Booksellers

[Steve Hayes]

Yet most of the stores that have closed recently have been large,
overextended, debt-laden chain stores. Independent bookstores
have actually been holding relatively stable (since most of them were
killed off by the chains) and even growing in some places. There are
1) Physical bookstores can provide a sort of human-to-human customer
service that no online outlet can.
2) Physical bookstores can serve as a gathering place for a literary
community (like Livejournal but Real Life), which gives a bookseller
the opportunity to move inventory by hosting speaking series on
current events, offering signed copies, and so on.
3) A number of distributors now offer e-books to the retail channel,
so customers can benefit from the customer service offered by a retail
bookstore while still getting electronic delivery for some or all of
their purchases. This also gives the retailer the opportunity to
upsell the customer to a more profitable product such as a signed
hardcover.
4) Publishers currently rely on book distributors and bookstores for a
significant amount of their working capital, so it is to their
advantage to support non-Amazon sales channels in their marketing and
promotional plans (e.g., by sending authors to bookstores when on
tour).

My son works for a chain of bookshops that has just been taken over by a large
conglomerate whose MBAs are now busy trying to turn them into large,
over-extended, debt-laden chain stores.

They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

If all those plans are implemented, I, for one, will find it easier to buy
books from Amazon.

Now, if a book is not in stock, I can ask my son, and he orders it. When a
book of which I was a co-author was published a year or two ago, I asked my
son, and they stocked it in his branch. It's a rather specialised book, and it
has sold quite well there, because the branch is in a part of town where
academics live, and academics are the most likely market for such books.
Central ordering will destroy that kind of relationship, and will make it
easier to use Amazon.

I suspect that that is what is happening in most of the the bookshops that are
closing. They are being run by management gurus who know (or think they know)
a lot about management, but know nothing about books and people who read them.
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Yet most of the stores that have closed recently have been large,
overextended, debt-laden chain stores. Independent bookstores
have actually been holding relatively stable (since most of them were
killed off by the chains) and even growing in some places. There are
1) Physical bookstores can provide a sort of human-to-human customer
service that no online outlet can.
2) Physical bookstores can serve as a gathering place for a literary
community (like Livejournal but Real Life), which gives a bookseller
the opportunity to move inventory by hosting speaking series on
current events, offering signed copies, and so on.
3) A number of distributors now offer e-books to the retail channel,
so customers can benefit from the customer service offered by a retail
bookstore while still getting electronic delivery for some or all of
their purchases. This also gives the retailer the opportunity to
upsell the customer to a more profitable product such as a signed
hardcover.
4) Publishers currently rely on book distributors and bookstores for a
significant amount of their working capital, so it is to their
advantage to support non-Amazon sales channels in their marketing and
promotional plans (e.g., by sending authors to bookstores when on
tour).

My son works for a chain of bookshops that has just been taken over by a large
conglomerate whose MBAs are now busy trying to turn them into large,
over-extended, debt-laden chain stores.
They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

The Barnes & Noble branch that I frequent has a coffee shop area that
sells coffee and other beverages, dessert items, sandwiches, and other
foodstuffs. None of the items are cheap. Most of the time it's
difficult to find an empty table in this area.

The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.

I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

Post by Steve Hayes
If all those plans are implemented, I, for one, will find it easier to buy
books from Amazon.
Now, if a book is not in stock, I can ask my son, and he orders it. When a
book of which I was a co-author was published a year or two ago, I asked my
son, and they stocked it in his branch. It's a rather specialised book, and it
has sold quite well there, because the branch is in a part of town where
academics live, and academics are the most likely market for such books.
Central ordering will destroy that kind of relationship, and will make it
easier to use Amazon.
I suspect that that is what is happening in most of the the bookshops that are
closing. They are being run by management gurus who know (or think they know)
a lot about management, but know nothing about books and people who read them.
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

The "gurus" of which you speak would be marketing, not management,
people. Marketing gurus recommend what products and/or services
should be offered, how those products and/or services should be
brought to the attention of the consumer, and how to establish the
company brand. The management "guru" is the person who decides what
the job should be, who should do the job, and how that person should
be evaluated.

I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

Do you feel that holders of advanced degrees in business have less of
an interest in outside-the-field reading material than academics or
holders of advanced degrees in law, theology, science, or accountancy?

If so, how have you arrived at this?

[Peter Brooks]

The store has roving greeters.  Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need.  They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.
I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

I expect it of a waiter, at least the waiter has introduced himself
and has a useful function. I'd be extremely pissed off by somebody
interrupting me when I was enjoying a bookshop browse. It's intrusive
and, if they've an enquiry desk, unnecessary. If I wanted to go to a
place where strangers accosted one, I'd visit night clubs or walk down
alleys late at night. If I go to the trouble of avoiding such places,
the last thing I want is to find my bookshop turned into a den of
accosters.

There's even more to be said for kindle than I realised.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:18:13 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks

The store has roving greeters.  Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need.  They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.
I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

I expect it of a waiter, at least the waiter has introduced himself
and has a useful function. I'd be extremely pissed off by somebody
interrupting me when I was enjoying a bookshop browse. It's intrusive
and, if they've an enquiry desk, unnecessary. If I wanted to go to a
place where strangers accosted one, I'd visit night clubs or walk down
alleys late at night. If I go to the trouble of avoiding such places,
the last thing I want is to find my bookshop turned into a den of
accosters.
There's even more to be said for kindle than I realised.

I'm a frequent visitor to Barnes & Noble, and I've never felt
"accosted" when some clerk asks "Anything I can help you find?".
I suppose that there are some, like you say you are, who get
"extremely pissed", but the only tantrums I've observed have been by
the physically immature.

The store is huge, and books are shelved by general topic. I know
where the shelves are that contain the books that are in my interest
area, but if I wanted a book on wildflower identification I would not
be at all disturbed to have some clerk, unasked, come to my aid.

There is a information desk in the center of the store, but there's
always a line there. The clerk at that desk is the one who looks up
information on the computer for the person who thinks the author is
something like Jacobi or Johanson or something with a "j" and the
title has something to do with trees and someone in their book club
said it has a woman on the cover.

And, actually, it is waiters who come closer to annoying me than do
bookshop clerks. I can handle one "Is everything all right, Sir?",
but interupting my conversation with that four or five times is a bit
too much. Most annoying is that the reason for the stops is company
policy and not any desire to make sure everything is all right.

[MC]

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a frequent visitor to Barnes & Noble, and I've never felt
"accosted" when some clerk asks "Anything I can help you find?".
I suppose that there are some, like you say you are, who get
"extremely pissed", but the only tantrums I've observed have been by
the physically immature.

Likewise. I like the way B&N runs its stores. You can park yourself in a
nice armchair and read all day, the coffee shops are usually pretty
good, and so on. There's a huge branch in Burlington VT that has a large
section of remaindered and second hand books, and the staff are helpful.

I'd like to support small independent bookshops but it's getting harder.
Round the corner from me in Montreal is a shop that sells only cookery
and food books - some of them very attractive.

I wanted to send a book written by a Montreal restaurateur to a friend
in New York. If I bought it round the corner it would cost $45, I'd have
to wrap it, take it to the post office and pay about $15 to get it
delivered to her door.

Amazon had it for $22... Delivery included. Not too hard to decide.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm a frequent visitor to Barnes & Noble, and I've never felt
"accosted" when some clerk asks "Anything I can help you find?".
I suppose that there are some, like you say you are, who get
"extremely pissed", but the only tantrums I've observed have been by
the physically immature.

I don't see the point of going to a bookshop pissed, let alone
extremely pissed. I suppose that, if you are extremely pissed, you
might mistake a bookshop for a restaurant, but I'm sure somebody would
show you out quite quickly.

Post by Tony Cooper
There is a information desk in the center of the store, but there's
always a line there.

A diameter or a radius?

Post by Tony Cooper
And, actually, it is waiters who come closer to annoying me than do
bookshop clerks.  I can handle one "Is everything all right, Sir?",
but interupting my conversation with that four or five times is a bit
too much.  Most annoying is that the reason for the stops is company
policy and not any desire to make sure everything is all right.

Good waiters don't interrupt with that question unless there's a lull
in the conversation and they also avoid asking it if anybody with his
mouth full. One good reason to go to good restaurants that the waiters
in them are going to be well trained.

[R H Draney]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Tony Cooper
And, actually, it is waiters who come closer to annoying me than do
bookshop clerks. =A0I can handle one "Is everything all right, Sir?",
but interupting my conversation with that four or five times is a bit
too much. =A0Most annoying is that the reason for the stops is company
policy and not any desire to make sure everything is all right.

Good waiters don't interrupt with that question unless there's a lull
in the conversation and they also avoid asking it if anybody with his
mouth full. One good reason to go to good restaurants that the waiters
in them are going to be well trained.

A well-trained waiter will *only* ask that question when your mouth is full...if
you can't utter a complaint when offered the opportunity, they treat that as
proof that you're happy with everything....r

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Yet most of the stores that have closed recently have been large,
overextended, debt-laden chain stores. Independent bookstores
have actually been holding relatively stable (since most of them were
killed off by the chains) and even growing in some places. There are
1) Physical bookstores can provide a sort of human-to-human customer
service that no online outlet can.
2) Physical bookstores can serve as a gathering place for a literary
community (like Livejournal but Real Life), which gives a bookseller
the opportunity to move inventory by hosting speaking series on
current events, offering signed copies, and so on.
3) A number of distributors now offer e-books to the retail channel,
so customers can benefit from the customer service offered by a retail
bookstore while still getting electronic delivery for some or all of
their purchases. This also gives the retailer the opportunity to
upsell the customer to a more profitable product such as a signed
hardcover.
4) Publishers currently rely on book distributors and bookstores for a
significant amount of their working capital, so it is to their
advantage to support non-Amazon sales channels in their marketing and
promotional plans (e.g., by sending authors to bookstores when on
tour).

My son works for a chain of bookshops that has just been taken over by a large
conglomerate whose MBAs are now busy trying to turn them into large,
over-extended, debt-laden chain stores.
They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

The Barnes & Noble branch that I frequent has a coffee shop area that
sells coffee and other beverages, dessert items, sandwiches, and other
foodstuffs. None of the items are cheap. Most of the time it's
difficult to find an empty table in this area.
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.
I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

Well, personally I prefer *cheap* items in the coffee shop area, and I
like being able to find an empty table. You really have trouble
understanding how a customer could dislike those details? I suspect
some sort of writing confusion instead.

Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

Post by Tony Cooper
Do you feel that holders of advanced degrees in business have less of
an interest in outside-the-field reading material than academics or
holders of advanced degrees in law, theology, science, or accountancy?

Yes, except perhaps for accountancy, which is another "business" degree,
not an academic subject.

Post by Tony Cooper
If so, how have you arrived at this?

The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Yet most of the stores that have closed recently have been large,
overextended, debt-laden chain stores. Independent bookstores
have actually been holding relatively stable (since most of them were
killed off by the chains) and even growing in some places. There are
1) Physical bookstores can provide a sort of human-to-human customer
service that no online outlet can.
2) Physical bookstores can serve as a gathering place for a literary
community (like Livejournal but Real Life), which gives a bookseller
the opportunity to move inventory by hosting speaking series on
current events, offering signed copies, and so on.
3) A number of distributors now offer e-books to the retail channel,
so customers can benefit from the customer service offered by a retail
bookstore while still getting electronic delivery for some or all of
their purchases. This also gives the retailer the opportunity to
upsell the customer to a more profitable product such as a signed
hardcover.
4) Publishers currently rely on book distributors and bookstores for a
significant amount of their working capital, so it is to their
advantage to support non-Amazon sales channels in their marketing and
promotional plans (e.g., by sending authors to bookstores when on
tour).

My son works for a chain of bookshops that has just been taken over by a large
conglomerate whose MBAs are now busy trying to turn them into large,
over-extended, debt-laden chain stores.
They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

The Barnes & Noble branch that I frequent has a coffee shop area that
sells coffee and other beverages, dessert items, sandwiches, and other
foodstuffs. None of the items are cheap. Most of the time it's
difficult to find an empty table in this area.
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.
I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

Well, personally I prefer *cheap* items in the coffee shop area, and I
like being able to find an empty table. You really have trouble
understanding how a customer could dislike those details? I suspect
some sort of writing confusion instead.

No, I don't think that should bother the customer. "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.

The reason there are no empty tables is that management doesn't shoo
people away who commandeer a table for an hour or so while they read
books or magazines they aren't going to buy or use the wifi hotspot to
catch up with their laptops.

If you want cheap stuff and empty tables, go to a McDonald's. But, I
wouldn't want B&N to franchise out the coffee area to McDonald's.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Do you feel that holders of advanced degrees in business have less of
an interest in outside-the-field reading material than academics or
holders of advanced degrees in law, theology, science, or accountancy?

Yes, except perhaps for accountancy, which is another "business" degree,
not an academic subject.

Post by Tony Cooper
If so, how have you arrived at this?

The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

I see, so people don't go into law or medicine for the money? Or, for
that matter, theology? Although, the ones making the money in the
theology game are not the ones with advanced degrees.

Are the holders of other "practical" degrees in architecture, computer
science, engineering, and such also equally uninterested in outside
reading?

Is it only liberal arts majors who read? To answer my own question,
"It may be". They are more likely not to be employed and have more
time to read.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Yet most of the stores that have closed recently have been large,
overextended, debt-laden chain stores. Independent bookstores
have actually been holding relatively stable (since most of them were
killed off by the chains) and even growing in some places. There are
1) Physical bookstores can provide a sort of human-to-human customer
service that no online outlet can.
2) Physical bookstores can serve as a gathering place for a literary
community (like Livejournal but Real Life), which gives a bookseller
the opportunity to move inventory by hosting speaking series on
current events, offering signed copies, and so on.
3) A number of distributors now offer e-books to the retail channel,
so customers can benefit from the customer service offered by a retail
bookstore while still getting electronic delivery for some or all of
their purchases. This also gives the retailer the opportunity to
upsell the customer to a more profitable product such as a signed
hardcover.
4) Publishers currently rely on book distributors and bookstores for a
significant amount of their working capital, so it is to their
advantage to support non-Amazon sales channels in their marketing and
promotional plans (e.g., by sending authors to bookstores when on
tour).

My son works for a chain of bookshops that has just been taken over by a large
conglomerate whose MBAs are now busy trying to turn them into large,
over-extended, debt-laden chain stores.
They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

The Barnes & Noble branch that I frequent has a coffee shop area that
sells coffee and other beverages, dessert items, sandwiches, and other
foodstuffs. None of the items are cheap. Most of the time it's
difficult to find an empty table in this area.
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.
I can't see why any of that should bother a customer.

Well, personally I prefer *cheap* items in the coffee shop area, and I
like being able to find an empty table. You really have trouble
understanding how a customer could dislike those details? I suspect
some sort of writing confusion instead.

No, I don't think that should bother the customer. "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.
The reason there are no empty tables is that management doesn't shoo
people away who commandeer a table for an hour or so while they read
books or magazines they aren't going to buy or use the wifi hotspot to
catch up with their laptops.
If you want cheap stuff and empty tables, go to a McDonald's. But, I
wouldn't want B&N to franchise out the coffee area to McDonald's.

Hey, what people want isn't always reasonable; it's still what they
want. "Nobody goes there any more; it's too crowded."

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

Well, discussions do tend to creep into near-by areas.

Post by Tony Cooper
As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Yes, exactly; the company is managed in such a way that the people who
understand the business don't get to make decisions. I blame the
Harvard Business School, actually -- they are the ones that popularized
management as its own discipline, and suggested bringing in expert
managers in preference to promoting people who know your business.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Do you feel that holders of advanced degrees in business have less of
an interest in outside-the-field reading material than academics or
holders of advanced degrees in law, theology, science, or accountancy?

Yes, except perhaps for accountancy, which is another "business" degree,
not an academic subject.

Post by Tony Cooper
If so, how have you arrived at this?

The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

I see, so people don't go into law or medicine for the money? Or, for
that matter, theology? Although, the ones making the money in the
theology game are not the ones with advanced degrees.

I'm sure people *do* go into law and medicine for the money, and those
are interesting degree cases -- they're kind of in the middle.
Especially medicine, where you get everything from the people who really
want to save lives, to the ones who in fact want to make a huge amount
of money.

Post by Tony Cooper
Are the holders of other "practical" degrees in architecture, computer
science, engineering, and such also equally uninterested in outside
reading?

Well, I think of "business" degrees as ranking below Bachelor of Science
degrees from good institutions, which I in turn rank below Bachelor of
Arts degrees from good institutions. Your mileage may vary.

Post by Tony Cooper
Is it only liberal arts majors who read? To answer my own question,
"It may be". They are more likely not to be employed and have more
time to read.

"Only" is an assertion I very carefully avoided.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

Well, discussions do tend to creep into near-by areas.

Post by Tony Cooper
As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Yes, exactly; the company is managed in such a way that the people who
understand the business don't get to make decisions. I blame the
Harvard Business School, actually -- they are the ones that popularized
management as its own discipline, and suggested bringing in expert
managers in preference to promoting people who know your business.

To me, that's a very superficial view that looks only at effect and
not at cause.

A publicly listed company that is profitable, well-managed, and
successful in their market area is not what Wall Street and the
stockholders want. They want a company that is continually expanding
and reaching into new markets. That causes the upper echelon of
management to bring in the MBA "whiz kids" to find companies to
acquire and new markets to penetrate. The effect is often disaster.

I'd apply some of the blame to Wharton and the other graduate schools
that turn out the financial "gurus" who work as fund managers,
financial analysts, and Wall Street types. They are the ones who are
downgrading the successful but static company that doesn't have
attractive yearly increases in dividends or stock price. They are
often the cause.

A company that brings in an outsider at the top level instead of
promoting from within often does so because the insiders usually rise
vertically with a rather narrow field of expertise. Those people who
"know the business" in a large corporation often only know one side of
the business. And, they "know the business" as it has been done in
the past in that business. The idea of an outsider is to get a fresh
look.

While bringing in outsiders can be disastrous, promoting only from
within can be equally fraught with problems. The stockholders and the
Wall Streeters don't see the company as being progressive.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

Well, discussions do tend to creep into near-by areas.

Post by Tony Cooper
As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Yes, exactly; the company is managed in such a way that the people who
understand the business don't get to make decisions. I blame the
Harvard Business School, actually -- they are the ones that popularized
management as its own discipline, and suggested bringing in expert
managers in preference to promoting people who know your business.

To me, that's a very superficial view that looks only at effect and
not at cause.
A publicly listed company that is profitable, well-managed, and
successful in their market area is not what Wall Street and the
stockholders want. They want a company that is continually expanding
and reaching into new markets. That causes the upper echelon of
management to bring in the MBA "whiz kids" to find companies to
acquire and new markets to penetrate. The effect is often disaster.
I'd apply some of the blame to Wharton and the other graduate schools
that turn out the financial "gurus" who work as fund managers,
financial analysts, and Wall Street types. They are the ones who are
downgrading the successful but static company that doesn't have
attractive yearly increases in dividends or stock price. They are
often the cause.
A company that brings in an outsider at the top level instead of
promoting from within often does so because the insiders usually rise
vertically with a rather narrow field of expertise. Those people who
"know the business" in a large corporation often only know one side of
the business. And, they "know the business" as it has been done in
the past in that business. The idea of an outsider is to get a fresh
look.
While bringing in outsiders can be disastrous, promoting only from
within can be equally fraught with problems. The stockholders and the
Wall Streeters don't see the company as being progressive.

Yes, that is exactly the kind of problem I was talking about -- the MBA
"gurus" who know a lot about management, and nothing abnout books.

A company decides to diversify and buys a chain of bookshops. A bigger company
does the same, and ... there was an old lady who swallowed a fly.

And the metacompany decides to apply management practices that work in the
abstract, but not for bookshops.

[John Holmes]

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, that is exactly the kind of problem I was talking about -- the
MBA "gurus" who know a lot about management, and nothing abnout books.
A company decides to diversify and buys a chain of bookshops. A
bigger company does the same, and ... there was an old lady who
swallowed a fly.
And the metacompany decides to apply management practices that work
in the abstract, but not for bookshops.

That is exactly what caused the failure of a couple of big book chains in
Australia.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

Well, discussions do tend to creep into near-by areas.

Post by Tony Cooper
As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Yes, exactly; the company is managed in such a way that the people who
understand the business don't get to make decisions. I blame the
Harvard Business School, actually -- they are the ones that popularized
management as its own discipline, and suggested bringing in expert
managers in preference to promoting people who know your business.

To me, that's a very superficial view that looks only at effect and
not at cause.
A publicly listed company that is profitable, well-managed, and
successful in their market area is not what Wall Street and the
stockholders want. They want a company that is continually expanding
and reaching into new markets. That causes the upper echelon of
management to bring in the MBA "whiz kids" to find companies to
acquire and new markets to penetrate. The effect is often disaster.
I'd apply some of the blame to Wharton and the other graduate schools
that turn out the financial "gurus" who work as fund managers,
financial analysts, and Wall Street types. They are the ones who are
downgrading the successful but static company that doesn't have
attractive yearly increases in dividends or stock price. They are
often the cause.

Okay, that's a reasonable way to assign the blame also. I do tend to
lean towards blaming the people who actually go in and ruin good
companies more than the people who make up the incentives, but you can
make a strong argument for blaming the "incentivizers".

Post by Tony Cooper
A company that brings in an outsider at the top level instead of
promoting from within often does so because the insiders usually rise
vertically with a rather narrow field of expertise. Those people who
"know the business" in a large corporation often only know one side of
the business. And, they "know the business" as it has been done in
the past in that business. The idea of an outsider is to get a fresh
look.
While bringing in outsiders can be disastrous, promoting only from
within can be equally fraught with problems. The stockholders and the
Wall Streeters don't see the company as being progressive.

Why do they care what Wall Streeters think, though? It's fairly rare
for them to raise new capital from stock sales, and other than that, the
stock prices is nearly irrelevant to the company. (I think it's because
the muckity-mucks tend to own lots of stock, so they're really acting in
*their own* interests and against the interests of the company when they
struggle to raise the stock prices.)

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

My comments didn't touch on the subject of MBAs making mistakes in
their business activities. They questioned whether or not those MBAs,
by virtue of their educational background, were less likely to read
outside of the field of business administration.

Well, discussions do tend to creep into near-by areas.

Post by Tony Cooper
As long as you've touched on it, though, who are these people that
*do* have the slightest knowledge of the subject domain and would not
make these obvious mistakes? If they aren't in management at the
level of a marketing or business expert, they aren't in any position
in any company to make any decisions.

Yes, exactly; the company is managed in such a way that the people who
understand the business don't get to make decisions. I blame the
Harvard Business School, actually -- they are the ones that popularized
management as its own discipline, and suggested bringing in expert
managers in preference to promoting people who know your business.

To me, that's a very superficial view that looks only at effect and
not at cause.
A publicly listed company that is profitable, well-managed, and
successful in their market area is not what Wall Street and the
stockholders want. They want a company that is continually expanding
and reaching into new markets. That causes the upper echelon of
management to bring in the MBA "whiz kids" to find companies to
acquire and new markets to penetrate. The effect is often disaster.
I'd apply some of the blame to Wharton and the other graduate schools
that turn out the financial "gurus" who work as fund managers,
financial analysts, and Wall Street types. They are the ones who are
downgrading the successful but static company that doesn't have
attractive yearly increases in dividends or stock price. They are
often the cause.

Okay, that's a reasonable way to assign the blame also. I do tend to
lean towards blaming the people who actually go in and ruin good
companies more than the people who make up the incentives, but you can
make a strong argument for blaming the "incentivizers".

Post by Tony Cooper
A company that brings in an outsider at the top level instead of
promoting from within often does so because the insiders usually rise
vertically with a rather narrow field of expertise. Those people who
"know the business" in a large corporation often only know one side of
the business. And, they "know the business" as it has been done in
the past in that business. The idea of an outsider is to get a fresh
look.
While bringing in outsiders can be disastrous, promoting only from
within can be equally fraught with problems. The stockholders and the
Wall Streeters don't see the company as being progressive.

Why do they care what Wall Streeters think, though? It's fairly rare
for them to raise new capital from stock sales, and other than that, the
stock prices is nearly irrelevant to the company. (I think it's because
the muckity-mucks tend to own lots of stock, so they're really acting in
*their own* interests and against the interests of the company when they
struggle to raise the stock prices.)

Any major publicly traded company is concerned about the stock's
price. If it starts to dip too low, some other company may attempt a
hostile take-over. If they do have plans to acquire another company,
the stock value is part of the currency that will be needed.

The executives who have stock options would like to see a dip when
they go to exercise an option, and a rise when they intend to sell
shares.

Those "muckity-mucks" have only a paper gain when their share prices
increase on the shares they own, and higher stock prices cost them
when they exercise options. It's when they sell their shares that the
higher stock prices benefit them.

If the company gives bonuses in the form of shares from authorized but
unissued stock, the higher the traded price the fewer number of shares
that need be taken from that reserve to meet a bonus amount.

Also, addressing the relevancy of the stock's price, there's
perception to deal with. It can affect their recruiting at the
higher levels of management. It can affect their ability to secure
contracts in certain types of businesses.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.

With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I see, so people don't go into law or medicine for the money? Or, for
that matter, theology? Although, the ones making the money in the
theology game are not the ones with advanced degrees.

I'm sure people *do* go into law and medicine for the money, and those
are interesting degree cases -- they're kind of in the middle.
Especially medicine, where you get everything from the people who really
want to save lives, to the ones who in fact want to make a huge amount
of money.

I spent my business career dealing with surgeons. While "I got into
this to save lives" sounds good, the real motivation is status and
money. The few doctors that are not motivated by status and money are
with Doctors Without Borders or working in clinics on reservations or
some-such.

Same with lawyers. There are a few who are working in legal aid
centers, but most are waiting for the next juicy divorce case,
malpractice case, or slip-and-fall at Wal-Mart.

Not that I feel that there's anything wrong with making money or
having status, but to ascribe altruism to the practitioners in these
professions, but avarice to the MBA, is laughably naive in my view.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Are the holders of other "practical" degrees in architecture, computer
science, engineering, and such also equally uninterested in outside
reading?

Well, I think of "business" degrees as ranking below Bachelor of Science
degrees from good institutions, which I in turn rank below Bachelor of
Arts degrees from good institutions. Your mileage may vary.

Really? What do you think a graduate of a business school comes out
with? Business degrees can be either a BS or a BA depending on the
school. I don't know what a "business degree" is or what school
awards one by that name. Some schools award a BBA (Bachelor of
Business Administration) or a BSBA. (Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration) (My undergraduate degree is a BBA)

The difference between a BA and a BS depends on which college the
university has the program in. For example, Indiana University awards
a BS to graduates in Ballet, but an Economics graduate comes out with
a BA.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

No.

That may be a motive for a few people, but most do it because they have an
interest in the subject.

If the subject is making money, then those who study that subject are more
likely to be interested in making money than people studying other subjects.

Post by Tony Cooper
I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.
With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Teaching Gray's elegy to 13-year-olds can get boring and repetitious year
after year. What gets exciting for teachers who love teaching, at whatever
level, is when they discover a potential poet in their class.

I have sometimes thought that I would like to run a bookshop. It would need to
make enough money to enable it to pay the expenses and expand the stock, and
provide an adequate income to live on for all those involved in running it.
But to do that I'd probably need to move to Hay on Wye.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?
I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.

How many MBAs have you known?

The difference that I have seen is that most people going for a masters degree are doing so just for simple advancement in their profession while MBAs are in it to become a CEO or something and make millions. They aren't doing it to improve their current job or career, but to do something where they can buy a BMW or a Porsche and a McMansion.

