| > You seem to be arguing again that the stakes are quite high. The sources I provided regarding mental health are barely within the last decade. The original quote is from several decades ago. The stakes referred to refer to research output and outcomes, not researchers. Any politics or discussion on mental health is belated band-aiding that only concerns higher-ups when output is at stake. > We have the best universities in the world. Student loans are national issue in front of the Supreme Court right now, "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students. > I realize you've never been a part of those discussions, so you wouldn't know... Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed. > I mean, this discussion started with a non-argument ad hominem against all of academia... "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me. |
> The original quote is from several decades ago.
Yet you are saying it is relevant today. I’m not concerned with the original quote; I’m concerned with your endorsement of it.
> "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students.
Is it now your argument that the US universities aren’t ranked at the top in the world?
Either way, you’ve again argued the stakes are high, as student debt is a national, generational problem in the US.
> Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed.
Since you haven’t actually argued a consistent, coherent position, we are left comparing experience to explain your inconsistency. You have brought a lot of your personal baggage to the discussion, relating to your experience and that of your friends. Had you stuck to actual arguments instead of conclusory statements borne from your experience as a PhD student, maybe I would not be focused on your own credentials. But since you have only brought to bear your perspective as a PhD student in order to indict all of academia, your personal perspective is quite relevant. That you have no experience in academia beyond being a student is relevant when you’re making blanket statements as you are.
> "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.
That’s not how I see it. This entire conversation you’ve made conclusory statements that people like me are vicious and bitter and petty. I don’t think I’ve said anything even close to as disparaging as that about you. If you are not bringing evidence and arguments to the discussion, how is your position not ad hominem? You are making statements about academics as people. Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?