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 Someone who learned history from a textbook and by reading historical documents in college will have a lot to share in a job at a national park or museum, but he or she is not going to learn much in return.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?