Post by Tony Cooper
With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Most elementary and middle school teachers I know have masters degrees.

Post by Tony Cooper
I spent my business career dealing with surgeons. While "I got into
this to save lives" sounds good, the real motivation is status and
money.

Surgeons are the MBAs of the medical profession.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:49:44 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?
I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.

How many MBAs have you known?

Oh, quite a few. Been cheek-to-jowl with many.

Post by Lewis
The difference that I have seen is that most people going for a masters
degree are doing so just for simple advancement in their profession while
MBAs are in it to become a CEO or something and make millions.

If what you say is at all true, then those who pursue a master's
degree that is not an MBA are without much ambition. I guess that's
what it means if "simple" means just a short leg up.

Actually, though, most MBAs have gone that route for advancement in
their profession. If there's something wrong with that motivation, I
certainly don't see it.

Post by Lewis
They aren't doing it to improve their current job or career,

They aren't? I've known and worked with many MBAs or people working
on their MBAs. Some take it on immediately after college graduation
and some start later when they decide that their promotion chances are
better with one.

I don't recall thinking I wanted to be on-track to be a CEO, but I was
aware that it would enhance my job future. Mostly, at the time I
started, I enjoyed the courses and wanted to continue the learning
process.

Post by Lewis
but to do something where they can buy a BMW or a Porsche and a McMansion.

None of those are particularly evil aspirations, although my MBA has
not resulted in any of them. I've never thought ambition was an
undesirable trait.

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Most elementary and middle school teachers I know have masters degrees.

Post by Tony Cooper
I spent my business career dealing with surgeons. While "I got into
this to save lives" sounds good, the real motivation is status and
money.

Surgeons are the MBAs of the medical profession.

What, then, are the Dermatologists?

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:49:44 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.

How many MBAs have you known?
The difference that I have seen is that most people going for a masters degree are doing so just for simple advancement in their profession while MBAs are in it to become a CEO or something and make millions. They aren't doing it to improve their current job or career, but to do something where they can buy a BMW or a Porsche and a McMansion.

Funny - that certainly isn't what motivated me - sure I wanted the
financial benefits of life but of my entire grad class (McMaster '83)
there were only a couple Gordon Geckos in the making.

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Most elementary and middle school teachers I know have masters degrees.

Not in our area. Department heads, vice principals and principals sure
but average teachers?

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
I spent my business career dealing with surgeons. While "I got into
this to save lives" sounds good, the real motivation is status and
money.

Surgeons are the MBAs of the medical profession.

The way you say it you'd think it really DID stand for "Master
Bullsh** Artist". I'd reckon that time was one of the more hard
hitting challenging times of my whole life not least of which it being
the critical point of my courtship of my wife.

"It was the best of times it was the worst of times" - and if you were
not constantly at your best, it really did feel like your head might
be detachable as in the Dickens quote.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Certainly not in my case. I left my job in the Civil Service to do a
Master's and PhD because I preferred the freedom of academia to the
constraints of working in government. In the end I dropped out of academia
(for reasons I won't go into here) and have done a succession of low-paid
jobs which mostly didn't require a degree, but even if I'd stayed in
academia I'd have earned substantially less than in private industry.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:13:32 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Certainly not in my case. I left my job in the Civil Service to do a
Master's and PhD because I preferred the freedom of academia to the
constraints of working in government. In the end I dropped out of academia
(for reasons I won't go into here) and have done a succession of low-paid
jobs which mostly didn't require a degree, but even if I'd stayed in
academia I'd have earned substantially less than in private industry.

You're speaking of results, not what motivated you to start on the
advanced degrees.

Phrases like "the freedom of academia" don't convey much real meaning
to me. From what I gather, those in academia don't have any more
freedom than those in any other profession. A different set of
constraints, maybe, but constraints none-the-less. I do wonder of
those in this group who are, or have been, in academia rate "freedom"
as the major benefit of their profession.

Most people who change career course do so to improve their lot. That
usually means better chances of advancement, and that results in a
better income. I don't think many people change with the intent of
remaining at the lowest rung on the economic ladder. Some, of course,
but they are usually people who want to avoid as much responsibility
as they can.

How you can conclude that academia would have paid you less than
private industry does elude me. That depends entirely on what
position you would have held in private industry. A stock-picker in a
warehouse is in private industry, but that doesn't pay substantially
more than all jobs in academia.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
Phrases like "the freedom of academia" don't convey much real meaning
to me. From what I gather, those in academia don't have any more
freedom than those in any other profession. A different set of
constraints, maybe, but constraints none-the-less. I do wonder of
those in this group who are, or have been, in academia rate "freedom"
as the major benefit of their profession.

I used to. As a junior academic I was, of course, required to do certain
jobs, including being asked to teach in areas I knew little about, and
it was also clear that I had to publish or perish, i.e. have a good
research output. On the other hand I was completely free to choose my
research topics and my method of tackling them. I was also free to
manage my own hours, and to work from home when that was appropriate. I
valued that highly.

But the academic world has changed. By the time I left the academic
world my morale was completely crushed, and most of my colleagues felt
the same. I would never recommend the job to anyone now.

Post by Tony Cooper
How you can conclude that academia would have paid you less than
private industry does elude me. That depends entirely on what
position you would have held in private industry. A stock-picker in a
warehouse is in private industry, but that doesn't pay substantially
more than all jobs in academia.

I now do casual work as an engineer, at an hourly rate that is
noticeably higher than what I was paid as a moderately senior academic.
That's because engineers are more in demand than academics. I've known
that for most of my life.

How many warehouse stock-pickers have a PhD and a CV that includes
publications in internationally respected journals? That's a minimal
requirement for the most junior jobs in academia. You don't even bother
applying for a position in academia unless you've been top of your class
all through your studies.

As an academic I was well placed to see what happened to our graduates.
As a good first approximation, the highest salaries went to the
screw-ups. Because they were hopeless at design work they were pushed up
into management. The most creative people were left in the lower-paying
creative jobs, designing things that earned good bonuses for the sales
staff (but not for themselves). Nobody wanted to promote them away from
being productive.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter Moylan
How many warehouse stock-pickers have a PhD and a CV that includes
publications in internationally respected journals?

Maybe more than you think. I have a PhD and published work in journals and
conference proceedings, and most of my jobs have been low-paid ones,
sometimes working alongside some highly qualified people. Once when I did
the night-shift at the taxi company we noted with some amusement that the
only one there without a degree was the supervisor (there was one of us with
a PhD, one with a Master's and one with an undergraduate degree).

Just because you have qualifications there's no obligation to use them in a
job.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:13:32 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Certainly not in my case. I left my job in the Civil Service to do a
Master's and PhD because I preferred the freedom of academia to the
constraints of working in government. In the end I dropped out of academia
(for reasons I won't go into here) and have done a succession of low-paid
jobs which mostly didn't require a degree, but even if I'd stayed in
academia I'd have earned substantially less than in private industry.

You're speaking of results, not what motivated you to start on the
advanced degrees.

I didn't mention the results. The reasons why I left the Civil Service to
do a Master's and a PhD were mainly that I hated the constraints of working
in the Civil Service and had friends doing postgraduate degrees who were a
lot happier, so I decided to join them. The thought of how much I might
earn as a result didn't enter my head - if money had been a consideration
then I wouldn't have left a secure salaried post in order to live on a
postgraduate grant for four years. Salaries in academia are very modest.

Post by Tony Cooper
Phrases like "the freedom of academia" don't convey much real meaning
to me.

Well they do to me. In the Civil Service I had to turn up at a fixed time,
work on stuff I wasn't remotely interested in and had no choice of who I
worked with. In academia I could start when I liked, choose what I wanted
to work on and collaborate with whoever I wanted to. It was an utterly
liberating experience for me.

Post by Tony Cooper
From what I gather, those in academia don't have any more
freedom than those in any other profession. A different set of
constraints, maybe, but constraints none-the-less. I do wonder of
those in this group who are, or have been, in academia rate "freedom"
as the major benefit of their profession.

Well maybe it's different now - there are far more targets and performance
indicators than when I was working in academia twenty years ago. But
there's still no one telling you what to do much of the time. You choose
your own area of research.

Post by Tony Cooper
Most people who change career course do so to improve their lot. That
usually means better chances of advancement, and that results in a
better income.

So how do you explain the significant numbers of people who've left private
industry to go into teaching or other areas of public service? Many people
change career because they don't like the culture in the profession that
they've come from. Sometimes it'll involve taking a pay cut. Money is one
consideration but job satisfaction is just as important for many people, if
not more so. I'd certainly rather be happy in a low-paid job than miserable
in a well-paid one.

Post by Tony Cooper
I don't think many people change with the intent of
remaining at the lowest rung on the economic ladder. Some, of course,
but they are usually people who want to avoid as much responsibility
as they can.

Well, maybe I'm one of them.

Post by Tony Cooper
How you can conclude that academia would have paid you less than
private industry does elude me. That depends entirely on what
position you would have held in private industry. A stock-picker in a
warehouse is in private industry, but that doesn't pay substantially
more than all jobs in academia.

What I meant was that after completing my Master's I could easily have taken
a job in software that would have paid far more than I could earn in
academia. But I specifically wanted to join the PhD programme at Edinburgh
and work on a subject that I had become specially interested in - categorial
grammar. No one would have paid me to do this in industry. The prospect of
three years doing something for the sheer love of it was utterly
exhilarating. I don't regret it one bit.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Guy Barry
So how do you explain the significant numbers of people who've left private
industry to go into teaching or other areas of public service?  Many people
change career because they don't like the culture in the profession that
they've come from.  Sometimes it'll involve taking a pay cut.  Money is one
consideration but job satisfaction is just as important for many people, if
not more so.  I'd certainly rather be happy in a low-paid job than miserable
in a well-paid one.

The best reason to change jobs is that you want to try something
different. I worked for HP for twenty years, but I had a different job
about every two years. I enjoyed my time there very much, but I've
enjoyed working for myself even more - I'm a much more tolerant boss
even than HP used to be. I think I'm a harder task-master though.

If you can manage it, I'd recommend working for yourself as ideal.
People keep asking me why I don't set up a company, hire people, and
make a fortune (or quite a bit anyway) - I can't see that the hassle
of managing people is worth the money.

For me the quality of life is, and has been, all. If I'm not enjoying
what I'm doing today, then I'm doing the wrong thing - with
allowances, of course, for income tax returns, the odd bad day and so
forth. I see no point at all in living for a pie in the sky when you
die, or working at something you hate in order to be rich in some
imagined retirement future.

If somebody happens to like doing something like, say, banking, and
also wants to make lots of money, ideally for some other reason, then
fair enough. Banking can be interesting, but, mainly, it's a grind,
worthwhile only to those who haven't the imagination to enjoy life.
The Alex cartoons give a remarkably accurate insight into the
condition.

When my little team of consultants was disbanded for political reasons
(it was ahead of its time, actually, it's a major division of the
company these days, back then outsourced management was in it
infancy), I had a nice big payout. I paid off the mortgage and had a
choice of doing an MBA or travelling overland down Africa. I'm
delighted that I had the wisdom to travel down Africa - even though it
nearly killed me a couple of times.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:44:13 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
If you can manage it, I'd recommend working for yourself as ideal.
People keep asking me why I don't set up a company, hire people, and
make a fortune (or quite a bit anyway) - I can't see that the hassle
of managing people is worth the money.

Well, I'm one who did that. However, it meant a considerable
investment of my savings and putting them at risk, going for nine
months without drawing a penny out of the business, and going over a
year without taking a salary. (After nine months, I was able to start
reimbursing myself for out-of-pocket expenses) It meant long hours
and working weekends. When it's your thing, you don't leave because
it's five o'clock or not do it because it's not your job.

There was some hassle in managing people until I learned that good
people worked better with a minimum of management...you give 'em a
task and let 'em run. The worst part was hiring people because that
meant rejecting people. If there are X applicants, you have to reject
all but one. There was always the thought that I had rejected the
wrong ones.

I will say this, though...I was never bored or miserable. It was a
constant series of challenges and I like that. Winning is great, and
I tried to learn something from the experience when I lost.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:44:13 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
If you can manage it, I'd recommend working for yourself as ideal.
People keep asking me why I don't set up a company, hire people, and
make a fortune (or quite a bit anyway) - I can't see that the hassle
of managing people is worth the money.

Well, I'm one who did that.  However, it meant a considerable
investment of my savings and putting them at risk, going for nine
months without drawing a penny out of the business, and going over a
year without taking a salary.  (After nine months, I was able to start
reimbursing myself for out-of-pocket expenses)  It meant long hours
and working weekends.  When it's your thing, you don't leave because
it's five o'clock or not do it because it's not your job.

Indeed, you've got to really want to do it.

Post by Tony Cooper
There was some hassle in managing people until I learned that good
people worked better with a minimum of management...you give 'em a
task and let 'em run.  The worst part was hiring people because that
meant rejecting people.  If there are X applicants, you have to reject
all but one.  There was always the thought that I had rejected the
wrong ones.

Yes, a good manager is a guide, ideally, an invisible hand, enabling
people to achieve their best.

I enjoyed managing, but five years of it was quite enough for me. I'm
happy teaching management, and writing books about it, but doing it
isn't my idea of fun.

I don't mind some parts of it, running workshops, bringing things
together, even helping produce good budgets - I still do some of this
stuff. It's being a manager of all the day-to-day stuff that I'm not
cut out for. The pettiness of people, even people you know are quite
able, appears, to me, to be bottomless and I don't enjoy being part of
it.

My brother had the story of a senior business chap, a CEO I think, who
decided to retire from his job running a company in order to have a
quite time in the groves of academe. He left the job after a few
months because he couldn't take the pressure - the political in-
fighting, back-biting and fierce feuding left him exhausted. It made
complete sense to me.

Working for myself allows me to choose my engagements. I still end up
doing a lot, and working in contact with quite a lot of people, but,
at least, none of them expect me to be their manager, or, for that
matter, expect to manage me.

