Researching is Real World Experience for a Researcher

[sanantone]

This stems from a side conversation in another thread. Something that many people do not seem to understand is that the liberal arts (math, natural science, social science, and humanities) are theoretical subjects as opposed to applied. You can make them applied, but they are primarily theoretical in nature. If you want to become a researcher and/or professor in one of these subjects, your academic preparation is your real world experience because that is the type of work you will be doing in your research/teaching career.

Someone with a PhD in molecular biology didn't just learn things from a textbook. He or she does not need to work for some for-profit company's lab, which will most likely have a very narrow focus on a certain type of product. Lab work is required in traditional natural science programs. I can't even imagine that someone would get all the way to the dissertation phase of a PhD in biology without having done any lab work at the undergraduate or graduate level. A lot of scientific discoveries are made by research conducted at universities, and those discoveries are used in the private sector.

As for a history major, seeing a couple of landmarks in person does absolutely nothing for someone looking to become a researcher/professor. Giving tours at a national park also does nothing. There is almost a one-way exchange in these types of jobs. Someone who learned history from a textbook and by reading historical documents in college will have a lot to share in a job at a national park or museum, but he or she is not going to learn much in return. How is seeing the Statue of Liberty going to help you write a book or teach your students?

[ryoder]

One, two, three, four, I declare a flame war.

[Life Long Learning]

Reading about Gettysburg in a book is of little meaning. Walking the complete battlefield and doing a physical staff ride is priceless.cheersmate Understanding the principles of war and how it applies when physically walking the real ground is real knowledge.

Staff Rides - U.S. Army Center of Military History

As for a history major, seeing a couple of landmarks in person does absolutely nothing for someone looking to become a researcher/professor. Giving tours at a national park also does nothing. There is almost a one-way exchange in these types of jobs. Someone who learned history from a textbook and by reading historical documents in college will have a lot to share in a job at a national park or museum, but he or she is not going to learn much in return. How is seeing the Statue of Liberty going to help you write a book or teach your students?

[sanantone]

Reading about Gettysburg in a book is of little meaning. Walking the complete battlefield and doing a physical staff ride is priceless.cheersmate Understanding the principles of war and how it applies when physically walking the ground is real knowledge.

Staff Rides - U.S. Army Center of Military History

How does that help an American history professor teach everything else in American history? No one can reasonably expect someone to travel all over the country looking at landmarks and battle sites. Besides, a history professor is not there to teach military studies in most cases, and taking a tour of something is not the real world work experience people were talking about.

[Life Long Learning]

Just saying it adds credibility to a profession with teachers who tend to have little in the ones that I took.

How does that help an American history professor teach everything else in American history? No one can reasonably expect someone to travel all over the country looking at landmarks and battle sites. Besides, a history professor is not there to teach military studies in most cases.

[bluebooger]

I'm going to be an architect
I've been a tour guide in New York City so I have relevant experience

[sanantone]

Just saying it adds credibility to a profession with teachers who tend to have little in the ones that I took.

I'm of a different opinion. I've been to the Alamo many times, and I don't think it would help me teach a course on the Texas Revolution. Plus, in traditional college programs, many students do go see things and work on projects. Anthropology and forensics students at Texas State University work at the body farm where law enforcement trainees from around the country go. LEOs learn how bodies decompose in various conditions. There is no place in the "real world" where they can see all of these situations at once. While criminal justice is more of an applied art, TxState also has the ALERRT center where law enforcement officers are trained on how to deal with active shooter situations. That center researches the best ways to respond. I don't think people realize how much the "real world" takes away from university research.

[johnjaxs]

How does that help an American history professor teach everything else in American history? No one can reasonably expect someone to travel all over the country looking at landmarks and battle sites. Besides, a history professor is not there to teach military studies in most cases, and taking a tour of something is not the real world work experience people were talking about.

Seeing/experiencing the objects in real life enhances their/your understanding, you can read and read all you like if you can't do the actually work then what is the point of all the book knowledge in the world. And of course doing lab work is real world in experience in their field, no one (at least not me) said it had to be a "For -Profit Company Owned Lab".

3 notes:

1) You skipped over the part of the argument in the other thread that was about real world life experience not just field experience. People need to have real life experience in order to relate to those they may be placed in charge of or may have working underneath them. Teachers can teach better when they can relate to what their students are going through.

2) I have met many (way too many in the army) history majors who don't know anything about history and many of their facts are wrong. Sending their butts to they actually sites or to see the objects would help them tremendously.

3) Wasn't the other thread shut down because it started evolving into an argument, how is starting another thread about a subject that got the other thread shutdown a good idea or good thing to do?

[johnjaxs]

I'm of a different opinion. I've been to the Alamo many times, and I don't think it would help me teach a course on the Texas Revolution.

No, but it should of enhanced your understanding of the Battle of the Alamo and help you teach a class on the Battle of the Alamo, may be not a class on the Texas Revolution, but I wouldn't expect a trip to a battle site to teach me about the diplomatic matters of a war/battle.

Anyway that's enough for me and this is my opinion, I always strive to have hands on experience in my field/job and from the gutter to the army, I have my life experience. However I am not trying to start a flame war so this will be my last post in this thread.

[sanantone]

Seeing/experiencing the objects in real life enhances their/your understanding,

How? This is true for jobs that contain a physical component, but you will usually have hands-on training for those fields.

you can read and read all you like if you can't do the actually work then what is the point of all the book knowledge in the world.

When you're getting a PhD, you learn how to conduct research. That is the actual work that professors are doing.

1) You skipped over the part of the argument in the other thread that was about real world life experience not just field experience. People need to have real life experience in order to relate to those they may be placed in charge of or may have working underneath them. Teachers can teach better when they can relate to what their students are going through.

This thread is not about life experience. Most professors went the traditional route and are teaching traditional students. Just by being older than their students, they tend to have more life experience by default. If you're teaching economically disadvantaged students and you don't come from a similar background, then there is nothing you can do about that.

2) I have met many (way too many in the army) history majors who don't know anything about history and many of their facts are wrong. Sending their butts to they actually sites or to see the objects would help them tremendously.

This is your anecdotal experience, but there could be a number of reasons for why these history majors don't know much.

1. Bad school.

2. Bad teacher.

3. Bad curriculum.

4. Poor textbooks.

5. Students have bad memories.

6. Students did the bare minimum to pass.

7. Students cheated their way through school.

8. Poor methods of assessment.

Seeing a building or a piece of land is not going to correct factual errors.

3) Wasn't the other thread shut down because it started evolving into an argument, how is starting another thread about a subject that got the other thread shutdown a good idea or good thing to do?

The subject of this thread is different from the subject of the other thread.

No, but it should of enhanced your understanding of the Battle of the Alamo and help you teach a class on the Battle of the Alamo, may be not a class on the Texas Revolution, but I wouldn't expect a trip to a battle site to teach me about the diplomatic matters of a war/battle.

It didn't. High school books and tours include the sugarcoated history of the battle. I learned more by reading works from less biased historians. Like many historical sites, The Alamo has been greatly altered. Neither the building nor its surroundings are in their original form. Even if it were close to its original form, a picture and a map with dimensions would have been just as good. If I needed to teach a class on the Battle of the Alamo, the first thing I would do is pick up a book to refresh myself. Seeing the The Alamo for the 100th time (I lived in San Antonio for a long time) would do absolutely nothing for me.