What can you do with Sociology/Psychology/Cultural Studies/Social Anthropology post-grad qualification

[onebatmother]

Apart from pat self on back?

I am thinking of retraining but no idea about jobs. Those are the things I'm considering studying - what REAL ACTUAL JOBS might I get with a postgrad MA/PHD in them?

I mean ones that pay money. Any money. But must be money.

Thanks dearies.

But they were teaching the best people in a distinct, very high-calibre philosophical tradition. Sure there are excellent noon-European philosophical traditions, but they are too fundamentally different to be taught much as part of the same course as the Western tradition. And not so much of the 'European' -- dead white Anglo-American is more accurate.

I wouldn't have wanted any tokenistic presence of women etc. I wanted to be taught the best stuff.

Sorry, that was garbled. I should have said 'there are excellent Eastern philosophical traditions' -- rather than non-European (since the Oxford approach is itself broadly non-European by virtue of being broadly Anglo-American).

What's the difference between an introverted statistician and an extroverted statistician?

A: The extroverted statistician looks at your shoes when he's talking to you.

I wasn't really 'taught' anything. I was just given a reading list and told to write an essay and every week my tutor would go 'hmm, interesting' and that would be it. I felt totally and utterly lost and dejected. And I thought we'd all be gathering around discussing the multiple narratives in Wuthering Heights or something but no one ever talked about their work, it was so competitive. And, er, I didn't go to lectures. [major flaw in sob story]

Two behaviourists meet up.

Each says to the other 'How am I?'

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are shown a pasture with a herd of sheep, and told to put them inside the smallest possible amount of fence. The engineer is first. He herds the sheep into a circle and then puts the fence around them, declaring "a circle will use the least fence for a given area, so this is the best solution." The physicist is next. She creates a circular fence of infinite radius around the sheep, and then draws the fence tight around the herd, declaring, "This will give the smallest circular fence around the herd." The mathematician is last. After giving the problem a little thought, he puts a small fence around himself and then declares,"I define myself to be on the outside."

Threadie LOL at the behaviourists

The students didn't get the chance to consider whether the anglo-american canon was the only philosophy worth studying. That to me is a major flaw in a philosophy degree. Ditto with the psychology, the tutors came from a very narrow understanding of what these disciplines entailed, and they didn't encourage any deviation or critical thought which didn't fit within these narrow boundaries. You could think about the topics and authors studied, but it was limited.

At the time I could see that it was limited, you're well trained on a narrow path, but it was only when I went elsewhere to do a phd (Manchester) that my thinking was totally challenged.

I'm just not going to agree that the positivist thinking of anglo-american men is the only thing worth studying.

Not the only one worth studying. But a self-contained discipline?

And also, if it is only one P of PPP, then there is just too much material to realistically attempt an approach at all traditions?

Different at post-grad level where speicialisation makes more choices possible.

PPP is usually (perhaps always?) only two Ps, you choose. So half philosophy, half psychology.
I spent a LOT of time on certain things but there wasn't much choice in what you studied in depth. 1/4 of my psychology was "learning and memory". So maybe half my work for 2 terms. In that time, humans were mentioned once, briefly - deep sea divers, state-dependent memory. The rest was about rats, pigeons, dogs.
Personally, I feel that is utterly inappropriate for a psychology course. There wasn't even any consideration of whether humans might be even slightly different from rats.

have to go now so can't pursue this for a few hours...

rofl at the academic jokes

Why did God create economists?

In order to make weather forecasters look good.

How many sociologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, the lightbulb is fine. There is something wrong with the system

Yeah, Fennel, I was of course hamming it up for glory. In reality, I see my discipline as social science, and read and work with many social psych and anthropological ideas. I think the core/mainstream of the disciplines do hold onto a certain methodological purity also (anthropology with its ethnographic focus and insistence on 'other perspectives', sociology on notions of social fact and psychology on modelling causality... No?

I only care about the label of the discipline when it is under attack. But my interests are VERY wide and I don't think such disciplinary boundaries matter so much any more.

Why did pre-Marxist philosophers work in the dark?

A: "Philosophers up till now have only interpreted the lightbulb. The point, however, is to change it."

How many Marxists does it take to change a light bulb?

None. Every light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

Why don't social-democrats use screw-type lightbulbs?

A: They are opposed to revolutionary methods.

Two philosophers were having a conversation on the train. Looking out of the window, one of them said 'Those sheep have just been shorn.' To which the other philosopher replied 'On this side at least'

What do you get if you cross a sociologist with a Mafiosi?

An offer you can't understand.

LOL Threadie.

What happens when there aren't enough toilets at a philosophy conference?

A: p entails q.

(lol at all of these. The worse the better.)

How many Social Workers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. Social workers never change anything.
None. They empower it to change itself!
None. The light bulb is not burnt out, it?s just differently lit.
None. They set up a team to write a paper on coping with darkness.

Oh dear. I must stop this, have far too much marking to do. But there is a rich seam of economist jokes which I cannot resist. Beginning with:

Q. What do economists and computers have in common ??
A. You need to punch information into both of them.