I think that training as a nanny might be ideal for general man-
management positions.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:26:54 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 09:13:32 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Certainly not in my case. I left my job in the Civil Service to do a
Master's and PhD because I preferred the freedom of academia to the
constraints of working in government. In the end I dropped out of academia
(for reasons I won't go into here) and have done a succession of low-paid
jobs which mostly didn't require a degree, but even if I'd stayed in
academia I'd have earned substantially less than in private industry.

You're speaking of results, not what motivated you to start on the
advanced degrees.

I didn't mention the results.

I consider what you said to be the "results". The other posts have
been about the reason people choose a particular field of study. I
maintain that choosing to go for an advanced degree in any field is a
move to improve their future income potential. That may not the
entire motivation, but it's certainly a major one.

You went on about what you did *after* choosing your educational path.
That's "results".

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Phrases like "the freedom of academia" don't convey much real meaning
to me.

Well they do to me. In the Civil Service I had to turn up at a fixed time,
work on stuff I wasn't remotely interested in and had no choice of who I
worked with. In academia I could start when I liked, choose what I wanted
to work on and collaborate with whoever I wanted to. It was an utterly
liberating experience for me.

I guess, not being in the field, I don't understand what "academia"
is. I thought it involved teaching. If so, showing up to lecture
when the class starts or the tutorial is scheduled is a "fixed time"
thing. How do students and teachers ever get together if there is no
fixed time involved? Does the student just continue to appear
somewhere in hopes that the teacher will show up?

Your system must be different in other respects. In our system,
students either choose the course to take or, in the lower levels, are
assigned to classes. The teachers do not choose the students.

In our system, teachers don't get to choose their colleagues. They
may, at the university level, get to choose who they collaborate with
on a research project, but they have no choice of who the other
teachers or their supervisors will be.

In our system, teachers are required to teach a particular curriculum
in schools from K to 12, and have some curriculum requirements at the
university level. Even in graduate school, the teacher has to stay
somewhat within the boundaries of the course description.

Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans, grade papers, complete
reports, and - if what I hear is true - do a great deal more in
required tasks than just deliver a lecture.

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
From what I gather, those in academia don't have any more
freedom than those in any other profession. A different set of
constraints, maybe, but constraints none-the-less. I do wonder of
those in this group who are, or have been, in academia rate "freedom"
as the major benefit of their profession.

Well maybe it's different now - there are far more targets and performance
indicators than when I was working in academia twenty years ago. But
there's still no one telling you what to do much of the time. You choose
your own area of research.

Post by Tony Cooper
Most people who change career course do so to improve their lot. That
usually means better chances of advancement, and that results in a
better income.

So how do you explain the significant numbers of people who've left private
industry to go into teaching or other areas of public service?

What I read about is just the opposite. Opportunities are greater in
the private sector, and those who can are migrating to the private
sector.

Post by Guy Barry
Many people
change career because they don't like the culture in the profession that
they've come from. Sometimes it'll involve taking a pay cut. Money is one
consideration but job satisfaction is just as important for many people, if
not more so.
I'd certainly rather be happy in a low-paid job than miserable
in a well-paid one.

I agree, but there's no inherent reason that a well-paid job makes one
miserable and there's no assurity that a low-paying job will be at all
satisfying.

This - boredom and dissatisfaction with the jobs you've had - seems to
be a constant in your posts. If it comes across in person as much as
it does here, it may explain some things.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:26:54 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry
I didn't mention the results.

I consider what you said to be the "results". The other posts have
been about the reason people choose a particular field of study. I
maintain that choosing to go for an advanced degree in any field is a
move to improve their future income potential. That may not the
entire motivation, but it's certainly a major one.

Well it may be for some people, it may not be for others. I don't see how
you can generalize about individual people's motivation for doing anything.
I doubt whether most of the people I worked with at Edinburgh were trying to
improve their future income potential. They were certainly going a funny
way about it if that was the case. A lot of employers don't really want
people with PhDs.

Post by Tony Cooper
I guess, not being in the field, I don't understand what "academia"
is. I thought it involved teaching.

It involves research and teaching. A PhD is a three-year research degree.
I was not required to do any teaching over the course of the PhD programme
(though I did some while I was there). I subsequently embarked on a
two-year postdoctoral research fellowship. That didn't involve any teaching
either. Had I continued in academia I'd probably have gone into a post with
some teaching, as there are very few full-time research posts, but teaching
is only part of what you do in academia. For about half the year there are
no taught courses at all, because the students are on vacation.

Post by Tony Cooper
If so, showing up to lecture
when the class starts or the tutorial is scheduled is a "fixed time"
thing. How do students and teachers ever get together if there is no
fixed time involved? Does the student just continue to appear
somewhere in hopes that the teacher will show up?

Of course not. Lectures are scheduled.

Post by Tony Cooper
Your system must be different in other respects. In our system,
students either choose the course to take or, in the lower levels, are
assigned to classes. The teachers do not choose the students.

I was talking about choosing the colleagues that I did research with, not
choosing students.

Post by Tony Cooper
This - boredom and dissatisfaction with the jobs you've had - seems to
be a constant in your posts. If it comes across in person as much as
it does here, it may explain some things.

I do get bored quite quickly, but I wouldn't say I was dissatisfied with any
of my jobs. I've enjoyed all of them in their different ways. I just don't
enjoy sticking around in them for too long.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Many of them are attempting to improve their career path, or to improve
their personal knowledge. A lot of them are NOT primarily
income-motivated -- as you can see from the number of English graduates
:-). If you want to improve your future income potential, you should
NOT take an English degree!

Post by Tony Cooper
I really don't understand how the person who pursues an MBA is a
money-grubber, but the person who goes for an MA or MS is not.
With a BA or BS, a person can teach "Gray's Elegy" to middle
schoolers, but with a MA or MS or higher, that person can teach the
same subject to university students. And, at a higher rate of pay.

Not here, you really need a PhD to teach at the University level (with
relatively rare exceptions; I've even taught a couple of courses at a
communicy college with only a BA).

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I see, so people don't go into law or medicine for the money? Or, for
that matter, theology? Although, the ones making the money in the
theology game are not the ones with advanced degrees.

I'm sure people *do* go into law and medicine for the money, and those
are interesting degree cases -- they're kind of in the middle.
Especially medicine, where you get everything from the people who really
want to save lives, to the ones who in fact want to make a huge amount
of money.

I spent my business career dealing with surgeons. While "I got into
this to save lives" sounds good, the real motivation is status and
money. The few doctors that are not motivated by status and money are
with Doctors Without Borders or working in clinics on reservations or
some-such.

The pediatricians I know aren't there for the money, and that's a good
thing, because they don't get very much (nothing relating to children is
worth spending much money on in the USA apparently).

Post by Tony Cooper
Same with lawyers. There are a few who are working in legal aid
centers, but most are waiting for the next juicy divorce case,
malpractice case, or slip-and-fall at Wal-Mart.

And some who are running bookstores, or selling electronics at Best
Buy. I think I may know more ex-lawyers than any other profession.

Post by Tony Cooper
Not that I feel that there's anything wrong with making money or
having status, but to ascribe altruism to the practitioners in these
professions, but avarice to the MBA, is laughably naive in my view.

Sure fits my experience well.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Are the holders of other "practical" degrees in architecture, computer
science, engineering, and such also equally uninterested in outside
reading?

Well, I think of "business" degrees as ranking below Bachelor of Science
degrees from good institutions, which I in turn rank below Bachelor of
Arts degrees from good institutions. Your mileage may vary.

Really? What do you think a graduate of a business school comes out
with? Business degrees can be either a BS or a BA depending on the
school. I don't know what a "business degree" is or what school
awards one by that name. Some schools award a BBA (Bachelor of
Business Administration) or a BSBA. (Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration) (My undergraduate degree is a BBA)

Yes, but they're all business degrees. What I think of as good schools
don't even offer them.

Post by Tony Cooper
The difference between a BA and a BS depends on which college the
university has the program in. For example, Indiana University awards
a BS to graduates in Ballet, but an Economics graduate comes out with
a BA.

It depends on what the breadth requirements are, largely. The rules are
set by the particular accrediting body, but a BA requires more breadth
than a BS from the same body.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Many of them are attempting to improve their career path, or to improve
their personal knowledge. A lot of them are NOT primarily
income-motivated -- as you can see from the number of English graduates
:-). If you want to improve your future income potential, you should
NOT take an English degree!

I'm not sure how one determines primary and secondary reasons for some
actions. It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential. I'm not at all convinced that *the* primary reason
for anything can be determined when there are several results of the
decision.

It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all. The person with no degree can read the same books
and study the same subject as the degree-path person.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Many of them are attempting to improve their career path, or to improve
their personal knowledge. A lot of them are NOT primarily
income-motivated -- as you can see from the number of English graduates
:-). If you want to improve your future income potential, you should
NOT take an English degree!

I'm not sure how one determines primary and secondary reasons for some
actions.

I looked to see if there were any surveys about people's motivation for
pursuing postgraduate study. The most recent one I could find for the UK
was from 2002, but I doubt whether priorities have changed that much in the
last ten years:

http://www.npc.org.uk/postgraduatefactsandissues/postgraduatepublications/nationalsurveyofpostgraduatefundingandpriorities2002.pdf
(page 16)

"Respondents were asked to list the three main factors which influenced
their decision to pursue postgraduate study (in priority order). The most
popular responses for both full-time and part-time students were to improve
career prospects and to continue studying (Figure 3.4). Other common reasons
included personal development, and the fact that they had secured financial
backing to study. Part-time students were more likely to cite reasons of
personal development than full-time students."

Although "improve career prospects" was the most popular choice for both
full-time and part-time students, fewer than half the respondents chose it.
The fact that over a third of full-time respondents put "to continue
studying" as their main choice clearly indicates to me that for many people
postgraduate study is an end in itself, not a means to an end. A lot of
people find during their undergraduate degree that they enjoy studying and
wish to continue doing so. Here are the figures:

1st choice (full-time students):
To improve career prospects - 46.6%
To continue studying - 35.1%
Personal development - 9.5%
Secured financial backing - 2.8%
Other - 6.0%

2nd choice (full-time students):
To improve career prospects - 32.3%
To continue studying - 37.6%
Personal development - 7.1%
Secured financial backing - 6.0%
Other - 10.9%

3rd choice (full-time students):
To improve career prospects - 18.7%
To continue studying - 24.2%
Personal development - 7.2%
Secured financial backing - 6.9%
Other - 21.9%

Part-time students (1st, 2nd, 3rd choice):
To improve career prospects - 40.7%, 29.5%, 18.1%
To continue studying - 34.4%, 32.3%, 23.7%
Personal development - 17.6%, 17.6%, 10.9%
Secured financial backing - 3.8%, 4.8%, 6.4%
Other - 3.6%, 7.4%, 16.0%

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Many of them are attempting to improve their career path, or to improve
their personal knowledge. A lot of them are NOT primarily
income-motivated -- as you can see from the number of English graduates
:-). If you want to improve your future income potential, you should
NOT take an English degree!

I'm not sure how one determines primary and secondary reasons for some
actions.

I looked to see if there were any surveys about people's motivation for
pursuing postgraduate study. The most recent one I could find for the UK
was from 2002, but I doubt whether priorities have changed that much in the

I would think that the field of study would be quite an important variable.

Some career prospects are enhanced by undergraduate studies. School teachers
with first degrees, for example, got better salaries and better chances for
promotion, But a primary school teacher with a doctorate is not much more in
demands than one with a bachelor's degree.

In some fields one could pursue an academic careers, but vacancies are limited
-- Classics, for example. Fifty years ago Latin was compulsory for lawyers,
and theology students were strongly advised to take Greek, so the Classics
departments flourished with a captive market. But there's not much future,
careerwise, in that field today.

In management and accounting, however, most employers want bits of paper, and
the more impressive the bits of paper, the more impressed they are. So in
those fields money and career advancement are more likely to be strong
motivations.

I once took Business Economics I purely out of curiosity, for non-degree
purposes. I wasn't motivated to continue. I also took Private Law I for
similar reasons (I thought it might help me with my hobby, which is genealogy,
but I found general history more helpful for that).

[aue only]

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:59:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
Isn't anyone, in any field or in any discipline, who goes after an
advanced degree doing so to improve their future income potential?

Many of them are attempting to improve their career path, or to improve
their personal knowledge. A lot of them are NOT primarily
income-motivated -- as you can see from the number of English graduates
:-). If you want to improve your future income potential, you should
NOT take an English degree!

I'm not sure how one determines primary and secondary reasons for some
actions.

I looked to see if there were any surveys about people's motivation for
pursuing postgraduate study. The most recent one I could find for the UK
was from 2002, but I doubt whether priorities have changed that much in the
http://www.npc.org.uk/postgraduatefactsandissues/postgraduatepublications/nationalsurveyofpostgraduatefundingandpriorities2002.pdf
(page 16)
"Respondents were asked to list the three main factors which influenced
their decision to pursue postgraduate study (in priority order). The most
popular responses for both full-time and part-time students were to improve
career prospects and to continue studying (Figure 3.4). Other common reasons
included personal development, and the fact that they had secured financial
backing to study. Part-time students were more likely to cite reasons of
personal development than full-time students."
Although "improve career prospects" was the most popular choice for both
full-time and part-time students, fewer than half the respondents chose it.
The fact that over a third of full-time respondents put "to continue
studying" as their main choice clearly indicates to me that for many people
postgraduate study is an end in itself, not a means to an end. A lot of
people find during their undergraduate degree that they enjoy studying and
To improve career prospects - 46.6%
To continue studying - 35.1%
Personal development - 9.5%
Secured financial backing - 2.8%
Other - 6.0%

Now find a study that tells us, clearly, how honest people are when
they respond to surveys. Honest, even to themselves. Are they giving
the answer that truly represents their feelings, or are they giving
the answer that they think should represent their feelings?

Even when the respondent is absolutely sure the response will not be
connected with him/her in any way, there's the possibility the answer
chosen will the one the respondent believes should be the right thing
to think.

