Entry 1031, on 2009-06-11 at 19:44:13 (Rating 3, Comments)
I work for a university and I often hear comments from other people along the lines of "that's OK but you couldn't do that in the real world" or "if you worked in the real world you would know this", etc. I often ask them to tell me why a university isn't part of the real world when other organisations are. Unfortunately they never give me an answer or their answer is totally arbitrary.
I have worked for small and medium sized private businesses in the past and I couldn't see much that would lead me to believe they were more part of a real world than where I am now. In many ways I would suggest the opposite is true in fact.
For example, I was talking to a friend today who does computer work in the corporate world. We were talking about the merits of Microsoft Exchange email servers. I was saying that they don't work properly and cause all sorts of problems and he was defending them saying they work well "in the real world".
So I asked him about the environment in this "real world". Apparently you can get Exchange to work OK as long as everyone connecting to it uses a specific type of computer and a specific operating system and has their computer setup in a particular way and they have no way to change it to suit their requirements.
In the "unreal world" of the university however people get to use the machine which is most appropriate to their individual requirements and they install the software (including email programs) which suit the way they work best.
Its ironic that the business world which constantly harps on about the freedom to innovate, fair competition between products, and minimal interference from unnecessary regulation ignores all of those principles in setting up their IT infrastructure. And I'm sure the same applies in other areas, its just that as a computer consultant that was the area I was discussing.
The other issue is this: at the university we have people studying chemistry and biology and other subjects relating to actual physical phenomena. In the corporate world many people are totally dedicated to completely artificial concepts like complicated financial structures or marketing campaigns. In what way is that the real world?
I think many people have an inferiority complex when they relate to academic institutions like universities. Many business people must realise that their place in the world isn't as important as we are often told and maybe the only way they can cope is to go on the attack by suggesting that there is something more real about what they do.
Maybe they have fooled themselves. Maybe they even fool most of the people out there - after all, if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth. But I think that if you look at these claims of what is real and what isn't they don't really stand up to much skeptical analysis.
Okay, so you've found yourself another medium for an anti-Microsoft rant. Words spoken from someone professing to live in the real world. Ha!
Then you say "or their answer is totally arbitrary." - well you would say that. After all, you work in a university.
Correctly or not universities are seen as a place of self-professed intellectuals and theorists. What they learn is from books and journals, controlled experiments, and chatting to each other in the staff coffee room.
I´ve spent 4 years in a university environment and the lecturers and tutors are actually not far off this stereotype. So as far as I'm concerned the perception rings pretty much true. What makes it such a popular perception is that most Uni folk actually believe - rather incorrectly - they are superior. Like knee-high socks and walk shorts ever made someone superior...?
Problem is the "real world" can't be defined all that well anyway. We can safely assume Melissa Lee hasn't been near it in the last 10 years. My take it that experiencing the real world means in fact interacting with a wide variety of sub-cultures and environments within our society (and in fact others). For instance, I was brought up in a family of 5 children with a working class (and hard working) father. That probably exposes me to day-to-day life without the luxuries of money. Then I spent 4 years as a young student in university - at which time I had to work as a pump attendant at a Shell station since Lockwood Smith hiked the uni fees in the early 90s. After that - and also without parental assistance - I got a job and worked in lived in places such as SE Asia and Europe. I worked in roles where I had to interact with people and manage genuine concerns such as job security. I also worked in classic business environments juggling cost, value, expectations and short- and long-term objectives. These exposures and subsequent decisions had positive and negative affects on various parties around me. Now I don't profess to have experienced the "real world" in a whole and full manner, but it a damn sight closer than any plonker who has spent a great part of hi (or her) life in the university environment.
As for these who spend years on the tax-payers teat in their comfortable university jobs, living the same life year after year, well it can be no wonder that those people are accused of not living in the real world. They should stop making excuses and pull their heads in. We might be all a bit better off for it.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2009-06-13 at 16:51:15:
You seem to be giving me a lot of personal opinion and bigotry and nothing of any substance.
I agree there are some interesting personalities in universities who probably wouldn't work well in another environment, but many of those people also do brilliant work and make a far greater contribution to society than most management types who are paid much more. Also, that is a stereotype which doesn't apply to the majority.
Your inane comments regarding "knee-high socks and walk shorts" indicate you have nothing meaningful to say, and yes I do recognise that as an attempt at humour!
I do agree that the "real world" cannot be easily defined and that was my point really. I made a case to show that a university is as much a real world as a business is. Its the business types who accuse academics of not being part of the real world. Its up to them to defend that claim.
You seem to think that people who work at universities have a free ride, and are parasites on the state. That's really insulting and totally untrue. Many of the academics I work with only survive from one research grant to the next. Many have been made redundant when their departments were closed for arbitrary management reasons, and many support staff have been made redundant as well.
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2009-06-16 at 08:52:30:
Okay, five of my six paragraphs in comment #1 were a bit exaggerated, a bit tongue in cheek, as I suspect you picked up on. I don't for one minute doubt that many, many uni lecturers add value - mostly in teaching and knowledge expansion - but this doesn't necessarily relate to the 'real-world' which was the topic of your post. Of course I don't think of all of them as parasites - I learnt from them also - but I have come across a fair few who are - let's say - comfy in their jobs. I suppose like any role - including business managers - you have to expect to come across the wheat and the chaff.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2009-06-16 at 11:26:51:
This all gets back to what your definition of the "real world" actually is. You don't think teaching and research have anything to do with the real world but for some reason running a business does. How can you justify this?
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2009-06-17 at 07:29:00:
Because one of those worlds is confined to books and a classroom, and the other is exposed to the complexities of people, the present, and the pitfalls of failure.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2009-06-17 at 08:45:33:
Well I know of only a few university staff who are "confined to books and a classroom". And I know there are people in the business world who live in an equally unreal world: financial analysts might be an example. So I get back to my point that there are elements of reality and unreality in both the business and academic worlds and the idea that business is real and academia is unreal is not supported by the facts.
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2009-06-17 at 08:59:34:
...which proves to me that you really don't know the meaning of the generalisation that is "the real world". You seem to have taken it much too seriously than its real world definition.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2009-06-17 at 14:26:20:
So now I fail to understand the definition of "the real world" as it is understood in the "real world". Seems like you are pursuing a somewhat circular definition here!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE