This one could have gone to James for a “the academics are mad and bad approach,” but I drew the straw. So, unborn babies are “parasites”:
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/05/21/scientist-professors-claim-that-unborn-babies-are-parasites-is-borderline-satanic/
“A professor at the University of California, San Diego, told his students that unborn babies are “parasites” during a class lecture. Now, a scientist from LSU is pushing back against this absurd claim. Breitbart News reported in April that University of California San Diego Professor Pascal Gagnuex told students that fetuses are a “legitimate parasite.” The lecture then compared fetuses to a “cancer” that “rapidly grows,” and “invades” the body. Gagneux has pushed back against criticisms of the slide, arguing that he was not trying to make a political point. “Most of you probably realize that my point was to show that mammals are especially prone to invasive cancers because mammals evolved invasive placentation,” Gagneux wrote. “My point was not to indoctrinate you with the notion that fetuses are cancers, as insinuated in the article.” Scientist and associate Professor Michael Behnke of LSU, who specializes in studying parasites, told the College Fix this week that Gagnuex’s description of unborn children is not only incorrect but also “borderline satanic.” “A parasite is something that takes from a host without providing any significant benefit to that host. An unborn baby carries half the genes of the mother. In a purely gene-centered view of biology, the baby will benefit the mother in the most fundamental way. The more children the mother gives birth to, the more genes she passes on, the more benefit she derives in a biological sense,” Behnke said. A spokesperson for UC San Diego told Fox News that the slides represent an accurate scientific analysis of unborn babies. “The slide presents common, widely accepted scientific concepts and in no way represents a political statement,” the spokesperson said.”
Ok, well let’s compare academics to parasites, which is even more appropriate. Academics feed off of the system, and ultimately kill it, if they are left to grow, not merely contributing nothing positive but being disease organisms. The academic is global and strives to infect the entire globe with its toxic products, called ideas. They attempt to reshape society or destroy it, then move on to the next social organism to wreck, like viruses, yes, mind viruses. Yes, academics are parasites:
https://fee.org/articles/why-are-academics-so-sensitive-about-their-irrelevance/
https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp/0691174652
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/09/when-education-is-a-waste-of-time-and-money/
“An Australian government survey recently reported that more than ‘a quarter of the nation’s graduates say their degrees are close to useless for their jobs’, while more than ‘half of employers say management and commerce degrees, the most popular field of study, are not important.’ Yet Australian taxpayers spent about $87 billion on education last year, $31 billion of which is spent on university education. Is that money well spent? Economics Professor Bryan Caplan’s provocative, well-written and sometimes witty book, The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money, argues that taxpayers wastefully sponsor students to study courses that many won’t enjoy, don’t find relevant, don’t learn much from, and don’t remember much of after graduation. So why do students study boring, irrelevant subjects? Graduating from university is valuable because it signals to employers that students are hard-working, capable, and ‘willing to tolerate serious boredom’ as demonstrated by years of study. Indeed, graduate salaries tend to grow dramatically compared to nongraduates— but mostly after they graduate. That’s called the ‘sheepskin effect’. The sheepskin effect even works for near-failing graduates, who still earn substantially more than students who drop out with one semester left—even though they’re often separated by sheer luck. By graduating, students signal their work ethic.
The problem? Taxpayer sponsored education encourages excessive credentialism. Competent high school graduates benefit from a university degree even if it doesn’t offer a career path, simply because it allows them to further demonstrate their pre-existing work ethic. But those too poor to enrol in university or complete it are effectively left behind when competing with tertiary graduates in the workforce. That’s because employers prefer to hire university graduates over high school graduates, even though both may be equally capable. State-sponsored higher education punishes university graduates by forcing them to engage in years of make-work while also punishing high school graduates who cannot afford university studies. Moreover, and contrary to popular belief, students don’t gain critical knowledge, reasoning skills, networking, discipline and social skills from studying the humanities. Studies conducted by educational psychologists indicate that most students don’t learn these skills from the humanities, don’t transfer what they’ve learned to the workplace, and soon forget whatever they’ve learned as they don’t practice or use it again. Only a minority of students succeed in applying skills learnt in one setting, like the humanities, to new settings such as the workplace. And networking, discipline and socialising are just as available while working, or while studying subjects actually relevant to a future career.
The book’s title—The Case Against Education—is slightly misleading. The author believes education is valuable: it’s just that the current system is not effectively preparing students for future employment. The book argues that education should focus on drilling students in key skills like literacy, numeracy and professional writing, as well as vocational subjects and apprenticeships. Most importantly, people become skilled workers through time and experience on the job. Caplan acknowledges that cultural education and the humanities also have value, but not for every student and not necessarily within the stifling confines of the classroom. Those who hate the humanities shouldn’t be forced to study them. Those who don’t should still be literate and learn how to write business letters (which few schools teach). Caplan believes the emotional cost of schooling varies, but estimates that studying feels $280 worse per year than working, at least if your potential job pays $20,000.00 or more. The discussion of whether students benefit from increased education includes some guesswork, as the author admits. Still, putting a dollar figure on how much students suffer while studying boring coursework seems too speculative. But that’s a small part of the book. The book’s arguments draw on research in economics, sociology, and psychology. On its face, at least, the book makes a strong case for reforming the education sector, where Australian taxpayers spend billions of dollars each year.”
This higher education money would be better spent helping our endangered rural sector, rather than creating the next generation of trouble makers.