You're viewing a single thread.
Considering they have a net worth of $45m and $40m, respectively, then yes maybe Academia should have classes and seminars about them. Throw in a MrBeast ($1bn) for good measure.
I wonder what you think the role of academia in modern society should be.
It depends on what the students want to learn. There are people who want to be scientists, people who want to be teachers, there are also people who want to make money and run a business.
Academia is a place where people can get an in-depth knowledge of the thing(s) they’re interested in learning to help prepare them to be successful in the outside world.
It is a valid and money-making industry to be a profitable YouTuber. It takes planning, strategy, project management, financing, accounting, and various other people skills. Just because it’s YouTube, and just because you may not take it seriously, makes it no less of a viable and marketable skill that could be taught to other people.
Now it’s your turn: what is your idea of the role of academia in modern society?
Advancing the state of human understanding. You're talking about business school.
Not the other guy but IMO it's pretty simple. Academia is for the pursuit of knowledge, you learn and the you contribute. That may coincide with making money and running a business but it does not have to. If you want to make money and run a business that's what vocational studies should be, you learn a trade for the purpose of "being successful in the outside world". The issue with society today is that we've come to glorify higher education and view vocations as some kind of negative. Academia in a modern society should stay focused on the pursuit of knowledge not on the pursuit of churning out degrees to make certain jobs look more legitimate than other jobs. Pursuit of money and running a business should be territory of vocational schools.
There is no pursuit of knowledge in becoming a Youtuber or a Twitch streamer, so it should be taught as a vocation and not as a part of academia.
Curious what you're trying to say?
Considering they have a net worth of $45m and $40m, respectively, then yes maybe Academia should have classes and seminars about them.
According to Credit Suisse, there were 264,200 people with net worth above US$50 million at the end of 2021. That is completely not noteworthy of a mention in any way, on a global level.
I beg to differ. There are over 8,123,000,000 people in the world. Your number (from three years ago) is only 0.003% of the world’s population. That’s less than 1%.
Now, ignoring your fallacy of an argument, just because there are people in other careers that make more money does not mean being successful YouTuber/vLogger is any less viable than any other occupation.
If that were the case, then there are a lot of more traditional roles that we wouldn’t be teaching; like Marine Biologist, who in the US makes on average $57k/year. And yet, Academia still pushes this science (among others) because there is still a demand for it.
And make no mistake, Academia is not going to push subjects that aren’t in demand. They will teach what they feel is in demand enough to attract students.
You seem to be mistaking universities for vocational schools.
And their net contribution to human knowledge is..?
Matt Patt was consulted when evaluating possible outcomes of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Mmm-hmm.
That is only one aspect of academia’s purpose.
It's not. It's the actual point of academia. It is the one thing you cannot remove and still have academia.
Oh come on mate, I left an open goal for you there.
You could have scored an easy one by saying that their understanding of economic factors in the new media landscape is a relatively new field for study.
You could have talked about the aspects of social discourse and relationships between the maker and the viewer.
Fuck, you could have even framed what they do as artistic expression
But nope, you are too tied up in the misplaced metric of financial success.
And here's why lectures about that would be next to useless... Their experiences are not transferable. You can't copy what they do and expect success. That's because novelty is a factor and you cannot teach that.
Compare that to the scientific method where everything relies on being exactly able to reproduce results.
Sure, there are plenty of purposes for academia, but what you suggest really isn't one of them.
How's their success mean that there's another university course made after them.