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.