Liza May wrote:
>
> It seems to me that lately there seems to be a tacit agreement that
> legitimate science degrees imply that somehow the person is LESS
> qualified.  To me that's a little over-reaction, maybe.

Speaking only for myself, I must say that that is not how I feel.
I am more interested in the attitudes people take towards those with-
out degrees or those with degrees they don't consider "legitimate"
than the attitudes people take towards those who hold degrees from
more "legitimate" sources.

> Achieving an academic degree DOES in fact, say that the person at
> least was exposed to some information, and most likely learned some
> things about attempting to be unbiased in research, and has also
> thought about ethics. There are many _ethical_ issues which one is
> forced to face head-on, and make tough decisions about, and figure
> out one's values, which many people not in the sciences don't even
> know about, or don't ever have to face.

Well... Perhaps that's part of the cirriculum at some universities,
but all I can say is that I went through quite a bit to get my degree,
and ethical issues were not something that the faculty was at all
interested in getting us to face.  For example, we often had animal
rights people protesting outside our labs, and the attitude of the
profs was "If you're interested in ethics, you don't belong here.
You belong out there with them."  Sad, but true.  Also, there is no
guarantee that because the information someone has received came
from a highly respected source, it is the truth.

> In my opinion an academic degree also says something about a
> person's stick-to-it-iveness when it comes to the gruelingly awful
> demands of achieving an academic degree. It takes INCREDIBLE grit
> and determination to put in the years of solitary grinding away, to
> go deeply into debt, and put in endless hours of unpaid research,
> the sheer exhaustion, the unjust politics, and all that is required
> to get that degree.

Sure, but so what?

> I've personally known a lifetime of scientists, internationally. And
> I can say that almost always, when it comes to scientists, all those
> years of "sacrifice" in school are viewed as COMPLETELY worth it, if
> it allows one to continue to be able to follow one's heart, and
> PASSION, of wondering and asking about the universe. Most of the
> scientists I know, when it comes down to it, are just like this.
> They are just, simply, AWESOMEIFIED by the awesomeness of life, and
> LOVE the opportunity to devote their lives to figuring out stuff
> about it.

I grew up with scientists too.  They're people, and lots of people
have that passion.  *That* is my angle on this.  There are plenty of
folks who haven't had the opportunities you and I have had, but still
share such a love of learning.  If they can't afford a "legitimate"
education, if they have to get it at libraries and in their spare
time, that says nothing whatsoever about the quality of their know-
ledge.  It does say a lot about their passion, however, and I've
known precious few who hold "legitimate" degrees who could hold a
candle to the earnest self-educator in that department.

> I guess I'm not sure why academic degrees are getting snubbed a
> little here lately. Seems a little short-sighted to me!  :)

I think that if something is going on which you see as snubbing, it
is simply a reaction to the snobbery against the self-educated that
is often exhibited by those of us who hold "legitimate" degrees and
the worship of "experts" that is promoted so heavily these days.  To
make blanket statements against those who hold degrees isn't wise,
but neither is looking at the scientific world through rose-colored
glasses.

Carol