I wonder if "Other" includes "I'm continuing my education because I
don't want to actually go to work". I've known people like that.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
I wonder if "Other" includes "I'm continuing my education because I
don't want to actually go to work". I've known people like that.

Well of course. I did a year in the Civil Service, decided I didn't like it
and went back to education again. Is there anything wrong with that?

What I find interesting is that pursuing three years of full-time education
after you leave school is seen as desirable, yet pursuing full-time
education beyond that is seen as suspect. What's so great about an
undergraduate course? Surely if you want to earn money it's best to join an
employer straight after leaving school. Why bother with a degree?

The whole thing is arbitrary, and subject to the political and social whims
of the time.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or fulfilling
job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation. Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any factual
basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to develop skills
that make you employable than to have academic qualifications these days.
Certainly that's what they keep hammering into me at all the employment
programmes they keep sending me on.

[Peter Brooks]

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it.  Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others.  Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation.  Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't.  If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Money and motivation and their relationship has been much studied. Not
enough money demotivates - absolutely not enough, or relatively.

A pay rise can be a motivator, but only for a short while, it quickly
becomes the new norm. Large pay rises can give people the impression
that they were undervalued before and lead them to move elsewhere -
perversely, it can demotivate.

Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.

I, and I think most people, like to have enough to be comfortable. We
like to be paid enough to feel that our work is appreciated, but, if
money was truly the only thing, then we'd be misers and salesmen.

Interestingly, to me, anyway, insurance salesmen only do
extraordinarily well if they enjoy the work itself.

[Cheryl]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation. Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Money and motivation and their relationship has been much studied. Not
enough money demotivates - absolutely not enough, or relatively.
A pay rise can be a motivator, but only for a short while, it quickly
becomes the new norm. Large pay rises can give people the impression
that they were undervalued before and lead them to move elsewhere -
perversely, it can demotivate.
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.
I, and I think most people, like to have enough to be comfortable. We
like to be paid enough to feel that our work is appreciated, but, if
money was truly the only thing, then we'd be misers and salesmen.
Interestingly, to me, anyway, insurance salesmen only do
extraordinarily well if they enjoy the work itself.

Are there jobs in which enjoyment doesn't lead to doing well, if only
because enjoyment makes it easy to spend more time and effort on the work?

I can only think of things like singing and dancing, which many people
enjoy enormously, but in which no amount of effort will move you to the
top ranks if you don't have talent? Even then, a moderate amount of
talent + time and effort (fuelled by enjoyment) will pay off more than a
lot of talent but little enjoyment or work.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:07:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it.  Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others.  Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation.  Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't.  If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Money and motivation and their relationship has been much studied. Not
enough money demotivates - absolutely not enough, or relatively.
A pay rise can be a motivator, but only for a short while, it quickly
becomes the new norm. Large pay rises can give people the impression
that they were undervalued before and lead them to move elsewhere -
perversely, it can demotivate.
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.

When I was a salesman for another company I worked on straight
commission. I never wanted to work under any other conditions. When
I started my own company, I paid my salesmen straight commission.

The appeal of straight commission is that the person determines
his/her own success. There's no one else that determines what their
output is worth. If the straight commission person works longer or
harder or better than another person in the same job, the reward is
greater.

There's no feeling that working longer, harder, or better earns the
same reward as the slacker in the same job who doesn't put in the
effort when both are on a fixed salary.

You really don't understand people if you think that the commission
amount is all that matters. Being good at the job and receiving
recognition for being good is very important to people. The salesman
who is at the top of the list in sales feels good about his
accomplishment and that others see that he's at the top. It's a pride
thing.

I don't know where you get that gambling analogy. Commission people
do well when they put in time and effort in their work. Chance is not
involved.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:07:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it.  Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others.  Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation.  Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't.  If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Money and motivation and their relationship has been much studied. Not
enough money demotivates - absolutely not enough, or relatively.
A pay rise can be a motivator, but only for a short while, it quickly
becomes the new norm. Large pay rises can give people the impression
that they were undervalued before and lead them to move elsewhere -
perversely, it can demotivate.
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.

When I was a salesman for another company I worked on straight
commission.  I never wanted to work under any other conditions.  When
I started my own company, I paid my salesmen straight commission.
The appeal of straight commission is that the person determines
his/her own success.  There's no one else that determines what their
output is worth.  If the straight commission person works longer or
harder or better than another person in the same job, the reward is
greater.
There's no feeling that working longer, harder, or better earns the
same reward as the slacker in the same job who doesn't put in the
effort when both are on a fixed salary.
You really don't understand people if you think that the commission
amount is all that matters.  Being good at the job and receiving
recognition for being good is very important to people.  The salesman
who is at the top of the list in sales feels good about his
accomplishment and that others see that he's at the top.  It's a pride
thing.
I don't know where you get that gambling analogy.  Commission people
do well when they put in time and effort in their work.  Chance is not
involved.

Lol! Have a read of the Nobel prize winner's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637

Actually, you probably needn't bother. Most people who read the truth
about it continue believing the lies - odd, but true.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Tony Cooper
There's no feeling that working longer, harder, or better earns the
same reward as the slacker in the same job who doesn't put in the
effort when both are on a fixed salary.

You can't have met many clever people then. Part of being clever, a
rather sad part, actually, is that simple jobs, like selling stuff,
take very little effort.

That's why you seldom find clever people doing such jobs, they might
seem fun to begin with, but they become very boring, very quickly.
Clever people need a challenge - working hard at something simple, for
long hours, simply doesn't hack it.

I met a very clever chap doing a boring job once. He was annoyed that,
despite his best efforts, people kept discovering that he was clever
and trying to promote him. He just did the job for money, so he had
time to get on with living and doing the thinking that he found fun.

[Dr Nick]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Tony Cooper
There's no feeling that working longer, harder, or better earns the
same reward as the slacker in the same job who doesn't put in the
effort when both are on a fixed salary.

You can't have met many clever people then. Part of being clever, a
rather sad part, actually, is that simple jobs, like selling stuff,
take very little effort.

There's an interesting arrogance among many technologically bright
people that makes them think that dealing with people is easy (and
maintaining a good relationship with a customer is part of dealing with
people).

You see it in the casual abuse of HR and "management" (to actually
manage something is supremely difficult) by techies and in remarks like
this. I've worked with both sorts of people doing both sorts of work
and - trust me - machines are a piece of cake compared with people.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Dr Nick

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Tony Cooper
There's no feeling that working longer, harder, or better earns the
same reward as the slacker in the same job who doesn't put in the
effort when both are on a fixed salary.

You can't have met many clever people then. Part of being clever, a
rather sad part, actually, is that simple jobs, like selling stuff,
take very little effort.

There's an interesting arrogance among many technologically bright
people that makes them think that dealing with people is easy (and
maintaining a good relationship with a customer is part of dealing with
people).

I don't think dealing with people is easy. I've made my feelings about
this clear, recently, in this group. I admit, openly, that I decided
that being a manager was not for me - partly because it was difficult,
and partly because it isn't my skill.

I teach, though, regularly. A few weeks ago, I taught a difficult
course to a dozen students and got 100% of them through it. So, though
dealing with people is not my forte, and I acknowledge my
deficiencies, and admire people who are excellent at it, I'm not
entirely hopeless at it.

As I was saying, about insurance salesmen.. I was at the largest
insurance company in South Africa (listed on the LSE - the Old
Mutual), the other day. I was doing some consulting for them. What
impressed me is that one man had won the top salesman of the year for
about twenty years running - just one man. I'd never heard of him, so
he wasn't startlingly rich as a result. He obviously was extremely
good at it, and enjoyed his job - he could, having been top for 10
years, had he been Epicurean and hated his job, have retired, that he
continued for 20 (more, I think, actually) proved he enjoyed it.

Post by Dr Nick
You see it in the casual abuse of HR and "management" (to actually
manage something is supremely difficult) by techies and in remarks like
this.  I've worked with both sorts of people doing both sorts of work
and - trust me - machines are a piece of cake compared with people.

I've had to work with HR quite a bit. I've met quite a lot of them.
They're not all stupid, and they're not all jobsworths, certainly, but
it's not a place where bright, able, enthusiastic thinkers end up,
that's very clear.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:55:53 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
As I was saying, about insurance salesmen.. I was at the largest
insurance company in South Africa (listed on the LSE - the Old
Mutual), the other day. I was doing some consulting for them.

I'm trying to reconcile your position as a consultant with your low
opinion of salesmen. Is a consultant not a salesman when flogging his
services? And, isn't he in essence, a commission salesman since his
fee depends on the amount of time he convinces the customer to spend
with him?

To employ an old adage, isn't a consultant just someone who can't do
it himself but purports to be able to tell others how to do it?

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:07:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.
I, and I think most people, like to have enough to be comfortable. We
like to be paid enough to feel that our work is appreciated, but, if
money was truly the only thing, then we'd be misers and salesmen.

After many years participating in this group, I only now find that I
am in a group reviled by many of the others in the group.

I have an MBA, I spent my early career as a commissioned salesman, and
I formed a company that employed only commissioned salesmen.

I think my own motivation was competitiveness, not money, but money is
a counter and it's disingenuous not to see that. Once, when I secured
the contract to supply all of the surgical instruments for a hospital
that was opening a new satellite facility, I remember being quite
elated and feeling like I'd really accomplished something by beating
out all of the competition. I'd worked months on the sale and it
wasn't a bidding situation. There was a fat commission involved, but
that was just icing on the cake.

I guess another reviled group I belong to is that I see nothing at all
wrong or abnormal about wanting to be successful financially. It
allows you to do so much. Without some success in this area, I
wouldn't have been able to travel as much as I have or to engage in
some of the hobbies I have.

I hope the last group I'm in is not reviled: I loved my work and
never, ever, was bored or dissatisfied with what I was doing.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:07:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.
I, and I think most people, like to have enough to be comfortable. We
like to be paid enough to feel that our work is appreciated, but, if
money was truly the only thing, then we'd be misers and salesmen.

After many years participating in this group, I only now find that I
am in a group reviled by many of the others in the group.
I have an MBA, I spent my early career as a commissioned salesman, and
I formed a company that employed only commissioned salesmen.
I think my own motivation was competitiveness, not money, but money is
a counter and it's disingenuous not to see that. Once, when I secured
the contract to supply all of the surgical instruments for a hospital
that was opening a new satellite facility, I remember being quite
elated and feeling like I'd really accomplished something by beating
out all of the competition. I'd worked months on the sale and it
wasn't a bidding situation. There was a fat commission involved, but
that was just icing on the cake.
I guess another reviled group I belong to is that I see nothing at all
wrong or abnormal about wanting to be successful financially. It
allows you to do so much. Without some success in this area, I
wouldn't have been able to travel as much as I have or to engage in
some of the hobbies I have.
I hope the last group I'm in is not reviled: I loved my work and
never, ever, was bored or dissatisfied with what I was doing.

Tony,

Different people have different skills and interests. What interests one
person does not necessarily interest another. What brings us together here is
an interest in English usage, and that is because most of us either speak it
or are trying to speak it.

Perhaps we could make another thread about varieties of occupations etc, but
for the moment I will elaborate on my original point -- that having an MBA
will not, on its own, qualify a person to make a go of managing a bookshop.


In the case I referred to a large conglomerate took over another large
conglomerate which had, at some point, acquired a chain of bookshops. The
latter group allowed the bookshops to be run by people who enjoyed running
bookshops, and knew about bookshops. They were themselves interested in books,
and knew that most of the turnover does not come from a few best sellers, but
from books of which they stock 3-4 copies. They know that many people do not
go into bookshops to buy a specific book, and even if they do, they often end
up buying a different book instead of or in addition to the one they
originally intended to buy, and that in making their choice the do not want to
be accosted by, or influenced by, a "greeter". If I feel that there is a
greeter or someone watching me and offering to help, then I will feel
unwelcome in that shop and will get out as soon as possible. The MBAs at the
conglomerate that has now taken over do not understand this, and apparently
believe in a "one size fits all" management style.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:07:16 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Brooks
Some people, fortunately a minority, are only motivated by money and
they find their way into jobs where they get paid commission - then it
acts much like a gambling addiction.
I, and I think most people, like to have enough to be comfortable. We
like to be paid enough to feel that our work is appreciated, but, if
money was truly the only thing, then we'd be misers and salesmen.

After many years participating in this group, I only now find that I
am in a group reviled by many of the others in the group.
I have an MBA, I spent my early career as a commissioned salesman, and
I formed a company that employed only commissioned salesmen.
I think my own motivation was competitiveness, not money, but money is
a counter and it's disingenuous not to see that.  Once, when I secured
the contract to supply all of the surgical instruments for a hospital
that was opening a new satellite facility, I remember being quite
elated and feeling like I'd really accomplished something by beating
out all of the competition.  I'd worked months on the sale and it
wasn't a bidding situation.  There was a fat commission involved, but
that was just icing on the cake.
I guess another reviled group I belong to is that I see nothing at all
wrong or abnormal about wanting to be successful financially.  It
allows you to do so much.  Without some success in this area, I
wouldn't have been able to travel as much as I have or to engage in
some of the hobbies I have.
I hope the last group I'm in is not reviled:  I loved my work and
never, ever, was bored or dissatisfied with what I was doing.

Tony,
Different people have different skills and interests. What interests one
person does not necessarily interest another. What brings us together here is
an interest in English usage, and that is because most of us either speak it
or are trying to speak it.
Perhaps we could make another thread about varieties of occupations etc, but
for the moment I will elaborate on my original point -- that having an MBA
will not, on its own, qualify a person to make a go of managing a bookshop.
In the case I referred to a large conglomerate took over another large
conglomerate which had, at some point, acquired a chain of bookshops. The
latter group allowed the bookshops to be run by people who enjoyed running
bookshops, and knew about bookshops. They were themselves interested in books,
and knew that most of the turnover does not come from a few best sellers, but
from books of which they stock 3-4 copies. They know that many people do not
go into bookshops to buy a specific book, and even if they do, they often end
up buying a different book instead of or in addition to the one they
originally intended to buy, and that in making their choice the do not want to
be accosted by, or influenced by, a "greeter". If I feel that there is a
greeter or someone watching me and offering to help, then I will feel
unwelcome in that shop and will get out as soon as possible. The MBAs at the
conglomerate that has now taken over do not understand this, and apparently
believe in a "one size fits all" management style.

