Academic elitism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:35, 19 November 2006 editAsmodeus (talk \| contribs)836 edits "Arguments" are not facts and do not require citation; all they require is logical possibility; these arguments meet that criterion.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:39, 26 May 2021 edit undoDeryck Chan (talk \| contribs)Administrators22,733 edits rcat, also remove anchor to deleted sectionTags: Redirect target changed 2017 wikitext editor
(263 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
		⚫	#REDIRECT ]
	]s often face the charge of '''academic elitism''', sometimes called the ]. It is often used in parallel with ] institutions.
			{{rcat shell\|

			{{R from subtopic}}
	== Description ==
			{{R with possibilities}}

			}}
	'''Academic elitism''' suggests that in highly competitive academic environments only those individuals who have engaged in ] are deemed to have anything worthwhile to say, or do.
	It suggests that individuals who have not engaged in such scholarship are ]. It is possible, though, to value serious scholarship without being an academic elitist, of course. A lesser and broader form of this, ], exists in non-academic circles, so academic elitism might also be viewed as a further extreme of intellectual elitism, depending upon one's perspective.

	The tendency towards academic elitism is most pronounced in highly competitive and highly regarded environments. The ] of academia process is occasionally cited as suppressing dissent against “]” theories (part of an overall system of '']''). Some ] argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by ]s and to personal jealousy. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of ]s that contradict their own ]s, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or ]s. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with ]'s well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.

	The tendency towards academic elitism is noticeable in some ]s (particularly in developed countries). More attention and resources are afforded to students who are deemed most intelligent at an early age. This inequality tends to further separate the elite from the remainder of society. ] systems include branded institutions, gifted classes, and other elite student groups. Countries with extensive private school systems also exemplify this trend.

	=== Arguments against ===

	=== Arguments against ===

	*It is a closed, inherently exclusionary process
	*It encourages waste through the development of a winner-takes-all mentality
	*Selection processes are unfairly biased towards certain ethnic or cultural groups
	*Rising tuition, fees, and expenses effectively discriminate against those of limited means
	*It alienates those who are not of the elite and discourages them from participating in decision-making
	*The higher education system is income-oriented, and thus subject to political and corporate contamination
	*Academic institutions are unreasonably shielded from economic competition by government funding programs
	*There is no logical or causal connection (but at most a circumstantial correlation) between academic credentials, truth, knowledge, and intelligence
	*The higher education system is a strict bureaucracy which tends to enforce conceptual and ideological orthodoxy, thus hampering the advancement of human knowledge by ignoring and/or suppressing potentially valid ideas
	*Although academia casts itself as the benevolent source, guardian, and judge of human intellectual progress, such claims are in obvious conflict with its organizational self-interest. The advancement of human knowledge is too important to be left to any professional guild whose members are primarily concerned with advancing their own careers.

	=== Arguments for ===

	'''Summary'''
	* ] is an illusion which masks an inherent human tendency to group by abilities and interests.
	* Human societies are best advanced by those who are most willing and able to participate in academic study.
	* Human societies require a vetting process that leads people to roles that will yield the most efficient management of societal resources.

	'''Expanded'''
	* There are far more ]s and ]s in society than academics and the disparity may merely give off the illusion of elitism and intellectual suppression to the uninformed observer.
	* Broad-based debate not carried out by dedicated academics is notoriously rife with over simplification, blatant and chronically unmitigated misconceptions, and outright fantasy. Academia, while not immune to error, is a system designed to screen bad ideas as rigorously as possible, and as such is logically the ideal state in which to locate important resources and deliberative institutions.
	* Discrimination is important and right, especially in matters which affect all of society, but due to ] it is often conflated with prejudice. Casual intellectuals may be free to discuss issues at length with whatever degree of familiarity they possess, but serious intellectuals must understand and submit to the need for academic tradition and qualification. Nobody would claim a Surgeon was as qualified to perform surgery as somebody with a general interest in anatomy, and so it would be folly to allow underqualified individuals, whether unvetted intellectuals or laymen, to operate on the metaphorical body of society.

	'''General'''
	* Imperfect quality control is better than no quality control.

	==See also==
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
⚫	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	==External articles and references==
	*
	* Leah Sprain, "'': Barriers to Connecting Academic Research to the Public''". (])
	* Lionel Lewis, "''; Critics of the academy have lambasted faculty doves. History shows that academia has roosted a flock of hawks''". American Association of University Professors.
	* Tom Bramble, "''''". Australian Universities Review (unpublished), University of Queensland.
	* Jordan L. Hylden and John H. Jernigan, "''; The most troubling bias among academics is not political but religious''". Havard Political Review, 6/8/03.
	* Jeffrey H. Bair and Myron Boor, "''The Academic Elite in Law: Linkages Among Top-Ranked Law Schools''". Psychological Reports 68: 891-94, 1991.
	* Jeffrey H. Bair, "''''". American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April, 2003.
	* Xi Lin, "''; Cynicism and disillusionment are protocol for UW elites''". The Daily of the University of Washington, 1998.
	* Annalee Newitz, "''\| Out of academia''". Salon.com, 2000.
	* Gerard A. Best, "''''". Caribbean Beat, Issue No. 76, November/December 2005.
	* Ellen W. Schrecker, "''No Ivory Tower : McCarthyism and the Universities''". 1986. ISBN 0-19-503557-7
	* Mike S. Adams, "''Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor''". Harbor House, 2004, ISBN 1-891799-17-7

	]
	]

	]
	]
	]

Latest revision as of 09:39, 26 May 2021

Redirect to:

Elitism

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:

From a subtopic: This is a redirect from a subtopic of the target article or section.
- If the redirected subtopic could potentially have its own article in the future, then also tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}.

With possibilities: This is a redirect from a title that potentially could be expanded into a new article or other type of associated page such as a new template. The topic described by this title may be more detailed than is currently provided on the target page or in a section of that page.
- When the target page becomes too large, or for any reason a new page would be an improvement, this redirect may be replaced with an article, template or other project page that is carved out of the target page. See also {{R to section}} and use together with this rcat when appropriate.
- If the topic of the redirect is not susceptible to expansion, then use other rcats such as {{R to section}} or {{R to list entry}} when appropriate.
- Since a new page may be created, links to this redirect should not be replaced with a direct link to the target page. To make redirects to this page, use {{R avoided double redirect}}.
- {{R printworthy}} should be used together with this template when applied to a redirect in mainspace.
- When used on a template redirect, it will automatically populate Category:Template redirects with possibilities.

When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.