List of worthless college degrees
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
One can make an arguement that philosophy is an interest or a hobby, but it is not a profession.
How many professional philosophers do you know Asguard? I think they are few and far between. I think most of them derive income from teaching or writing, not for being a philosopher.
Well I haven't got a sociology degree and I I do write these policies. Its not about havng a sociology degree but using good research and good research influences good policy. Studying sociology merely gets you through the door; you still have to win the advocacy argument and obtain the funds to spawn these huge social marketing campaigns. In fact all the 'ologies' are included in the policy formulaton!
I think that goes to my point there is nothing special about a Sociology degree.
never herd of an ethictist?
as i said they work on ethics commites of ALL hospitals, and in alot of goverment departments. Then there are the philosophers who work in the legal sector as well (had one of them as a lecturer who specilised in biolaw)
I want to get a Ph.D. in B.S. Should I go to F.U. for that? (Florida University) 
I think ethics is another set of course work which is also a waste. Why do I need someone trainned in ethics to tell me or someone else what is and is not ethical?
Is it ethical for someone to put himself/herself above all others to determine what is and is not ethical.
Ethics should fall within the realm of common sense. Should their be ethics reviews, yes. Does a degree in ethics or sociology make an individual more or less qualified for the job, NO.
ok, a person is lying in a persistant vegitive state and cant tell you there own wishes (and has left no documentation as to what they would want done). Her husband wants to remove the feeding tube, the parents say that she would want to live.
What do you do?
Another
A child is born with no conection to the world around them (i cant rember the name of this condition but they have no sences and as far as we know, no ability to feel pain), is it ethical to use the child as an organ donor?
Another
A 7 year old child has lukimea, they have already had one bone marrow donation and the second only has a 3% chance of working. Without any treatment they will have 2 months to live, with chemo alone maybe a year, with a second transplant unlimited. The downside is that if the transplant DOESNT work they will have no quality of life until they die. The child says that they dont want the transplant, just chemo, the parents do want it. Who do you surport?
And there are 1000's more cases i could make up off the top of my head
Not to mention that ethics commities were established as independent bodies unconected to the clincial staff because of incidents like the Green affair leading to the Cartwright Inquiry.
What do you do?
Another
A child is born with no conection to the world around them (i cant rember the name of this condition but they have no sences and as far as we know, no ability to feel pain), is it ethical to use the child as an organ donor?
Another
A 7 year old child has lukimea, they have already had one bone marrow donation and the second only has a 3% chance of working. Without any treatment they will have 2 months to live, with chemo alone maybe a year, with a second transplant unlimited. The downside is that if the transplant DOESNT work they will have no quality of life until they die. The child says that they dont want the transplant, just chemo, the parents do want it. Who do you surport?
And there are 1000's more cases i could make up off the top of my head
Not to mention that ethics commities were established as independent bodies unconected to the clincial staff because of incidents like the Green affair leading to the Cartwright Inquiry.
Those are not uncommon situations and have a basis in common law.
Case 1
- Husband as next of kin makes the final decision.
Case 2
- It is ethical to with hold extraordinary life support measures. But not to do anything to kill the individual. Post death you can donate organs if the next of kin approves.
Case 3
Since the juvenile has no legal standing, it is up to the parents to decide the issue. There is such a case now in The United States and the parents have decided to comply with the child's wishes. And I think that is absoutely ethical.
All common sense and common law issues. You don't need training in ethics or sociology to come to those decisions.
It is worthless to discuss the merit of a degree without naming the institution that issued it, the date it was acquired, the professors under whom the graduate studied, and - last but not least - some apprehension of the what its bearer was like before and after receiving it.
Most degrees from most so-called colleges and universities are functionally worthless, judging by those who possess them. Even ones outside the humanities.
Most degrees from most so-called colleges and universities are functionally worthless, judging by those who possess them. Even ones outside the humanities.
Last edited:
I would have to disagree with you on that one. I think there is value in a business degree. There is value in architecture, law, chemistry, physics, life sciences, etc. In those endeavors the student can apply the knowledge gained to real situations that they could not if they had not had the education.
Your wrong at least on the last 2
The second one the child CAN be concidered to be a beating hearts donor, these babies are concidered similar to PVS and doctors DO kill them and use there organs.
In the third case a determination needs to be made if the child can understand the implications and make that decision for itself. If so THE CHILD and NOT THE PARENT's decision will be respected.
As for the law, the law is an apalingly BAD way to decide the right or wrong of an action. All it can determine is the legality. This is why its ethics commites and NOT courts who make these decisions where possable.
The second one the child CAN be concidered to be a beating hearts donor, these babies are concidered similar to PVS and doctors DO kill them and use there organs.
In the third case a determination needs to be made if the child can understand the implications and make that decision for itself. If so THE CHILD and NOT THE PARENT's decision will be respected.
As for the law, the law is an apalingly BAD way to decide the right or wrong of an action. All it can determine is the legality. This is why its ethics commites and NOT courts who make these decisions where possable.
Asguard, I was referring to how things are handled in the United States...not Australia. You may have a completely different standard. But in The United States that it how those cases have been handled.
In any case, you do not need a sociologist or an ethicist to make these decisions. The family and others applying common principals and law can make those decisions.
In any case, you do not need a sociologist or an ethicist to make these decisions. The family and others applying common principals and law can make those decisions.
It appears in The United States, we give more power to the parent than you do in Australia and in other parts of the world.