Well put. It is also cultural. Some cultures are happy to have paid
strangers ask about their business. You, or I, would find ir rude and
intrusive, but some folks find ir reassuring, and feel loved.

I heard about a woman who pot biscuits on her plebvision each night:
'for the nice newsreader'

Sad, but we shouldn't be hard on people with so little.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Tony Cooper
I hope the last group I'm in is not reviled:  I loved my work and
never, ever, was bored or dissatisfied with what I was doing.

Don't go all soft, Tony! You're not reviled. I enjoy chatting to you.

It's partially a cultural thing. In Yankland, having a boring job to
make money is seen as really good - hollywood films keep shoving that
sort of shite into the faces of everybody. I'd just that people in the
civilised world have always seen it as shite.

You can't help it, though, it isn't your fault. Don't feel bad about
it.

Read Chomsky about the 'manufacturing of consent' and understand why
you feel OK about it.

It reminds me a bit of the shrink in the sketch who empathised with
his patient a bit too much - saying, yes, arson, I do understand the
impulse, I've given in to it a few times myself... and so on. but it
isn't like that.

We do understand that you've been lucky enough to encounter reality.
Just think of all those sad people who read Dale Carnegie and thought
that they'd heard the words of the gods - and never came, even in
later years, to realise how misguided they were. You're beyond all
that....

Oh, later, you could read Epicurus and, maybe, the 'Tau of Pooh'. It
is never too late to gain enlightenment. - I'm not taking the piss
here, either, Tony, I really mean it.

[Cheryl]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or
fulfilling job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've
never found that money makes a great deal of difference to my
motivation. Either I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't
enjoy it, then money won't make me any more motivated.

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are
reasonably literate and can complete jobs you start.

Some employers seem to use the presence or absence of a degree as a
screening tool, but merely to cut down on the number of applicants they
have to carefully consider.

I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.
This seems rather bizarre to me. Someone with a BEd should know all they
need to know to teach the lower grades, and a BEd + BA or BSc should do
for the higher ones. And if the would-be teacher discovers he hates
teaching, he isn't on the hook for a higher degree as well. I wonder do
they require work terms?

[Guy Barry]

Post by Guy Barry
This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are reasonably
literate and can complete jobs you start.

I expect it does, but there are plenty of people without degrees who have
those abilities as well.

I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

[Cheryl]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Cheryl

Post by Guy Barry
This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are
reasonably literate and can complete jobs you start.

I expect it does, but there are plenty of people without degrees who
have those abilities as well.

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.
This seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

I once considered becoming a librarian. When I looked into the training
required and the likelihood of employment where I wanted to live,
someone told me that I would have to get a Masters in Library Science,
which wasn't hard, but wasn't very interesting or connected with the
actual work of a librarian.

I think that's more common than not at all levels. Years ago, a big
company arrived for a big project and wanted to hire labourers and
certain people categories of skilled and semi-skilled labour. There was
a run on high school equivalency certificates and programs because they
insisted on high school graduation for everyone, including people who
had training and decades of related work experience.

It doesn't make much sense, but it appears to be the way things work
nowadays, particularly in large employers who don't let people take the
initiative in hiring practices.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Cheryl
I think that's more common than not at all levels. Years ago, a big
company arrived for a big project and wanted to hire labourers and
certain people categories of skilled and semi-skilled labour. There was
a run on high school equivalency certificates and programs because they
insisted on high school graduation for everyone, including people who
had training and decades of related work experience.
It doesn't make much sense, but it appears to be the way things work
nowadays, particularly in large employers who don't let people take the
initiative in hiring practices.

I'm glad you said "not much" and not "makes no sense".

I've always subscribed to the thought that the high school graduate
has at least demonstrated that he/she has completed something. The
non-graduate dropped out and didn't bother to complete the program.

The high school diploma or GED certificate doesn't indicate that
anything useful to the job has been learned, but it does indicate that
the person is disciplined enough to complete something that may not
have been either enjoyable or easy for that person.

The more sensible requirement is a high school diploma, a GED, or X
amount of time working in the specific field if the job is in the
labor field.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry
This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it?  I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are reasonably
literate and can complete jobs you start.

I expect it does, but there are plenty of people without degrees who have
those abilities as well.

I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year

I attended one, and I gave a couple hundred, if that counts.

Post by Guy Barry
I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

So do some of the students. I feel particularly sorry for the future
physical therapists (=BrE... never mind, it's obvious) who have to
take two semesters of physics, including electricity, magnetism, and
the beginnings of relativity and nuclear physics. On the other hand,
you never what's going to be useful to people.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Lanarcam]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry
This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are reasonably
literate and can complete jobs you start.

I expect it does, but there are plenty of people without degrees who have
those abilities as well.

I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year

I attended one, and I gave a couple hundred, if that counts.

Post by Guy Barry
I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

So do some of the students. I feel particularly sorry for the future
physical therapists (=BrE... never mind, it's obvious) who have to
take two semesters of physics, including electricity, magnetism, and
the beginnings of relativity and nuclear physics. On the other hand,
you never what's going to be useful to people.

What do you call "psysical therapists"? I have read a book* by a medical
doctor who has also studied physics and has developped the MRI by
diffusion. It was only thanks to his double skills that he could
achieve it and imagine the applications.

* "Denis le Bihan, le cerveau de cristal" available soon in English.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry
It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year

I attended one, and I gave a couple hundred, if that counts.

Oh well, OK. I bet I'm the only person here who was paid to attend
lectures, though.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry
I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

So do some of the students. I feel particularly sorry for the future
physical therapists (=BrE... never mind, it's obvious) who have to
take two semesters of physics, including electricity, magnetism, and
the beginnings of relativity and nuclear physics. On the other hand,
you never what's going to be useful to people.

I had to look that up. You mean what we call "physiotherapists"? Their
main training is in physics?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry
It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year

I attended one, and I gave a couple hundred, if that counts.

Oh well, OK.  I bet I'm the only person here who was paid to attend
lectures, though.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Guy Barry
I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

So do some of the students.  I feel particularly sorry for the future
physical therapists (=BrE... never mind, it's obvious) who have to
take two semesters of physics, including electricity, magnetism, and
the beginnings of relativity and nuclear physics.  On the other hand,
you never what's going to be useful to people.

I had to look that up.  You mean what we call "physiotherapists"?

Yes, sorry.

Their main training is in physics?

One of these days I'll have to figure out what goes on in British
universities, because I don't see how what I said could imply that.
Anyway, I'm talking about people who are getting a bachelor's degree
in in physical therapy, which nominally takes four academic years.
During one of those years, one of their four or five classes is
physics. So it's nhot much, but probably everything after force and
torque is spectacularly unrelated to their chosen career.

Of course everyone is better off knowing a little physics, but why
single out the physical therapists?

("Nominally" because my students are particularly likely to have work
and family repsonsibilities that require them to take fewer courses
per semester (="term"), so their degrees take more time.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:52:07 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
One of these days I'll have to figure out what goes on in British
universities, because I don't see how what I said could imply that.
Anyway, I'm talking about people who are getting a bachelor's degree
in in physical therapy, which nominally takes four academic years.
During one of those years, one of their four or five classes is
physics. So it's nhot much, but probably everything after force and
torque is spectacularly unrelated to their chosen career.
Of course everyone is better off knowing a little physics, but why
single out the physical therapists?

Who sets the curriculum for a degree program? Surely, the university
does with input (read: influence) from whatever agency that licenses
or certifies the graduate.

The university would want to develop a program that trains the person,
but also a program that maximizes the university's ability to utilize
extant assets. In other words, the university's requirement is X
number of hours of courses to get the degree. If some of those hours
can be taken with already-present classes and teaching staff, it's to
the university's advantage.

You are already on the university payroll and will be whether or not
the university offers a physical therapy program. Unless I
misunderstand the system, you will not cost the university more if you
teach more classes or students.

So, if that curriculum includes your course in the X hours, they don't
have to add some other course or instructor to get to X hours.

In every state there's some licensing or regulating organization for
specialties like physiotherapy. That organization wants to license
qualified people, but they also don't want the field to be
over-saturated. Making the degree requirements a bit tough is to the
advantage of those in the field and entering the field. It's not
inconceivable to me that the organization lobbies or otherwise
attempts to influence the university to add a difficulty factor.

The university system in one state tends to follow the general program
offered in other states, so what one university does is likely to be
what other universities do.

Possibly, my outlook is a bit cynical, but a university is a business
of sorts and - as such - I don't think they're above tailoring a
program to their own advantage.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry
This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it?  I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

Well, there is the theory that completing a degree means you are reasonably
literate and can complete jobs you start.

I expect it does, but there are plenty of people without degrees who have
those abilities as well.

I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

It does depend rather on what the 'Universities' are like. In
California, as above, and, increasingly in Pom, and other places, the
quality of a 'degree' is so debased that they want a masters or
doctorate to tell that somebody actually has a degree.

I remember, years ago, being given to understand that a US master's
degree was equivalent to, or a bit less than a European bachelor's,
and a doctorate at about the level of a European honours or master's
qualification. I've not seen a lot to disabuse me of this. Though it
is true that the 'New "error of judgement" Labour' attack on standards
- started by John Major's renaming of polytechnics as 'universities'
has rather narrowed the gap.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

It does depend rather on what the 'Universities' are like. In
California, as above, and, increasingly in Pom, and other places, the
quality of a 'degree' is so debased that they want a masters or
doctorate to tell that somebody actually has a degree.
I remember, years ago, being given to understand that a US master's
degree was equivalent to, or a bit less than a European bachelor's,
and a doctorate at about the level of a European honours or master's
qualification. I've not seen a lot to disabuse me of this. Though it
is true that the 'New "error of judgement" Labour' attack on standards
- started by John Major's renaming of polytechnics as 'universities'
has rather narrowed the gap.

My Honours thesis for an Australian university was at least twice as
long as a local (US) institution is specifying as the *maximum* for a
Master's thesis in the same field -- and students can get away without
even writing a "thesis": they can get by with a 40-page "research paper"
if they are deemed to be incapable of writing such a thesis; I think
some of my term papers in Oz might not have been too far short of that
(translating single-spaced longhand pages to 1.5-spaced computer-printed
pages).

Perce

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not as a
counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12. This
seems rather bizarre to me.

It seems rather bizarre to me that academic degrees are regarded as a
qualification for anything much, but everyone seems to think they are.
Speaking as possibly the only person here who has attended undergraduate
lectures within the last year I really wonder what their relevance is to
anything outside academia in many cases.

It does depend rather on what the 'Universities' are like. In
California, as above, and, increasingly in Pom, and other places, the
quality of a 'degree' is so debased that they want a masters or
doctorate to tell that somebody actually has a degree.
I remember, years ago, being given to understand that a US master's
degree was equivalent to, or a bit less than a European bachelor's,
and a doctorate at about the level of a European honours or master's
qualification. I've not seen a lot to disabuse me of this. Though it
is true that the 'New "error of judgement" Labour' attack on standards
- started by John Major's renaming of polytechnics as 'universities'
has rather narrowed the gap.

My Honours thesis for an Australian university was at least twice as
long as a local (US) institution is specifying as the *maximum* for a
Master's thesis in the same field -- and students can get away without
even writing a "thesis": they can get by with a 40-page "research paper"
if they are deemed to be incapable of writing such a thesis; I think
some of my term papers in Oz might not have been too far short of that
(translating single-spaced longhand pages to 1.5-spaced computer-printed
pages).

Yes, quite. It isn't an accident that many of the top modern
philosophers come from Oz.

[the Omrud]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
My Honours thesis for an Australian university was at least twice as
long as a local (US) institution is specifying as the *maximum* for a
Master's thesis in the same field -- and students can get away without
even writing a "thesis": they can get by with a 40-page "research paper"
if they are deemed to be incapable of writing such a thesis; I think
some of my term papers in Oz might not have been too far short of that
(translating single-spaced longhand pages to 1.5-spaced computer-printed
pages).

Yes, quite. It isn't an accident that many of the top modern
philosophers come from Oz.

I blame Monty Python.

[Jeff Urs]

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.

In Kentucky, every state-certified teacher must earn a master's degree
within ten years of certification or lose that certification. I believe
the policy was instituted to ensure that teachers continue to learn
after certification, but it is easy to see how it could be corrupted
into what you describe.

[Cheryl]

Post by Jeff Urs

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.

In Kentucky, every state-certified teacher must earn a master's degree
within ten years of certification or lose that certification. I believe
the policy was instituted to ensure that teachers continue to learn
after certification, but it is easy to see how it could be corrupted
into what you describe.

In our system, last I looked at it, you needed a bachelor's degree, and
usually something in a 'teachable subject' - in order to teach older
students, this would mean a degree in English, chemistry or whatever
plus enough extra courses in education to make up a BEd as well.

Master's degrees are encouraged because the pay scale is based on years
of education and years of experience. Administrators (Principals) and
curriculum specialists, usually working at the Board level, would be
expected to have MEd degrees, although it wasn't unusual for a
kindergarten teacher to have a MEd in educational administration and
absolutely no intention of becoming an administrator - the motivation
would be to get higher pay.

I can remember the days small rural communities would get the government
to issue provisional or temporary certification to people with a few or
no university courses because they couldn't find anyone else. Some of
those people started teaching at 17 or 18, did both the undergraduate
and masters degrees part-time through distance education and summer
school, and were eligible to retire on full pension under the '30 and
out, minimum age 55' provisions. Some of them were excellent teachers, too.

I must be getting old and nostalgic.

[Lanarcam]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Jeff Urs

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.

