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

[ranger]

Meet R.K. Rai, a scholar extraordinary. Over the years he has acquired MA degrees in 22 subjects, five PhDs and three D.Lits. But at the age of 65, he wants more...

http://sify.com/news/22-MA-degrees-5-PhDs-3-D-Lits-professor-learns-on-news-National-jm1mudaefid.html

I thought one of my undergrad profs with 1 PhD and 3 MSc was too much, but this guy wants more! Talk about a life dedicated to academic learning.

 

[noblegas]

my hero

 

[rootX]

I wonder how well he utilized his knowledge.

 

[cronxeh]

Not my first choice of subjects, but still impressive, an inspiration.

 

[Pengwuino]

'I am at present pursuing MA in astrology from a renowned and one of the most ancient universities of the world, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi,' said Rai, who lives in the Mohamdabad area in Ghazipur.

/unimpressed

 

[fourier jr]

that's like michael griffin, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#education"

 

[waht]

looks like astrology is actually taught in universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_astrology

In 2001, the University Grants Commission of India issued a circular proposing that universities should offer undergraduate and postgraduate courses in what it termed Vedic Astrology or Jyotirvigyan (i.e jyotir-vijñāna, lit. "astral science"). This was widely protested in the scientific and academic community.[6] A legal challenge filed by academicians with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed in 2004; on subsequent appeal, this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of India.[7]

 

[berkeman]

looks like astrology is actually taught in universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_astrology

Yikes. My opinion of India just dropped significantly. Unfortunate.

 

[rootX]

looks like astrology is actually taught in universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_astrology

How astrology differs from other old religions?

 

[Cyrus]

Curious what impresses some of you. My idea of impressive is getting a phD and contributing a lifetime of work and publications in a field.

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

My reaction...meh.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

Getting an article written about you.

People who are in school forever around here are called bums afraid of the real world.

 

[qedprigmosyno]

meh, it's like trying to get all of the merit badges in boyscouts.
good base of knowledge, but almost a waste of time

 

[ranger]

looks like astrology is actually taught in universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_astrology

Yikes. My opinion of India just dropped significantly. Unfortunate.

Okay, so what is the big deal? I don't see anyone making the same kinda fuss over theology and other religious studies.

 

[rootX]

There's a Buddhist quote about getting fat from attaining too much knowledge but utilizing none of it; I was trying to find it..

 

[waht]

Okay, so what is the big deal? I don't see anyone making the same kinda fuss over theology and other religious studies.

If someone wants to get a masters degree in astrology, well good for them. But I don't think academia is a place for this.

http://astrology.wikia.com/wiki/Vedic_Astrology

The practice of Vedic astrology primarily relies on the visible or sidereal zodiac, which is different from the tropical zodiac used in Western astrology in that an ayanamsa adjustment is made for the gradual precession of the vernal equinox. The tropical zodiac is used in Vedic astrology only to compute ascendant (lagna), although the end result is converted to sidereal lagna. Prediction of weather and related phenomena is traditionally made according to sidereal system, especially through horoscopes for the moment of solar transition into sidereal nakshatras and rāshis at ancient cente of India (near Bhopal at Cancer) or from Meru in Jamboodvioa [1] ; but some people are now experimenting with tropical syatem for predicting the course of nature - as in weather, etc.

 

[rootX]

If someone wants to get a masters degree in astrology, well good for them. But I don't think academia is a place for this.

http://astrology.wikia.com/wiki/Vedic_Astrology

Well, most of the older religions have similar nonsense which are taught all over the world.

 

[berkeman]

Okay, so what is the big deal? I don't see anyone making the same kinda fuss over theology and other religious studies.

http://astrology.wikia.com/wiki/Vedic_Astrology]Prediction[/PLAIN] of weather and related phenomena is traditionally made according to sidereal system, especially through horoscopes for the moment of solar transition into sidereal nakshatras and rāshis at ancient cente of India (near Bhopal at Cancer) or from Meru in Jamboodvioa [1] ; but some people are now experimenting with tropical syatem for predicting the course of nature - as in weather, etc.

Sorry Ranger. It's a black mark no matter where it happens. There was a thread here a few months ago about some Isralie clerics on a plane, acting like idiots...

