OK only english majors can post here from now on

Bah nevermind. I won't even edit it so everybody can see what a kook I can be, deal?

PHD is too easily obtained these days. There are even NIGGERS getting it. Thus it is safe to suspect there is something wrong with the methodology or the subjects themselves. The bottom line is the academic environment has become like a factory of graduates, where ideological compliance, racial quotas have greater precedence than astuteness to the object of research itself.

Lesson 1: PHD in any non-technical subject is usually void in meaning or value. Yes, there are exceptions, but the bulk of non-technical literature (history, philosophy, law, "social sciences") isn't worth its weight on toilet paper. By lowering standards, the only thing they attained was general mediocrity or in numerous cases a disgusting usage of scientific parlor to further Jews' agendas. There is simply nothing comparable between the level of 19th century and 20th century dedication, sincerity and methodological seriousness.

I have a Russian friend who used to live in USSR. He has a PHD in chemistry. He told me people had to pass multiple procedures before attaining the peak of scientific valor. For one, they really had to make a significant contribution to those sciences. What exactly are the contributions of the mostly female and minority PHD graduates in the Western world? None other the fact they are Jews' useful idiots.

Lesson 2: PHD on technical subjects (into which I include biology and related fields), even though they are rarely vehicles of agitation, fall largely into the already mentioned flaw of hasty attribution. How many of those who had a PHD in physics have made sensible contributions to the field?

PHD is too easily obtained these days. There are even NIGGERS getting it. Thus it is safe to suspect there is something wrong with the methodology or the subjects themselves. The bottom line is the academic environment has become like a factory of graduates, where ideological compliance, racial quotas have greater precedence than astuteness to the object of research itself.

Lesson 1: PHD in any non-technical subject is usually void in meaning or value. Yes, there are exceptions, but the bulk of non-technical literature (history, philosophy, law, "social sciences") isn't worth its weight on toilet paper. By lowering standards, the only thing they attained was general mediocrity or in numerous cases a disgusting usage of scientific parlor to further Jews' agendas. There is simply nothing comparable between the level of 19th century and 20th century dedication, sincerity and methodological seriousness.

I have a Russian friend who used to live in USSR. He has a PHD in chemistry. He told me people had to pass multiple procedures before attaining the peak of scientific valor. For one, they really had to make a significant contribution to those sciences. What exactly are the contributions of the mostly female and minority PHD graduates in the Western world? None other the fact they are Jews' useful idiots.

Lesson 2: PHD on technical subjects (into which I include biology and related fields), even though they are rarely vehicles of agitation, fall largely into the already mentioned flaw of hasty attribution. How many of those who had a PHD in physics have made sensible contributions to the field?

Yes, you are right, the aliens have given out military honor's and degree's to non-Whites who hate Western civilization. Hating Whites first and foremost is must for these social PhD's.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald has two degree's one being in biology.

I didn't study MB. However, I do know enough about the industry to know that your analysis here is simply incorrect. In the hard sciences, there is a sharp distinction between a Ph.D and all lesser degrees. In science, a Ph.D is your "personhood." Another fundamental misunderstanding you have here is that one can "work their way up" through a lesser degree + job experience to = Ph.D. This is simply not so. Without a Ph.D, a scientist is relegated to technical positions. Only Ph.Ds are ever allowed primary investigatorship.

It is true that non-Ph.D.s aren't allowed to run their own labs. I was referring to the commercial marketplace, where productive things are expected to be accomplished. Not that good work and good data don't come out of the academic sector, it's just that it's not the main purpose, all the handwaving and promises to the contrary. Providing sinecures to eggheads, if said egghead has paid his or her dues, is. If you want to actually make money and a living at molecular biology and the related fields, I stand by my statement that you're better off getting a job and getting experience. Take a look at science job websites. Many of them list a B.S. with 5-6 year's experience, a Masters with 3-4 or a Ph.D. with 0-2 year's worth as prerequisites. It doesn't sound like paying employers are very impressed with degrees. Aherne has it right.

If getting the elusive tenure-track, P.I. position is your cup of tea, then by all means get the Doctorate, but you'll find that tenured profs avoid retirement at all costs and hold on to these positions as tightly as a jew clings to a nickel, and why not? Where else can you make a six-figure salary and not have to actually produce anything? Granted, getting tenure is quite a bit of work and you can forget about having anything resembling an orderly family life (or any life at all) while doing so, another strike against it. If you enjoy wasting years herding grad students and begging for money via grant applications (of which less than 10% are getting funded lately) then go for it. Plus, the fact that there is a glut of Ph.D.s on the market now, both naive homegrown kids and legions of dotheads and gooks from overseas diploma mills, means that there is intense competition for even the most meager of Ph.D-level positions on the market, whether private sector or academia. Certainly, even in industry, you won't be head of anything without the Doctorate, but it really depends on your goals. If you want to raise your kids instead of hiring a Guatemalan nanny to do it, then beware the Doctorate. Geezus, you could even go into forensics with a "lesser" degree. There's a recession-proof occupation, what with oodles of niggers and other assorted muds doing a wilding on the whole country.

OTOH, technicians and skilled machinists are *exactly* the types of jobs that are outsourced first. H1B workers are mostly technology workers]

I'm referring to skilled machininsts, not someone who pushes a button on a CNC lathe and goes to take a piss. Infrastructure is non-exportable. Yes, there is some H1B competition in this sector (i.e. electricians/EEs), but it's at least unionized, whereas science field-niggers aren't. In computers/networks, you are entirely correct, which is why I didn't list it.

If you're not retarded, you're amazingly incurious.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=historiography

I'm not saying you should already know what that word means--not at all--but you have an internet connection, right?

You've got it in one. Your powers of observation are matched only by your tact, and you didn't answer the second question.

I didn't mean to come off like a grammar Nazi or anything, but I do seem to notice the anti-intellectualism always comes with a side-order of subject/verb disagreement and confusions between things like "your" and you're." I guess the above was on purpose, somehow.

Again, spot on. We'll make a professor out of you yet.