Academics are wonderful, humanitarian people! I know one.

Julian Cribb says Australia is one of the very few nations on earth where the word “academic” is a term of abuse. Any evidence for this assertion, Julian? Or is this another of those tedious mind games?

The fact that a politician can deride a Academic says more about the gall of the politician then anything else. Australian's don't like being told what to do or think that's why politician’s, reporters and academics are at the bottom or the trust pile.

Julian,

I have done some extensive study on Australia's culture and society; and as to why academics are viewed in such a way, I think fundamentally, the answer can be found if you look at our history as a whole.

Our convict roots have influenced a "rough-n-tumble", blokey, work-with-you-hands kind of society. For example, one of the reasons sport is so engrained in our culture is because it was the only form of recreation the early settlers had back then.

I’d doubt that the lower class people in Britain, who had to steal to feed themselves, had much in common with the academics of the time. This could very well be where the “lack of relevance” sentiment comes from.

If the Howard government charged avid cricket fans HSCS (Higher Sports Contributions) fees of $12,000 per season on top of gate admission fees, Ricky Ponting would become a PARIAH. Cricket would cease to exist.

Our Academics are nothing without their students as sports stars are nothing without their fans.

Government has an interest in perpetuating sports events. They are the OPIATE of the masses. They give us a sense of national and Liberal identity. They give us a vicarious sense of achievement that keeps most of us safely tucked in our beds at night rather than on the street protesting nugatory Dickensian workplace reforms, HECS fees and other effete fiscal policies whose success just secretly bludges on the commodity boom.

If academics shut up about political issues and pretended to support incumbent governments, they just might find that their student/fan base is relieved of HECS fees and they can get on with the job of being community superstars.

We could have Punters, the renowned Physics professor at UNSW or Gillies the back stop professor of Chemistry at SydU or Warnie the applied communications Professor at UTS.

Academic performances giving input into manufacturing, environment, computer science, nanophysics, fuel cells and even the arts would become nothing short of an arena spectacle with every student/fan dreaming desperately that they will become the next great professor.

Issues of stale academics, tenure and non performance will be a thing of the past as the student base will cheer for the big 'ton' publishing performances and howl down under achievers who can't get their balls up around the ears of their international opponents on a regular basis

Sports Stars V Academics continued ....

To this end, Australia would become the clever country de facto rather than de jure, which is sadly the current situation. We could even have an AIA (Australian Institute of Academia) where special diets and mental and physical exercise regimes were researched and implemented to further accentuate the prowess of our academics. They would not for example be allowed to work on sophisticated cyclotron resonance machines or publish final drafts of important research unless their pee was crystal clear before the event and they were wearing a sun hat and shades to protect them from the public glare.

In order to fast track new stars into the arena, in physics and chemistry for example, the AIA could set up a range of sophisticated spectrometers covering the whole spectrum of energy and matter.They could encourage community groups and individuals of all ages with raw talent and time to take turns investigating the secrets of everyting from fuel cell interactions to mobile phone manufacturing processes. The associated set up, maintenance and mentoring costs would be large but in comarison to future benefits this would appear trivial. At any rate it could be worthily carried by commodity export taxes.
Even trivial experiences, coupled with acumen on this kind of equipment could propel numerous hopefuls onto future stardom.

More important, PBL would find a profit motive to have regular tri series academic contests from among academic teams from the US, China, India, Germany, France, New Zealand and England.

I can't wait for Twenty20 academia. It will drive the fans WILD.

Mr. Man,

You could be right about the settlers, but lay of the convict bit. Only 3% of the Austalian population have any connection at all with convicts, and those of us in South Austalia have none whatsovever.

Julian,
You have to think about recent history and the claims that academics make for themselves. Certainly, when I was at university the place was riddled with citroen driving, chardonnay sipping, faux communists who were clearly hypocrites.
It is easy to see that many of these are still there.
The recent 'history wars' seem to have thoroughly established that many historians have told outright lies to support dubious theories and have gone entirely unchecked by 'peer review'. They still retain their positions and academic awards.
Educationalists also have a lot to answer for.
The public believes that the basic purpose of universities and therefore academics is the search for truth and the communication of the same.
Where academics have been so consistently and publicly hypocritical and dishonest over so long a period it is no surprise at all that they are now viewed with contempt.
It is unfortunate that those who still search for truth are tarred with the same brush, but if you wish to regain respect you must clean the Augean stables.
Throw the liars and hypocrites out of their positions.

