from the likes of laboratory testing. Research and Peer Reviews will tell you that it will settle. Experience will tell you that there are always ways to control the settlement.

I'm only talking in the field I know and the experience I have. You can disagree all you like but I'd like to think that you need to have balance. Dealing in hard data can be misleading, especially is something like the ground.

?:?

If people think benels is ricey than you got rocks in your heads :lol:

So I'm Ricey now? Jesus.

Just finished my 2nd year of sports business and it's a nice feeling when you get to the final exam of the semester and realise the theory part of the exam is word for word the same as a practice exam your lecturer gave you the week before :lol:

This is how all exams should be!

It was open book as well, which again is how all exams should be, so there were a few audible laughs when everyone realised they already had the answers lol.

We had an exam for Sports Law last semester where we were given the 3 extended response questions the week before the exam because our lecturer thought that's how an open book exam should be.

Sounds like a decent lecturer.

I remember doing concrete structures as part of my engineering degree. We did square and rectangle beams all semester which was cool until the test came up and he gave us a triangle. Literally no one got it.

This thread is popular.

Their way to say tada fooled ya didnt i

Same lecturer started the semester off by telling us that the engineering industry had gone to shit and that we were babies with no real qualities or some shit like that.

He wrote his own text book, together with several basic mathematical errors. The irony.

When i was doing it all those years ago we had one who called us all shit cuntsm someone pipped up if we are shit cunts why are you :lol:

That's a load of shit... I once had an academic tell me that Australia's greatest ever achievement was the aboriginal use of fire :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ahh, gotta love those sample sizes of.....one!

:lol:

Fair. But in all honesty, whilst I love listening to academics talk about ideal worlds, things just don't always work that way (and that's coming from a Greens voter ;) )

No, it doesn't mean your parents are loaded. There are kids at private schools on scholarships. There are kids at expensive private schools whose parents slave away to send them there (and not in cushy jobs).

And then there are kids at schools which are only technically private schools. I refer to basic Catholic high schools which are, in terms of status, private schools but have appalling teaching standards, facilities, etc., and are no better than some of the very average state schools.

It's not like kids from these schools are from Toorak or Mosman or wherever. Without such schools, the state system would collapse as it would be flooded with students from these schools.

Lots of generalisations here.

I'm not suggesting that you can't do amazing things if you're from a state school background. What 433 is, I gather, referring to is the correlation between ambition and socio-economic background. This is correlation, not causation. But when one grows up among people who have illustrious careers, with people who are well-educated, etc., it doesn't seem like a huge jump to picture oneself doing the same thing. It doesn't mean everyone from this background is guaranteed success, but it helps. They do have a genuine advantage. For kids who grow up not knowing anybody who graduated from college, the idea of being an investment banker can seem about as plausible as walking on the moon. That's not to say these kids can't or don't end up as investment bankers, just that they have a bit of a disadvantage. I remember somebody, from a more working-class family, who married into a wealthier family (with more of a history of big careers, high education, etc.), telling me that one wants one's children to grow up surrounded by people for whom the notion of being successful is highly likely.

It becomes cultural. Irrespective of intelligence, work ethic and various other things, some kids grow up in a culture of high achievement (and often entitlement) and others do not. This does make a huge difference. Why do you reckon there are generations of every person in the family being some kind of professional in one family and then, in another, nobody has ever been to college? Precisely because of the culture that is created.

I'm not endorsing this. I don't like that it is this way. But you can see why people choose to send their kids to private schools. People just want the best for their kids.

This is incredibly ironic. Whose reality? That's actually incredibly condescending and no self-respecting academic would ever spout such crap.

I did a subject on the history of Ireland over the last 300 years. It was remarkable. I love other aspects of history, whether it's from especially 19th Century-early 20th Century. But this subject was amazing. The only subject I've ever done where the lecturer/tutor lived through it and was there. She had been in Northern Ireland during the 60s, 70s and 80s. She could tell us what it was like to be in Belfast when Bobby Sands went on his hunger strike. She described the clatter of dustbins being whacked against the sides of houses all throughout a city.

So she had the benefit of being "Joe public" and being involved in scholarship into the history of the place at the time.

Why do you think the programmes of many med schools in Australia involve clinical experience from about second year onwards? Because the students need to look at things in real life, rather than in some abstract manner. If it's too abstract, we'll produce some truly shit medical professionals.

