7 ms·

> The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit

• ModernMech 3y ago
  > As said in an earlier response, dangerous aggression comes in the form of the mentor-mentee power imbalance that uproots and fucks (again, in one case I personally knew of, literally) over students. Here are some sources - evidence in papers - to fit this definition [1,2,3,4,5], assuming mental distress counts as dangerous. You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. From one of your links: "increasing quantitative evidence that there is a mental health crisis in doctoral education". A mental health crisis in the upper ranks of the education system sounds high stakes with societal implications to me. > Yet very little of this trickles into broader societal impact - the stakes implied by the original quip. The institutional gatekeeping discussed in TFA is complicit in this lowering of stakes. That's a pretty tough position to argue, given that more than any other nation, people from around the world come to America for higher learning. We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, due to an executive action from POTUS. Discussions related to setting tuition are definitely part of vigorous political discourse in academic departments. I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know, but again, that doesn't mean they aren't happening. >Thanks for the ad hominem. I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia, suggesting academics are by and large petty and vicious, which seems to be largely based on your unstated personal experience in your PhD program. I think it's a bit late to preclude ad hominem arguments. > I had the most first- and only-author publications in my group, which was enough for me to bow out. It's great that you had publications, but that's pretty much the entry point for academia and earning a Ph.D., which is an entry-level rank in terms of academia generally. Making it in academia means finding success especially when the process is out of your locus of control. That's the whole thing. If that makes you uncomfortable or bitter, then you're not cut out to be an academic, and that's fine. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I'm saying that maybe actually you're the bitter one in all of this, not academics writ large.
  • psychomugs 3y ago
    > You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. The sources I provided regarding mental health are barely within the last decade. The original quote is from several decades ago. The stakes referred to refer to research output and outcomes, not researchers. Any politics or discussion on mental health is belated band-aiding that only concerns higher-ups when output is at stake. > We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students. > I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know... Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed. > I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia... "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.
    • ModernMech 3y ago
      I thought you were done with this discussion two posts ago. > The original quote is from several decades ago. Yet you are saying it is relevant today. I’m not concerned with the original quote; I’m concerned with your endorsement of it. > "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students. Is it now your argument that the US universities aren’t ranked at the top in the world? Either way, you’ve again argued the stakes are high, as student debt is a national, generational problem in the US. > Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed. Since you haven’t actually argued a consistent, coherent position, we are left comparing experience to explain your inconsistency. You have brought a lot of your personal baggage to the discussion, relating to your experience and that of your friends. Had you stuck to actual arguments instead of conclusory statements borne from your experience as a PhD student, maybe I would not be focused on your own credentials. But since you have only brought to bear your perspective as a PhD student in order to indict all of academia, your personal perspective is quite relevant. That you have no experience in academia beyond being a student is relevant when you’re making blanket statements as you are. > "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me. That’s not how I see it. This entire conversation you’ve made conclusory statements that people like me are vicious and bitter and petty. I don’t think I’ve said anything even close to as disparaging as that about you. If you are not bringing evidence and arguments to the discussion, how is your position not ad hominem? You are making statements about academics as people. Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?