Its one of those self fulfilling things. Politicians, especially the current Government keep on linking the words "academic" and "elite". Eventually people equate the two words. Even though the politicians represent and protect the real elites. For example, look at the denigration of the 40+ academics and ex-servicemen who criticised the invasion of Iraq. Cheap shot by De-Anne Kelley, (now demoted), as "Doddering Daiquiri Diplomats". The media picks it up and echoes it and the real message is submerged by the politicians noise. Yet these people have contributed far more to Australia than the likes of Kelley will ever do.

Australians are currently too apathetic and lazy to consider anything other than simplistic solutions. Hence anything which look under the surface of issues is too hard for them to spend time on, and is dismissed as 'academic'. Good example: Global Warming.

Everyone is off the mark.

Most academics are detached from society, full stop.

Whilst some make great contributions, some do not and find security in a meal ticket inside the university facade. In 2006 students are overinformed, and are critical often of those that fail to achieve outside the university walls. It is also the type of person who pursues academia, many of these people think they ARE joining the elite, as they may have looked up to other academics, thus placing themselves in segregation with the community.

Unfortunately, with research and university wages the way they are, would they be viewed in real terms as the elite in 2006? What measures elite? The most brilliant people are out there making a fist of things, not staying in east street at uni chasing the easy life.

Many Academics have not achieved in the real world (though many have achieved)and this does not help.

In summary:

>Academics view themselves as the elite, the population do not.
>Academics often pursue trivial matters just as much as important groundbreaking stuff
>Academics do not get paid as an 'elite' in most cases
>In this society, the cream students are scooped off the top by private entities, admitedly not the case though in the earlier days.
>Academics merely 'hung in there' and know nothing more than the university.
>Many academics are sheltered from the innovations of their industry.

I know i will be scathed for this, but this will also get heads nodding.

The popular image of the academic is someone whose knowledge is so totally remote from what the majority see as “real life”, as to be incomprehensible. It doesn't help that their qualifications are also barely understood by the populace at large.

Even more unfortunately, the academic most often visible to the public is the individual who is wheeled out in front of the cameras expressly in order to support a particular political line.

On the one hand we have “what is that guy talking about?” On the other, “I don't believe the politician, so I suspect the motives – and capability – of the academic.”

They also tend to be uni-dimensional (sorry!) when addressing an issue.

Take the example of urban traffic statistics recently aired on OLO. The calculation of “social costs” was put together by a team of academics ten years ago, and published as a warning to us all that traffic jams were “costing society” billions of dollars. Missing from their report was any consideration of the costs associated with a lack of traffic jams: if ten billion dollars is the cost of traffic, what would be the cost of “zero traffic”? Not even a passing reference.

It is the credibility gaps created by work like this that provides the basis for not just mistrust, but the beginnings of contempt. After all, few have the job security and relaxed lifestyle, plus pension, that tenure brings.

Dr Cribb refutes the suggestion that “Australian academics actually are pretty useless” with “in global research citation rates, prizes and the ranking of 17 Australian universities in the world’s top 200, not to mention many great research discoveries and advances.”

This is classic uni-dimensional thinking.

It may well be the case that we compare well with overseas peers in this single dimension. However, it is the dimension least likely to be seen by the public.

We are far more likely to recall the guy who warns us that we are all doomed if we don't accept industrial reforms, or whatever.

Perhaps it is at at this level that we compare poorly; credibility.

I would argue that to attribute the apparent split between academia and the general public to generalised class resentment towards higher education is too simple a generalisation. As is the assertion that there is a general resentment among those who 'work with their hands'. Certainly there will be a number of individuals of this opinion, whose numbers will surely be increased by the current trend towards exclusion on economic grounds.

I recently attended a family funeral and spent some time talking to family members of my grandfather’s generation, the men of which without exception worked the goldmines around Kalgoorlie-boulder. Far from any resentment or contempt for my fathers and my generation, all of which have attended uni, they saw our opportunity, and the opportunity of the state at large, for higher education as the major achievement of their years of hard work.

Ok, so we have all tended to hands on professions such as architecture, engineering and physics, rather than the 'academic' humanities, but the point remains.

in my own area of architecture, the purely 'academic' or theoretical professors were extremely important in that they connected our ideas on space, materials and social principals to a larger historical and theoretical narrative of architecture. However the theoretical should ever be viewed in isolation and the best Profs were those who combined both the theoretical and the practical, many of who ran their own practices in addition to teaching.

Realists points are to some extent correct, although I would hesitate at applying them to all faculties. We were, and remain in a constant battle for funds with the arts faculty, who have a lot of salaries to pay, and incidentally the highest teacher to student ratio.