In Kentucky, every state-certified teacher must earn a master's degree
within ten years of certification or lose that certification. I believe
the policy was instituted to ensure that teachers continue to learn
after certification, but it is easy to see how it could be corrupted
into what you describe.

In our system, last I looked at it, you needed a bachelor's degree, and
usually something in a 'teachable subject' - in order to teach older
students, this would mean a degree in English, chemistry or whatever
plus enough extra courses in education to make up a BEd as well.
Master's degrees are encouraged because the pay scale is based on years
of education and years of experience. Administrators (Principals) and
curriculum specialists, usually working at the Board level, would be
expected to have MEd degrees, although it wasn't unusual for a
kindergarten teacher to have a MEd in educational administration and
absolutely no intention of becoming an administrator - the motivation
would be to get higher pay.
I can remember the days small rural communities would get the government
to issue provisional or temporary certification to people with a few or
no university courses because they couldn't find anyone else. Some of
those people started teaching at 17 or 18, did both the undergraduate
and masters degrees part-time through distance education and summer
school, and were eligible to retire on full pension under the '30 and
out, minimum age 55' provisions. Some of them were excellent teachers, too.
I must be getting old and nostalgic.

I could have said "good man", but you are a woman ;)

[Jerry Friedman]

On Dec 31, 9:19 am, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
...

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.
This seems rather bizarre to me. Someone with a BEd should know all they
need to know to teach the lower grades,

I don't know--trying to communicate with those little minds always
seemed intimidating.

Post by Cheryl
and a BEd + BA or BSc should do for the higher ones.

I think a BA or BS + MEd is a typical pattern. (In New Mexico, which
is very different from California, all you need is a bachelor's and
some undergrad education classes. I almost did that.)

Post by Cheryl
And if the would-be teacher discovers he hates teaching,

Or hates working as a teacher in current schools

Post by Cheryl
he isn't on the hook for a higher degree as well. I wonder do
they require work terms?

I think so, with mentors.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Cheryl
I read somewhere recently that in California these days, you need a
master's degree in education to get a job - as a beginner teacher, not
as a counsellor or anything specialized - as a teacher in grades K-12.
This seems rather bizarre to me. Someone with a BEd should know all they
need to know to teach the lower grades, and a BEd + BA or BSc should do
for the higher ones. And if the would-be teacher discovers he hates
teaching, he isn't on the hook for a higher degree as well. I wonder do
they require work terms?

The same is somewhat true in Florida, but not because the master's
degree is requirement for the job. Our education budget has been
slashed by the state, and lowered property values and repossessed
homes have lowered property tax income to the state.

Some schools have been closed due to consolidation and there have been
teaching staff reductions. So, when a job does open up, there's a
large pool of applicants. The applicants with advanced degrees have
an advantage. The applicant with master's will be chosen before the
applicant with a BA even though the master's isn't a requirement.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or
fulfilling job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've
never found that money makes a great deal of difference to my
motivation. Either I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy
it, then money won't make me any more motivated.

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

For many years now, young people in the USA have been told that they
have to have a "college" degree if they want anything but a dead-end
job. But many of those jobs that previously asked for (I did not say
"required": would-be employers asked for a college degree because there
was a glut of people with college degrees and the employers could afford
to be picky -- I remember reading a few decades ago that India had such
a glut of college graduates that a transport company was insisting on a
degree to work as a truck driver) a college degree have now been
exported, and it's the non-exportable skilled-trade positions that
employers are having difficulty filling: electrician, diesel mechanic, etc.

Perce

[Cheryl]

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or
fulfilling job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've
never found that money makes a great deal of difference to my
motivation. Either I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy
it, then money won't make me any more motivated.

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

For many years now, young people in the USA have been told that they
have to have a "college" degree if they want anything but a dead-end
job. But many of those jobs that previously asked for (I did not say
"required": would-be employers asked for a college degree because there
was a glut of people with college degrees and the employers could afford
to be picky -- I remember reading a few decades ago that India had such
a glut of college graduates that a transport company was insisting on a
degree to work as a truck driver) a college degree have now been
exported, and it's the non-exportable skilled-trade positions that
employers are having difficulty filling: electrician, diesel mechanic, etc.
Perce

From what I've heard, in the US there is now a tendency to give degrees
in fields that were once the province of what used to be called Trades
(Or Vocational) Colleges, thus confusing even more what it means to have
a college degree.

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Percival P. Cassidy
For many years now, young people in the USA have been told that they
have to have a "college" degree if they want anything but a dead-end
job. But many of those jobs that previously asked for (I did not say
"required": would-be employers asked for a college degree because there
was a glut of people with college degrees and the employers could afford
to be picky -- I remember reading a few decades ago that India had such
a glut of college graduates that a transport company was insisting on a
degree to work as a truck driver) a college degree have now been
exported, and it's the non-exportable skilled-trade positions that
employers are having difficulty filling: electrician, diesel mechanic, etc.

There was a time when graduating from high school was rare. There was a
time when learning to read was rare. Society moves on.

The Associates degree program has been successful beyond the wildest
dreams of those who first designed them, I figure.

Post by Cheryl
From what I've heard, in the US there is now a tendency to give degrees
in fields that were once the province of what used to be called Trades
(Or Vocational) Colleges, thus confusing even more what it means to have
a college degree.

On the one hand it now seems like you need an Associates degree to get a
job as a janitor. On the other hand the amount of education needed in
general has increased across the generations once education became
nearly universal in western civilization.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or
fulfilling job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've
never found that money makes a great deal of difference to my
motivation. Either I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy
it, then money won't make me any more motivated.

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any
factual basis for it? I'd have thought that it was more important to
develop skills that make you employable than to have academic
qualifications these days. Certainly that's what they keep hammering
into me at all the employment programmes they keep sending me on.

For many years now, young people in the USA have been told that they
have to have a "college" degree if they want anything but a dead-end
job. But many of those jobs that previously asked for (I did not say
"required": would-be employers asked for a college degree because there
was a glut of people with college degrees and the employers could afford
to be picky -- I remember reading a few decades ago that India had such
a glut of college graduates that a transport company was insisting on a
degree to work as a truck driver) a college degree have now been
exported, and it's the non-exportable skilled-trade positions that
employers are having difficulty filling: electrician, diesel mechanic, etc.
Perce

 From what I've heard, in the US there is now a tendency to give degrees
in fields that were once the province of what used to be called Trades
(Or Vocational) Colleges, thus confusing even more what it means to have
a college degree.

Quite. A Ph.d in car mechanics might have meant something before it
simply involved doing what the computer told you to do.

It has meant that it's a lot cheaper to get a mechanic, which is a
good thing. It's also helped those children who, otherwise, would have
suffered from having no mechanical inclination, verbal or spacial
awareness and so forth.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:12:44 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or fulfilling
job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Why would you find such a simple statement to be un-understandable?

There is no embedded limitation of meaning to "improve one's career
path". It means anything from opportunities for promotion to
opportunities for a more important or rewarding (in any way) job.
Normally, a larger salary goes along with a promotion or a more
important job.

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
It's fashionable for some to declare that they are not money-motivated
just as it is fashionable to others to declare that they are.

I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation. Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Sounds good to say when it isn't working for you.

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
And, you *do* improve your future income potential by taking an
English degree. You may not be improving it in the same way that you
would by taking a degree is some other subject, but you are more
likely to have a job, and a job that pays more, than a person who has
no degree at all.

This is the sort of statement I often see quoted, but is there any factual
basis for it?

I'd counter with "This is the sort of statement I often see quoted,
but is there any factual basis for it?" when people talk about money
not being important to them. It's usually just a rationalization for
not being able to obtain a position that does pay more.

Post by Guy Barry
I'd have thought that it was more important to develop skills
that make you employable than to have academic qualifications these days.
Certainly that's what they keep hammering into me at all the employment
programmes they keep sending me on.

Now this I find un-understandable. As far as I'm concerned, academic
qualifications *are* skills. "Job skills" are simply something you've
learned how to do that enables you to hold some position. If you've
learned how to weld things, you have a job skill that should enable
you to obtain a job as a welder. If you have learned how to obtain
the academic qualifications to be a chemist, you have a job skill that
should enable you to obtain a job as a chemist.

You have the academic qualifications, or job skills, to get and hold a
position in a particular field. If you are unable to do so, it is due
to something else other than the lack of job skills. It's more about
you than it is about job skills.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:12:44 -0000, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
It's against human nature not to be aware that improving
one's career path is normally accompanied by improving one's income or
income potential.

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "improving one's
career path"? If you simply mean earning more money, then the above
statement is tautologous; if you mean having a more enjoyable or fulfilling
job, then the above statement is not necessarily true.

Why would you find such a simple statement to be un-understandable?
There is no embedded limitation of meaning to "improve one's career
path". It means anything from opportunities for promotion to
opportunities for a more important or rewarding (in any way) job.
Normally, a larger salary goes along with a promotion or a more
important job.

What do you mean, "normally"? If you stay within one organization or move
between employers in similar organizations, that's probably the case. If
you choose to move to a completely different career, your salary may go up
or down. Salaries aren't matched between different employers in different
fields. You're talking about promotion within a particular field only.

And what's a "more important job" anyway? Who decides what jobs are
"important"? Are there unimportant jobs?

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Guy Barry
I'm not sure if fashion comes into it. Some people are undoubtedly
motivated by money to a greater degree than others. Personally, I've never
found that money makes a great deal of difference to my motivation.
Either
I enjoy what I'm doing, or I don't. If I don't enjoy it, then money won't
make me any more motivated.

Sounds good to say when it isn't working for you.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've never been motivated
by money, "important jobs" or any of that bullshit. I'm a person of very
modest means and lifestyle. Why is it that people with money are incapable
of understanding that people can be motivated without it? I don't want to
be "important". I want to be happy. Is that concept really so difficult
for you to grasp?

Post by Tony Cooper
I'd counter with "This is the sort of statement I often see quoted,
but is there any factual basis for it?" when people talk about money
not being important to them. It's usually just a rationalization for
not being able to obtain a position that does pay more.

I am not, and never have been, interested in earning lots of money. Ever.
Period. If you are incapable of understanding that then there is something
*seriously* wrong with you.

I appreciate that some people are motivated that way. I also appreciate
that plenty of people aren't. Which is just as well, because otherwise
there'd be no one to work in the public services and in the voluntary sector
and in many other fields that don't pay well. People have different talents
and different expectations, and thank God for that. Can you imagine how
awful society would be if everyone just chased after the highest-paid jobs
all the time? There'd be no policemen, nurses, teachers, firefighters...
nothing. Society just wouldn't be able to function.

Can you not accept that different people have different motivations?

Post by Tony Cooper
Now this I find un-understandable. As far as I'm concerned, academic
qualifications *are* skills.

Skill: "Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed
through training or experience".

A skill is the ability to carry out a task as efficiently as possible.
Academic qualifications may be evidence of certain skills, but they're not
skills in themselves.

Post by Tony Cooper
You have the academic qualifications, or job skills, to get and hold a
position in a particular field. If you are unable to do so, it is due
to something else other than the lack of job skills. It's more about
you than it is about job skills.

Qualifications and skills are two different things. I've developed plenty
of skills in the course of my employment, most of which have nothing to do
with my qualifications.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Well, I think of "business" degrees as ranking below Bachelor of Science
degrees from good institutions, which I in turn rank below Bachelor of
Arts degrees from good institutions. Your mileage may vary.

Really? What do you think a graduate of a business school comes out
with? Business degrees can be either a BS or a BA depending on the
school. I don't know what a "business degree" is or what school
awards one by that name. Some schools award a BBA (Bachelor of
Business Administration) or a BSBA. (Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration) (My undergraduate degree is a BBA)

Yes, but they're all business degrees. What I think of as good schools
don't even offer them.

Wow. What "good" school doesn't offer them? I'm at a loss as to what
a "them" is. An undergraduate degree specifically in Business?

Nine of the top ten universities in the US list having a Business
School: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Chicago,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, Duke, University of
Pennsylvania and California Institute of Technology.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/page+2

Princeton is the exception. Harvard may also be an exception; I can't
tell if they have an undergraduate Business program.

There's also list of top-ranked MBA programs at
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/mba-rankings
Of my two schools, Northwestern is ranked #12 on the "best colleges"
list, but #4 in Business School MBA programs. Indiana is #23 on that
list.

If a university has a School of Business for undergraduates, but
doesn't award a BBA or BSBA, I hardly think that means that it isn't
offering a business degree. They just designate it as a BA or BS and
the holder would usually "I have a BS in Business".

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Well, I think of "business" degrees as ranking below Bachelor of Science
degrees from good institutions, which I in turn rank below Bachelor of
Arts degrees from good institutions. Your mileage may vary.

Really? What do you think a graduate of a business school comes out
with? Business degrees can be either a BS or a BA depending on the
school. I don't know what a "business degree" is or what school
awards one by that name. Some schools award a BBA (Bachelor of
Business Administration) or a BSBA. (Bachelor of Science in Business
Administration) (My undergraduate degree is a BBA)

Yes, but they're all business degrees. What I think of as good schools
don't even offer them.

Wow. What "good" school doesn't offer them? I'm at a loss as to what
a "them" is. An undergraduate degree specifically in Business?

Big universities have them, generally, but you won't find them very
often at good liberal-arts undergrad institutions. And they fill a
strange space at the big universities, as witness the stereotypes.

[David Hatunen]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:45:04 -0500, Tony Cooper

.... "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.

TWIVBP. Keep in mind that the coffee shop areas in bookstores like B&N
take Starbucks as their archtype.

I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by David Hatunen
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 02:45:04 -0500, Tony Cooper

.... "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.

TWIVBP. Keep in mind that the coffee shop areas in bookstores like B&N
take Starbucks as their archtype.
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.

Fortunately most of the bookshops are in shopping malls with a Mugg & Bean
nearby, which produces more palatable coffee. Sweet coffee rather than brack
coffee, one could say.

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by David Hatunen

.... "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.