 

[Freddy_Turnip]

How does he afford to do it?

 

[ranger]

How does he afford to do it?

You mean how can he afford the time or money?

 

[Tobias Funke]

I don't see why people like this are looked down on for not contributing anything or publishing papers, especially when he's apparently contributed new knowledge to 5 fields.

Furthermore, maybe he just won't contribute a more powerful bomb or more destructive virus to us. Sounds ok to me.

 

[ranger]

I don't see why people like this are looked down on for not contributing anything or publishing papers, especially when he's apparently contributed new knowledge to 5 fields.

I don't see why either. Its not like he is afraid of life or something. The man is a retired professor, who believes in a life long learning process. Hes fulfilling that. So why not do it and earn recognition? Especially if you can afford the time and money.

 

[rootX]

I don't see why people like this are looked down on for not contributing anything or publishing papers, especially when he's apparently contributed new knowledge to 5 fields.

Please quote where this person was looked down...

 

[Cyrus]

Furthermore, maybe he just won't contribute a more powerful bomb or more destructive virus to us. Sounds ok to me.

What this has to do with the topic of this discussion is anyones guess; futhermore, it is inappropriate.

 

[Hologram0110]

I agree with the sentiment with regards to a degree in astrology. It certainly doesn't give me confidence in the educational institution when I find out they are granting degrees in these types of areas.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Please quote where this person was looked down...

I'd consider these somewhat negative remarks...

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

My reaction...meh.

People who are in school forever around here are called bums afraid of the real world.

meh, it's like trying to get all of the merit badges in boyscouts.
good base of knowledge, but almost a waste of time

What this has to do with the topic of this discussion is anyones guess; futhermore, it is inappropriate.

Contributing nothing, if that's the case here, can be better than contributing something in some cases. I don't see how it's inappropriate. Do some people with PhDs not apply their knowledge to bomb design, or social engineering, etc.?

I could have also said that in 100 years nobody will care about any of our "accomplishments", but apparently I hit a nerve with my last comment. I didn't meant to offend anyone, but I've seen worse remarks. Hell, rootX offended about 3 billion people a few posts ago (not that I don't agree with him).

 

[Senjai]

This may not be physics and other sciences, however with a PhD in philosophy it is understandable as to his course choices. He is doing what he wishes to do, and if his lifelong wish is to learn, then to him it may not be a waste of time. I'm sure he's happy in his life decisions, and he doesn't deserve to be scrutinized for them. What he has done is remarkable. It takes a lot of effort to stay in studies for that amount of time. But he's doing what he wants to do, no it isn't courses many here would choose, but that is a biased opinion. I myself find this quite remarkable.

 

[Senjai]

Curious what impresses some of you. My idea of impressive is getting a phD and contributing a lifetime of work and publications in a field.

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

My reaction...meh.

This is pure opinion. I don't really understand anyone who would spend their lives working for other people. Yet people still do it and are happy with it. I find it illogical and a waste of time, just as how you look at this mans way of "working."

 

[HallsofIvy]

Okay, so what is the big deal? I don't see anyone making the same kinda fuss over theology and other religious studies.

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.

 

[Cyrus]

Contributing nothing, if that's the case here, can be better than contributing something in some cases.

This is a meaningless statement.

I don't see how it's inappropriate. Do some people with PhDs not apply their knowledge to bomb design, or social engineering, etc.?

The fact that people with PhDs happen (if they so choose) to work on bomb design is completely off topic, and inappropriate, as I indicated in my previous post.

I could have also said that in 100 years nobody will care about any of our "accomplishments", but apparently I hit a nerve with my last comment. I didn't meant to offend anyone, but I've seen worse remarks. Hell, rootX offended about 3 billion people a few posts ago (not that I don't agree with him).

Again, I have no idea what this naive statement is supposed to mean, as all knowledge is derived from building on the past work and extending it to new unknowns. This is specifically what it means to have a PhD.

 

[Cyrus]

This is pure opinion. I don't really understand anyone who would spend their lives working for other people. Yet people still do it and are happy with it. I find it illogical and a waste of time, just as how you look at this mans way of "working."

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.

 

[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?