A big problem is that a lot of the work academics do might be of great value, but it simply isn't of interest to your average person. For instance, do most people care what the protein structure of some virus is ? Probably not. It simply isn't newsworthy to the general public, no matter what its value. Hence most academics cannot resort to this defence when used as a political scapegoat for the government. The only defence is going overseas. In addition, even if was possible to generate publicity, it takes a lot of effort, which inevitably wastes time.

Leigh,

Before you start with the usual South Australian chant of "how wonderful we are because we didn't have any convict ancestors", I would suggest you recall Governor Macquarie's comment on Australia:

"There were two classes of people in the colony; those that had been transported, and those who ought to have been transported"

Going on about no convicts makes the crows about as wimpish as the kiwis.

Rainier

Cut the crap. You are one!

:-)

Leigh

You are dead right. You have more in common with the settlers of a very close neighbour. Many of them like the early South Australians came from North England. It accounts for the similar accents.

Regards

Leigh,

I was trying to avoid using the word convict. I know that most Australians have no convict roots (both my parents migrated here from Europe in the early 60's).

But I think you'd be surprised how much they've influenced the Australian identity we know today. For example, compare things such as
Tall Poppy Syndrome and our overall contempt for authority compared with the unquestioning respect and admiration Americans hold for the authorities and the elite in their society.

I wouldn't be too concerned with the term "convict". Not in the context I was using it in anyway. As far as I'm concerned it's something to be proud of. I'd rather convicts influence our culture than the pilgrims who wanted to create a theocracy out of the U.S.

It is interesting to note that scientists, especially those connected to institutions such as the CSIRO, have a much higher standing than "academics". Their efforts have an obvious end, and their contribution to the common good is rarely doubted (except in current times, especially after the CSIRO's criticism of drought relief) as they add to our nation's growth and prosperity. In my eyes, this is the winning of the day by logic.

Having recently attended an university enrolment day, I can assure you that the amount of hot gas being emitted by the Arts handbook and some of the lecturers would make an environmentalist faint... if they wern't many of the ones emitting them. Australians are largely a conservative and practical people, but also people who have been known to look to things of simple, profound beauty - even complex beauty, if it is well aimed. I refuse to see this as a poor thing, but rather as a necessary result of the conditions of living in our nation. The loss of this character, especially in cities, is lamentable. Academics would do well to use more commonsense if they wish to gain the affections of a down-to-earth people, taking the lead from the early CSIRO and its obvious service of the public. Academics often talk about their service of the public just by existing, whilst those we pedestalised are faceless - we pedestalised their institution - and earned their stripes through action.

The answer is not to change attitudes like Orwellian overlords, but to show the practicle good that comes from one's labours.

DFDX : I think you'll find the dislike extends to far further than arts courses -- science, technology, mathematics and so on also seem to included. Anything that the public doesn't understand, which is most things. FOr instance, you'll find people with high level theoretical physics knowledge are in great demand form many areas (like banking), but I don't see people saying good things about theoretical physiscs.

Also, if you can work out a way to show the practicle good of many areas in science and engineering, that would be impressive, given the extremely poor knowledge that most of the general public has about them. You'd obviously be a better entertainer than most scientists.

Here we go again, an anti-academic posting frenzy at OLO. It's a good question though, why DO Australians dislike academics so much? I mean, all the academics I've ever met are under-paid for their qualifications and experience, work long hours for a really obscure system of recognition and tenure and slow rates of promotion, are routinely bagged by their students for trivial things such as their attire no matter how hard they work for them and become less employable outside academia the longer they stay in the system. None of them do it because they want to be 'elite' because there is nothing elitist about it. Most of its pretty boring and a real slog and that's why few people end up doing it. Sure the 2-D proteanase-whatchimicallit cell is hardly exciting stuff to YOU but modern drugs that save lives are. And those drugs derive from the long, boring hours put in by academics.

I have this friend and he used to be a 2IC at a major corporation on some serious dollars. One day he just said enough of the bull and bluster, did his phd and now lectures for a living on one fifth the pay. And he's no longer elite because the university makes him pay his own way at cocktail parties and lunches rather than the old days of company-funded dinners. But he says he loves to teach undergraduates - and that's a common story in academia.

Many of the posts here look to answer the question posed by looking at the work and role of academics. Few address the perception of the general public. I have a pet theory, without the requisite research or stats.

