BF2S Forums Which is more important?

practical ............ you can be the smartest person in the world but if you can't cross the street then what fucking good are you

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Practical.  Because Ive known some of the biggest retards with perfect grades in school.

Agreed. And I was one of them (i don't know whether that's showing off or putting myself down, i'd say the latter)

In the real world what matters in most jobs is Academic though, although Military experience is a mix of both Academic and Practical - which is why I'm going down that path.

I'm actually going to null vote because I really don't know

Basically someone with a degree is always going to get the job, but someone in the Military would also have a high chance. Now someone with both, well they'd be a shoe-in for the job. Of course, joining the Military is a career in itself. But like I said Military is both so it's probably not the best example.

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-03-11 09:18:04)

Mixture. A person doing something and not knowing why is as much of a retard as someone knowing how to do something but not being able to do it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-03-11 09:15:30)

I'll go with a good mix of both topped off with some damn common sense.   It is very important to get a good education.  but don't expect that alone to get you where you need to go

Academic.

Because TRUE academics will never need to exert themselves into practical scenarios, nor will they ever have to concern themselves with practical trivialities.

Which is more important for what? I would define that before coming to a conclusion, as well as what practical definitively means. Academia can be practical, and many scholars are as practical as any other person- In which case, an argument between academia and practicality makes little sense. If we take the assumption that some here have held, that it is academic scholars versus tradesmen and the less educated (a traditional argument), then the idea is that these methods of learning are entirely different for a point. There are careers that are meant for each, and neither is more important.

To assume that university is a waste of time and money, simply from hearsay and stories is completely wrong. As someone could speak conversely of another individual who didn't go to university, it denies that universities are valuable in producing many talented and brilliant individuals, who seem to have been stereotyped as clueless at anything else without any real necessity.

Yet, again I would define what is important, and define practicality. Is it as some have assumed, in debating the uses of people in different career paths? Until then, I cannot make an argument for either side.

SEREMAKER wrote:

practical ............ you can be the smartest person in the world but if you can't cross the street then what fucking good are you

The deadliest thing in the Arny is a 2nd Lt with a compass.....

Anyway, it's a mixture of both- enough academic smarts to go through the easy stuff, and practical knowledge to help you think outside the box.

FEOS wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Which is more important for what? I would define that before coming to a conclusion, as well as what practical definitively means. Academia can be practical, and many scholars are as practical as any other person- In which case, an argument between academia and practicality makes little sense. If we take the assumption that some here have held, that it is academic scholars versus tradesmen and the less educated (a traditional argument), then the idea is that these methods of learning are entirely different for a point. There are careers that are meant for each, and neither is more important.

To assume that university is a waste of time and money, simply from hearsay and stories is completely wrong. As someone could speak conversely of another individual who didn't go to university, it denies that universities are valuable in producing many talented and brilliant individuals, who seem to have been stereotyped as clueless at anything else without any real necessity.

Yet, again I would define what is important, and define practicality. Is it as some have assumed, in debating the uses of people in different career paths? Until then, I cannot make an argument for either side.

Your assumption that anyone is saying any of those things is unfounded.

Academic: Experience on a given subject solely from a text/lab environment.

Practical: Experience on a given subject from real-world activities.

There are clearly aspects of both in either scenario, but the weight of experience lies with one or the other.

I don't believe my assumption is unfounded at all.

Is it necessarily academic, in your first definition? I would use 'theoretical' as a more accurate word. Like I said, academia can be practical.

Both.

In many advanced programs significant practical experience is included in the curriculum (eg. moot court, practicum, field research, residency, etc.). It's not strictly zero-sum anymore.

FEOS wrote:

Drakef wrote:

I don't believe my assumption is unfounded at all.

Of course you don't...it's your assumption.

Could you provide any source as to why my assumption is wrong?

FEOS wrote:

Drakef wrote:

Is it necessarily academic, in your first definition? I would use 'theoretical' as a more accurate word. Like I said, academia can be practical.

Theoretical is as good a word as any.

I choose the word 'theoretical' to avoid any possible anti-intellectualism that could follow in this argument.