Indian with 22 MA degrees, 5 PhDs, and 3 D.Lits

[Tobias Funke]

My statement was about as meaningless as "well, MY idea of impressive is [whatever I did with my life]". List your publications and a lot of people would have the same reaction as you to this man-meh. That's all I'm really saying. If this guy wants to get all those degrees, so be it.

I wasn't talking to you specifically either. There were numerous responses along the lines of "this guy knows all this stuff but hasn't really done anything". Well maybe he's done what he wanted to do. I don't see why you're so defensive about it.

 

[Cyrus]

My statement was about as meaningless as "well, MY idea of impressive is [whatever I did with my life]". List your publications and a lot of people would have the same reaction as you to this man-meh. That's all I'm really saying. If this guy wants to get all those degrees, so be it.

And, as I said, I'm not impressed, nor do I care. People who publish papers, and produce meaningful work impress me. Not career students. The point of getting a PhD is to show that you can derive new bodies of knowledge on your own. Not to go back and get more degrees.

 

[ranger]

I had a friend who taught "Religion". When someone referred to her teaching "Theology", she quickly corrected him, pointing out that in order to study teach something you had to believe it exists. As she put, "I know 'religion' exists".

In any case, astrology is not anything like a religion.

I assume the astrology you are referring to is Vedic Astrology. In any case this aspect is a big part of Hinduism and their culture. For you to say it is not like religion, and that it is not real like what your friend was teaching, and therefore does not merit the same status is just plain wrong. Just like your friend knows religion exists, Hindus integrate the astrology component in their lives: for choosing names, auspicious dates, such as for marriage, etc. A study of this component is a study of a one component of Hinduism, which is, if you didn't already know, a religion!

 

[waht]

While astrology has some religious roots, perhaps Vedic astrology has more, it differs from religion in that it is a pseudo-science that studies how the life force or planetary alignment influence the world, and then seeks to make predictions.

http://www.modernvedicastrology.com/Articles/AsianTsunami

At the time of the tsunami on December 26, 2004, there was one interesting alignment in the sky that has gone largely unnoticed: Both Mars and Saturn were very close to crossing the ecliptic. The ecliptic is the flat plane of the solar system and marks the vertical position of the Sun with respect to the orbiting planets.

Note that both disasters did not occur when the planets were closest to the ecliptic. At the time of the recent tsunami, Mars was positioned at 0°N13'08", and Saturn was even closer at 0°S01'27". What is important about this configuration is that both planets would be exactly parallel the ecliptic within just seven days of each other. When Saturn paralleled (or crossed) the ecliptic on January 8, 2005, Mars was just 4 minutes of arc from exact parallel. When Mars paralleled just a week later on January 15, 2005, Saturn was just 41 seconds from exact parallel. Other astrological factors may have triggered the energy contained within this simultaneous crossing of the ecliptic - slightly ahead of schedul

 

[ranger]

While astrology has some religious roots, perhaps Vedic astrology has more, it differs from religion in that it is a pseudo-science that studies how the life force or planetary alignment influence the world, and then seeks to make predictions.

http://www.modernvedicastrology.com/Articles/AsianTsunami

Yes, you are absolutely right! Vedic Astrology is a very significant aspect of Hinduism. If you people think its just like western astrology where you open the newspaper and read your sign, then I can say there is a huge misconception. I just think that before comments are made regarding something, it should be properly researched

 

[Senjai]

Who said anything about 'working for other people'? Why is this on topic, or relevant? You should try to not put words in my mouth. In addition, since you seem to be divorced from reality, try making a living while not 'working' for anyone. Even our dear professor has an employer, namely the university that pays him to teach.

I am simply making the connection, as to why you think his consistent studies is unwise, he will still study.

Yes, your dear professor has an employer, eventually their is a pinnacle, not everyone, can work for someone. In my analogy I was stating i don't get why people don't be their own boss. Example: The manager of a bar with a capped salary and years of experience, yet doesn't own his own bar.

 

[Cyrus]

I am simply making the connection, as to why you think his consistent studies is unwise, he will still study.

Yes, your dear professor has an employer, eventually their is a pinnacle, not everyone, can work for someone. In my analogy I was stating i don't get why people don't be their own boss. Example: The manager of a bar with a capped salary and years of experience, yet doesn't own his own bar.

Because graduate school is not undergraduate school. The premise of going to grad school is to master a subject area and then contribute new work to the field. The "pinnacle" is becoming a technical fellow for contributing years of work and research in your field. Not collecting degrees in astrology.

