TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Degree or Not Degree? From:Mc Jdub <wigginje -at- PSSCH -dot- PS -dot- GE -dot- COM> Date:Tue, 22 Jul 1997 10:54:00 -0400
mspurgin -at- is -dot- com wrote:
. . . you contradict your central thesis
> that there is no inherent value in a degree with the comment that you
> are working on another degree "because I think it will be an intensive
> way for me to gain some of the skills I seek to have."
>
A careful reading of my post will show that I said I believed there was
no inherent value in holding a degree *per se,* not that degrees (and
the work they often represent) have no value. I believe that a degree
clearly does have value within the system of economic and social
realities that exists.
I also never said I believed that useful skills and information can't be
obtained through a degree program. They quite obviously can, if my own
experience and if other posts to the list from degreed tech writers are
any indication. They can of course also be learned in other ways, too --
ways that are perhaps better suited to some than to others, for whatever
reasons: economics, styles of learning, etc. So, the point I was making
is: "what's the difference where you learn the skills, as long as you
get them?" Some choose to get a degree, some choose not to. In a more
"open" society, how or where someone obtained training would not be an
issue.
The problem arises when assumptions are made that having a degree
guarantees certain abilities, while not having a degree guarantees *not*
having certain abilities. When dynamics like this are in operation,
it's usually called "oppression" (though I'm not entirely sure why you
want to label that "Marxist.") This is the position it seems to me is
often played out in the workplace, to the detriment of a lot of skilled
and talented people in *whatever* field. I was stating that I think
it's unnecessary and even harmful to perpetuate these kinds of
divisions.
Jeff Wiggin
wigginje -at- pssch -dot- ge -dot- com
> ----------
> From: Margaret Spurgin[SMTP:mspurgin -at- is -dot- com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 10:09 AM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Re: Degree or Not Degree?
>
> Fascinating. You manage to take the two least interesting threads
> STILL
> circulating, braid them together, and tie on a Marxist bow.
>
> If that weren't enjoyable enough, you contradict your central thesis
> that there is no inherent value in a degree with the comment that you
> are working on another degree "because I think it will be an intensive
> way for me to gain some of the skills I seek to have."
>
> Admit it. You just want to show up your comrades.
>
> -Margaret Spurgin
> -Integrity Solutions
>
>
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
