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.