 

[Senjai]

That's simply your opinion on how things should be done, however I am sure he rathers learning rather then working per say. The premise of going to grad school also requires you actually be interested in the topic your learning.

Your saying that it's wrong for someone to go into grad school just because they like the subject, even if it would have no obvious application, or if it did, someone took it just to learn about it. Intellectual Curiosity.

 

[bassplayer142]

I would be more impressed by someone with no formal teaching and genius ideas. Nice to love school and knowledge though.

 

[mynameinc]

I would be more impressed by someone with no formal teaching and genius ideas. Nice to love school and knowledge though.

I agree with you, but 30 graduate degrees is still very impressive.

 

[rewebster]

I agree with you, but 30 graduate degrees is still very impressive.

yep, and if he's half way social, he should know something about a lot of things.

and whether or not someone cares or not how many degrees he has, its still an accomplishment that most of us won't come close to.

 

[-DB]

Because graduate school is not undergraduate school. The premise of going to grad school is to master a subject area and then contribute new work to the field. The "pinnacle" is becoming a technical fellow for contributing years of work and research in your field. Not collecting degrees in astrology.

Doesn't the fact that he earned those graduate degrees imply that he HAS contributed new work to those fields and mastered them? I think the whole reason why someone wrote an article about him is that it is UNUSUAL for someone to dedicate their whole life to just constantly pursue degrees; he said himself in the article that he believes he hasn't done anything extraordinary.

You said that your idea of "impressive" is someone earning one phD and contributing to that one field for their entire career. Why is remaining in one field more "impressive" than mastering several disciplines in one's lifetime?

 

[Cyrus]

Doesn't the fact that he earned those graduate degrees imply that he HAS contributed new work to those fields and mastered them?

No.

I think the whole reason why someone wrote an article about him is that it is UNUSUAL for someone to dedicate their whole life to just constantly pursue degrees; he said himself in the article that he believes he hasn't done anything extraordinary.

People also write articles about things they know people will read.

You said that your idea of "impressive" is someone earning one phD and contributing to that one field for their entire career. Why is remaining in one field more "impressive" than mastering several disciplines in one's lifetime?

Because people that are technical fellows are regarded as world class experts. When you go to graduate school and get a degree you understand this, and the ridiculousness of getting 30 graduate degrees.

He exemplifies the old adage that you can know a little bit about a lot of topics, or you can know a lot about a certain topic. I can tell you without a doubt that he probably only has a surface level understanding of the majority of those degrees and would be easily out classed by an expert in any single area he studied.

To think of those students in India that did not get a spot in grad school because he was getting yet another useless degree - in astrology of all things...<face palm>

 

[ranger]

Cyrus, we get it that you're not impressed. No need to keep on responding to everyone's positive reactions with redundant comments.

And, as I said, I'm not impressed, nor do I care.

What being in school all your life accomplishes, I have no idea, nor do I care.

My reaction...meh.

Because people that are technical fellows are regarded as world class experts. When you go to graduate school and get a degree you understand this, and the ridiculousness of getting 30 graduate degrees.

To think of those students in India that did not get a spot in grad school because he was getting yet another useless degree - in astrology of all things...<face palm>

Not collecting degrees in astrology.

 

[dotman]

He exemplifies the old adage that you can know a little bit about a lot of topics, or you can know a lot about a certain topic. I can tell you without a doubt that he probably only has a surface level understanding of the majority of those degrees and would be easily out classed by an expert in any single area he studied.

(Emphasis mine). You can tell us without a doubt probably? What does that mean? How can you possibly know how much or how little he knows in anyone subject area?

Personally, I think it's impressive that someone could learn that much in so many different areas. It probably gives him a unique outlook on life, and a unique ability to approach problems in a multi-faceted way.

 

[rewebster]

I wonder if that guy (from India) has a business card?

 

[Dembadon]

I wonder if that guy (from India) has a business card?

Or what his auto signature, in whatever email client he uses, looks like.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, we get it that you're not impressed. No need to keep on responding to everyone's positive reactions with redundant comments.

You're right, I will conjure up some new ways of not being impressed.

 

[rootX]

a unique ability to approach problems in a multi-faceted way.

Looks like he is jumping around without gaining enough expertise in any of the fields.

Can only PhD ensure the ability to solve complex real world problems related to the field? I think you need sufficient work experience also.

 

[rewebster]

Looks like he is jumping around without gaining enough expertise in any of the fields.

Can only PhD ensure the ability to solve complex real world problems related to the field? I think you need sufficient work experience also.

I bet you can think of a person who have a degree in 'something', 'experience' in that 'something' but doesn't like working in that area, and will never "solve complex real world problems related to the field", right?