TWIVBP. Keep in mind that the coffee shop areas in bookstores like B&N
take Starbucks as their archtype.
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.
Fortunately most of the bookshops are in shopping malls with a Mugg& Bean
nearby, which produces more palatable coffee. Sweet coffee rather than brack
coffee, one could say.

I'm not sure whether I've ever had the "Seattle..."-branded coffee, but
I have had the Starbucks variety, and it is definitely over-roasted --
burnt, even.

Perce

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 23:20:54 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by David Hatunen

.... "Cheap" stuff in
the coffee shop area would be those plastic-wrapped and
plastic-tasting things found in the vending machines in a bus station.
People don't go to the coffee area in a bookstore for that sort of
thing. If budget items are desired, there are other places to go.

TWIVBP. Keep in mind that the coffee shop areas in bookstores like B&N
take Starbucks as their archtype.
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.
Fortunately most of the bookshops are in shopping malls with a Mugg& Bean
nearby, which produces more palatable coffee. Sweet coffee rather than brack
coffee, one could say.

I'm not sure whether I've ever had the "Seattle..."-branded coffee, but
I have had the Starbucks variety, and it is definitely over-roasted --
burnt, even.

I did see a Starbucks in London in 2005, and nearly went there out of
curiosity, since it (they?) are mentioned so frequently on Usenet, but opted
for a place across the street that seemed to have a more attractive breakfast
on offer. But from your description their coffee sounds just like that of the
Seattle bunch.

[David Hatunen]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:49:12 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by David Hatunen
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.

It seems to be an international chain.

[MC]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by David Hatunen
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.

Oy!

Espresso

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by MC

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by David Hatunen
I was once in a bookstore in Cambridge UK pretty much right across
from the main part of the university and was amused to see that the
coffee shop area was a branch of Seaattle Coffee Works.

The chain of books shops I referred to in the original post has a "Seattle
Coffee Shop" attached to most of its branches. I tried it once, but never
again -- worst coffee I've ever tasted. They only seemed to have over-roasted
expresso, under a variety of names. I don't know if they are related to the
Cambridge one.

Oy!
Espresso

I've seen "Expresso" used in the name of a coffee machine.

This is reasonable because the word refers to the production of coffee
(the drink) by expressing (squeezing out) hot water through coffee
grounds.

The "x" in place of "s" seems to be a reversion to the original Latin
after it had been mucked about with by Italians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso#Etymology_and_usage_of_the_term

The spelling espresso is widely considered correct while expresso
appears as a less common variant. Italy uses the term espresso,
substituting most x letters in Latin root words with s; x is not
considered part of the standard Italian alphabet. Italian people
commonly refer to it simply as caffè (coffee), espresso being the
ordinary coffee to order; in Spain, while café expreso is seen as
the more "formal" denomination, café solo (alone, without milk) is
the usual way to ask for it when at an espresso bar.

[John Varela]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:29:32 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I've seen "Expresso" used in the name of a coffee machine.

Are you sure that wasn't a deliberate misspelling so they could
trademark it?

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

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by John Varela
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:29:32 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I've seen "Expresso" used in the name of a coffee machine.

Are you sure that wasn't a deliberate misspelling so they could
trademark it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expresso

It was probably a deliberate choice of spelling to enable trademarking.

Whether it could be described as a misspelling is another matter.

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
I'm one of those MBAs of which you think so little. Constrained as my
thinking is based on that part of my education, I still wonder how
you've come to the conclusion that holding an MBA precludes one from
having an interest in books that are not in the field of business
administration (The B and the A of the MBA).

I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

That's the deal. Most intelligent consumers could glance at the balance
sheet of Borders and tell they were far too deep in debt and not selling
to their core customers. To a large extent B&N is going down that same
road if they have much debt.

Amazon is at once killing the retail market and reviving it. Small book
stores have seen more business in some cases. They list their stock on
Amazon. Some buy remotely. Some see books listed in a local store and
come to browse. Half of this model works for chain stores - The buy
remotely part only helps the warehouse. The browse locally part sees
Amazon helping them.

Until Kindle. Which was bound to happen eventually.

[David Hatunen]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Well, personally I prefer *cheap* items in the coffee shop area, and I
like being able to find an empty table.

Quoting YHogi Berrra: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Dave Hatunen
Viva Baja Arizona

[Lewis]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

I am by no means an introvert, but I don't like the greeters in most
stores as all they generally do is delay me in getting to where I am
going. My primary motivation in most any store is to get in and out as
quickly as possible.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

Yep. I was not surprised to see Borders close and I do not think B&N
will last long term either.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Yep, that's been my experience as well. Most of the people I've known
with what I think of as 'corporate' degrees (MBA, Accounts, lawyers,
etc) are pretty dull, linear, money-driven people. Sure, there are
exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:39:25 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

I am by no means an introvert, but I don't like the greeters in most
stores as all they generally do is delay me in getting to where I am
going. My primary motivation in most any store is to get in and out as
quickly as possible.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

Yep. I was not surprised to see Borders close and I do not think B&N
will last long term either.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Yep, that's been my experience as well. Most of the people I've known
with what I think of as 'corporate' degrees (MBA, Accounts, lawyers,
etc) are pretty dull, linear, money-driven people. Sure, there are
exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule.

Note to self: Send Lewis the lamp shade photos.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:39:25 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

I am by no means an introvert, but I don't like the greeters in most
stores as all they generally do is delay me in getting to where I am
going. My primary motivation in most any store is to get in and out as
quickly as possible.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

Yep. I was not surprised to see Borders close and I do not think B&N
will last long term either.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Yep, that's been my experience as well. Most of the people I've known
with what I think of as 'corporate' degrees (MBA, Accounts, lawyers,
etc) are pretty dull, linear, money-driven people. Sure, there are
exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule.

Note to self: Send Lewis the lamp shade photos.

I did say *most*. I've known at least one accountant who really was a
very interesting guy and just did accounting because it was dead-simple
and left him free to think about all the other things he was interested
in. I suspect, looking back, that he was borderline Aspergers. But once
I got to know him, he was very bright and that sort of mind where you
just stand back and think, "Damn, he should be locked up in a cubicle in
some university's math department."

And I've known a couple of decent lawyers as well.

I've only heard about MBA's who weren't total tools.

:) Just kidding. A friend of mine from High School became and MBA and went
off to Central America somewhere to try and run some charity.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:59:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 07:39:25 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:08:07 +0200, Steve Hayes

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet

Post by Tony Cooper
The store has roving greeters. Any employee who isn't doing some
routine task like arranging the shelves or attending the check-out
desk wanders around the store asking people if they are finding what
they need. They all seem to be very knowledgeable about the stock and
where to find what.

[snip]

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
Also, I know introverts who are completely flustered by being approached
by employees and asked if they can help. You probably do too.

I am by no means an introvert, but I don't like the greeters in most
stores as all they generally do is delay me in getting to where I am
going. My primary motivation in most any store is to get in and out as
quickly as possible.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
I've known both kinds. But my experience is that marketing and
"business" experts ignorant of the specific business area frequently
make huge, chain-closing level, mistakes that are obvious to anybody
with the slightest knowledge of the subject domain. Borders killed
itself by going too heavily into music at the wrong time and going away
from books. B&N survives largely because Borders killed itself off,
reducing the competition. B&N has gotten rapidly less useful over the
last decade.

Yep. I was not surprised to see Borders close and I do not think B&N
will last long term either.

Post by David Dyer-Bennet
The ones I've known. "Business" degrees are "practical" degrees,
pursued largely (not exclusively; no degree has much in the way of
exclusivity on any kind of human trait) by people not interested in
wider understanding in the liberal arts sense, and frequently by people
who are money-oriented.

Yep, that's been my experience as well. Most of the people I've known
with what I think of as 'corporate' degrees (MBA, Accounts, lawyers,
etc) are pretty dull, linear, money-driven people. Sure, there are
exceptions, but they are exceptions to the general rule.

Note to self: Send Lewis the lamp shade photos.

I did say *most*. I've known at least one accountant who really was a
very interesting guy and just did accounting because it was dead-simple
and left him free to think about all the other things he was interested
in. I suspect, looking back, that he was borderline Aspergers. But once
I got to know him, he was very bright and that sort of mind where you
just stand back and think, "Damn, he should be locked up in a cubicle in
some university's math department."
And I've known a couple of decent lawyers as well.
I've only heard about MBA's who weren't total tools.

The fact that you don't know any interesting people who have an MBA
says as much about you as it does about them. Perhaps you aren't
interesting to them.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:44:21 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
Do you feel that holders of advanced degrees in business have less of
an interest in outside-the-field reading material than academics or
holders of advanced degrees in law, theology, science, or accountancy?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway: Yes.

Post by Tony Cooper
If so, how have you arrived at this?

See my other post regarding the bank vice president.

At the other end of the spectrum there is near here a rare book
store that caters to military and CIA people.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-old-book-company-mclean

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Steve Hayes
They are wanting to introduce central ordering, and "greeters" to greet people
as they come into the shop, stands with energy drinks for sale, and such
things, all of which seem calculated to annoy regular customers of bookshops.

The OED shows that greeters have been around for some time:

"
greeter1

[f. greet v.1 + -er1.]

One who greets, or salutes.

   1552 Huloet, Greter or brynger of a gretynge, salutiger.    1611
Cotgr., Saluëur, a saluter, a greeter.    1780 F. Burney Diary May,
She used to be my constant elbow companion, and most smiling greeter.
   1853 E. S. Sheppard Ch. Auchester II. 116 Only half the students
had returned, and they‥were standing in self-interested fraternities,
broken by groups and greeters.    1868 Daily News 6 July, The
outbursts of cheering that would have greeted him if the greeters had
not been [etc.].
"

I've been surprised that my bank has started employing them. You
usually only have to go to a branch of the bank if they've had an
imagination failure on how to do whatever it is on-line, so,
mercifully, bank visits happen, at most, every quarter or so. They
are, invariably, annoying experiences.

They now have a big sign up saying that somebody will acknowledge you
within 60 seconds. Nothing, of course, about doing anything. In fact
they are exactly as slow as before. However, some chump comes up to
you and asks you your business, and then does nothing about it - he
doesn't even tell the people at the desk what you are there for. I was
wondering, aloud, what the use of this was, and other members of the
queue were equally irritated by the waste of money involved in
employing somebody to do something unnecessary.

When I got to the front of the queue, I took out my camera to take a
photograph of the fatuous sign telling me that this chap would talk to
anybody arriving, but not do anything else. The greeter came forward
to tell me that I wasn't allowed to take photographs in the bank - I
congratulated him on having shown that he had more than just the one
customer-irritating duty - to his credit, he seemed amused.

[MC]

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that that is what is happening in most of the the bookshops that are
closing. They are being run by management gurus who know (or think they know)
a lot about management, but know nothing about books and people who read them.
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

I suspect that we're headed toward a "print-to-order" model. There are
machines that will print out and bind a book in minutes, if not seconds.
Saves on all that delivery, warehousing, stockkeeping, pulping...

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by MC

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that that is what is happening in most of the the bookshops that are
closing. They are being run by management gurus who know (or think they know)
a lot about management, but know nothing about books and people who read them.
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

I suspect that we're headed toward a "print-to-order" model. There are
machines that will print out and bind a book in minutes, if not seconds.
Saves on all that delivery, warehousing, stockkeeping, pulping...

I may well have ordered such a book already.

The market is gradually moving towards a combination of -

The vast majority of books on line on readers like Kindle.

Coffee table style books custom printed. Will include some number of
ease of use books.

A small but never vanishing market for used physical books.

This is not a trend that is good for chain stores unless there's some
sort of franchise system that organizes small used book shops for better
business practices.

B&N is not moving in this direction. So I expect they will eventually
go the way of Borders unless their Nook thrives. That would move them
into a warehouse model not a local branch model. And so eventually
goodbye the B&N store fronts I bet.

[Lewis]

Post by MC

Post by Steve Hayes
I suspect that that is what is happening in most of the the bookshops that are
closing. They are being run by management gurus who know (or think they know)
a lot about management, but know nothing about books and people who read them.
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

I suspect that we're headed toward a "print-to-order" model. There are
machines that will print out and bind a book in minutes, if not seconds.
Saves on all that delivery, warehousing, stockkeeping, pulping...

The Tattered Cover bookstore in LoDo Denver has one of those. I don't
know how much action it gets. I've only seen it in use during the demo.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:08:07 UTC, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

A distant in-law is a bank vice president and is quoted as having
said that he hasn't read a book since college.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:08:07 UTC, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

A distant in-law is a bank vice president and is quoted as having
said that he hasn't read a book since college.

So you know a banker who hasn't read a book, and - therefore - MBAs
are less likely to read books outside of their field?

If the poor man comes down with a case of shingles can we then project
that taking advanced business courses cause herpes zoster in
successful male executives?

[Cheryl]

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:08:07 UTC, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

A distant in-law is a bank vice president and is quoted as having
said that he hasn't read a book since college.

A junior high school teacher I knew boasted of having not read a book
since university.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Cheryl

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:08:07 UTC, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
They probably haven't read any books except those required for their course,
and there probably weren't many of those either, if it was done online.

A distant in-law is a bank vice president and is quoted as having
said that he hasn't read a book since college.

A junior high school teacher I knew boasted of having not read a book
since university.

That's positively scary - I returned 5 books to the library today on a
variety of subjects and as co-owner of a local small business make a
point of financially supporting our library.

(We are in the jewelry parts wholesaling business and have designated
most of our $$$ to jewelry crafting titles so it's not entirely
altruistic but like to think by giving them a good collection helps
the community. It puts a smile on my face when I have a customer who
has read one of "our" books)

Oh and though I don't commonly mention it online - I do have an MBA
from one of Canada's better known business schools

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by John Varela
A distant in-law is a bank vice president and is quoted as having
said that he hasn't read a book since college.

Is that because he's so busy or because he never read for pleasure?

I do audio books for pleasure. I have a Kindle but I'm lucky to finish
a novel and two non-fiction books per year on it. Paper books for
pleasure? I'm lucky to finish one every other year these days.