I hark back to the time when Universities were regarded as centres of excellence and where research was a major activity. Universities were viewed as being staffed by our intelligentsia. In those times Academia was regarded as serving an important role, by all.
Those traditions altered dramatically when it was decided, by politicians, that everyone should have a University degree. The roles of Universities as did the roles of Academics changed significantly over a fairly short period of time. Universities became sausage factories churning out graduates in all sorts of very practical fields and Academics became viewed as teachers rather than as the intelligentsia. Universities lost their focus on the traditional Arts, Medicine, Engineering, Science, Law and Economics. They started to cater for a myriad of other strands that required much less intellectual ability.
University degrees, in the public perception, came to be highly valued for their career component. That detracted from and reduced the the once prime role of Academia within Universities.

I believe Universities have now come to be valued by the general public as essential Careers Institutions and naturally enough Academia does not sit at all in a favourable light within that concept.

My opinion anyway.

Interesting discussion going on here, but we seem to have a divergence of views on what exactly constitutes an "academic".

I'm not sure that we disapprove of academics who perform research, however esoteric their subject. They tend to be interesting and devoted people, even if they are often difficult to understand at parties. I recall being cornered by a tall, blonde astrophysicist once...

I'm also not convinced we object to those academics who selflessly channel their intellect and energies into teaching. Some of them can be a little... didactic at times, which can come across as aloof or just plain boring, but in the abstract I'm sure we appreciate what they do.

Possibly it is only the self-important know-it-all academic who appears on morning TV that we viscerally object to.

The one who lectures us on our obesity, or our inability to grasp the necessity to vaccinate our children, or who nags us about our health. Or the ones who drone on about global warming, or the pernicious effects of the internal combustion engine on our society, or the macro-economic effects of using our credit cards.

Or perhaps just those who whinge on about how unappreciated they are.

For those that think a group of academics is no substitute for commonsense:

When you or a close one suffer a horrible disease, do you want your doctor to prescribe you a cup of noodle soup and a warm blankey or something that actually treats your condition...

The fact is unless something horrible happens yourself or a close one, you never really understand what science has achieved or done for us over the years. Yes a lot of stuff may go no where, but the few things that make it through have a massive impact on the way we live. I have the greatest respect for the achievements of our scientists.... they do a great job and they do it with close to nothing!!

And maybe ask yourself the question, "Why does the USA want so many of foreign scientists?"... Are they bored? Are they stupid? or do they recognise the fact that investment is science pays off significantly in the long term.

I have often come across articles or forum opinions or heard actual academics say that they know BETTER than the uneducated so they should decide things what is best for us.
Most ordinary (non acedemics) do not like this and are therefore suspicious of academics.

I always wonder about why Australians have such low regard for academics, despite the incredible science and tools that have been researched for them. Academics themselves care for their profession and give their labours to the greater good of the world, and usually don't defend themselves from criticism in the public eye.

You walk out into a city street, and it is a scene made possible only by scientists and other academics. No politician, artist, economist, priest or common profession has contributed to collective human wellbeing and quality of life. Be it a painter or farmer, where the bloody hell do they think their new tools or paints come from? Or private automobiles they use to get around? Or economist, whose markets would not exist without tools provided by mathemeticians and cities built by science.

We could well ask whether academia fails to teach us true intellect, which is insight. Could speak as one with personal experience having to leave school very early in the Great Depression to help on the farm, but during WW2 was very surprised to find oneself beating college lads when picked for specialisation schools.

Many years later in retirement, got the learning bug again so was given a try at a university, the only course left at the time happened to be American history and politics. It was in the early 1970s, and as a usual battler with not much confidence at first among some confident looking younger students, was surprised when told by the American teacher that I had a natural insight As were a couple of other oldies told the same.

We might well ask what really is natural insight? Well, on the farm when we were young, we were told about plain natural commonsense, how to fix things temporarily, just to see the day out, but never to come home before sundown, even when driving a horse-team.

Working by yourself, there was a way of looking at world situations also, as we read the piece of newspaper bound around our lunches. Also by yourself with the little bit of intellect you had, you did look at things objectively, even feeling a thrill as you read about pincer movements, as tne Nazi panzer tanks raced over France, even at the same time you knew it was wrong to think like that.

There is an ancient saying that from deserts the prophets come, and it might be what some of the richer squatters meant when they said that before sending their sons to college they had to learn a bit of sense working as rouseabouts in station shearing sheds. Certainly can pull some cheeky kid down to size. But can make certain types ever more resentful also. So commonsense could be fashioned in other ways, some say from an understanding mother more than a father -but doubtless better from both sides.

George C - Bushbred