My father was telling me of certain types of candidate he is loath to hire; PhD students who have never worked properly and cannot hold a conversation. Those people have all kinds of academic qualifications but, if, they cannot relate to other people, they're not going to survive outside of academia.

Most of my uncles are very well educated. Their careers are in medicine, teaching, business, law, psychology, etc. I can say, with the utmost faith, that (aside from the uncle who's a barrister) the uncle who is the most persuasive and most eloquent is the uncle who dropped out of university. That's not to say the others aren't as intelligent as he is, but they're probably not as persuasive, despite having great degrees and careers. The uncle who dropped out of university would annihilate the others in an argument. He's super quick, incredibly logical.

Edited by quickflick: 5/11/2015 09:52:13 PM

I do just want to jump in here and say a degree (even a PHD) and common sense or a grasp on reality aren't mutually exclusive.

It is possible to have both.



(Despite what Batfink will tell you.)

Not to pick on you or anything you [size=1]low[/size] kiwi [size=1]mongrel[/size] but don't you see when you were arguing with that foreman over that vertical cut he put in YOU were the academic that time (and ergo the bloke with no real world experience and book knowledge only) and he was the bloke with the real world experience?

Very good point. I don't want to misrepresent my father's views/stance. I don't think he'd automatically never hire somebody with a PhD.

If somebody had a PhD, had worked all their way through university, had done internships, had travelled, had perspective and could relate to other people, I gather he'd look more favourably on that.

The issue is when you get people who've done nothing but academia and cannot relate to others.

If you wish to study (or need to in order to become an engineer or whatever), it just needs to be balanced alongside real-life experience.

Being educated/intelligent and having perspective is a great recipe.

No he was trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Short term stability assessments are money for jam until something goes wrong and then the lawyers come knocking. I'm sure you've seen such reports. One paragraph saying it's ok and a page of disclaimers.

Our PI insurance is already ridiculously high, that's why we use factors of safety of 3 mate ;)

I'm not arguing whether you were right or wrong but in his eyes, and on that day, you were the uppitty smart arse "academic" with all that book learnin' and no real world experience.






Edited by munrubenmuz: 6/11/2015 09:25:25 AM

Of course. I'm more against the somewhat common notion (from experience and my idiot neighbours) that the more you pay for a school, the better your kids will be at school. My neighbours sent their kids to Trinity Lutheran on the GC at a huge cost that they couldn't afford because they thought it would solve their sons behavioural problems.



Can't say I'm familiar with any of these. On the Glitter Strip all our religious/private schools are generally seen as a cut above the state schools.



I see what you are saying here but it does seem extreme. I'm sure you know a lot of people who are well off and who have kids that are absolute drop kicks because daddy pays for everything.




Good point.



I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess I feel that people seem to think that sending to their kids to a well reputed school guarantees they will be better students and that it will solve all their child's attention/learning difficulties.

Sydney University proposes a new train station

Scuffle in crazy town

:lol:

I learned very quickly (and harshly) not to be a smart-ass or throw books at tradesmen but I know what you're saying.

I have a hard time explaining to guys that they don't pay for a result, they pay for an assessment. Paying for any type of engineer does not guarantee a positive result.

And that's what they trade on. The perception that they're better.

My wife is a very experienced casual teacher and she could talk to you all day about the reality of "Catholic" or Private schools vs public schools.

That's even with some basic resources like smart boards etc that are available in public schools but are missing from private schools. Not too mention extension programs like "scipod" or "project 600" which the private schools don't even have.

Back in the day if you were a shit of a kid you didn't even get a chance to enroll because they'd ring up the previous school and get a character assessment. As she says these days they'll take anyone and disturbingly because little Johnny's parents are paying a fair whack they get away with more rubbish before they get booted out.

A quick story about behaviour and cashed up bogans.

My mate had his 3 kids in a private school in Mackay during the boom because he thought it'd be better for them to be at one of these schools. The problem was the town was full of cashed up bogan scum and they sent all of their kids to this school (who only cared about the cash) and it was a disaster for his kids from start to finish.

In the end he pulled them out and put them in the local public school and never looked back. (And this is a bloke who's head of the P &C so he's has a fair idea of what's going on.)



Edited by munrubenmuz: 6/11/2015 10:30:05 AM

Just tell them what I tell them.

"Mate I'm not telling you that it won't work what I am saying is that it doesn't comply. "

That usually shuts them up.