Which is it better to be, street smart or academically smart?

OK, I can accept that a persons views can change with the discussion but then you should be able to understand that when someone answers a post they are referring to the post that was quoted. Do you expect people to read the entire thread before replying?

I totally agree with this statement. Regardless of the choice made regarding academics people are going to continue learning.

This is where we disagree. I keep on getting back to this but college is usually around 4 years. That is nothing when compared to the length of a lifetime. People have a lifetime to develop and acquire life skills. Going to college does not disqualify someone from learning life skills.

Even using your urban dictionary definition of "street smarts" you can see the very first point is 1.Getting Along With Others. This is one of the main draws of college. For most people one of the main draws of college is the experiences and the relationships you make while you are there. I met my wife in college. Many of my friends and social group are those I met in college. I even started a side business with a group of friends I met through college. You seem to think college is only about academics it goes well beyond that. You get the opportunity to meet other people from across the country and even across the world. You learn from interacting with them. Learn about their background, customs, culture, even the foods they prefer etc... You can join clubs. I joined a taekwondo club while I was in college. There are literally hundreds of student clubs and organizations. You join clubs to play sports, debate politics, manage your finances and debt, talk about Star Trek. College opens the door for opportunities to learn many valuable life skills as well as teach you academically.

I think the point you are trying to make is someone who goes to college takes a different life path than someone that does not. I think in your discussion of academics is a red herring. It is not really about college at all but more of a socioeconomic discussion. People with a more privileged socioeconomic status are going to develop different life skills than a person coming from a more challenged background. College or academics is simply one of those life skills that the privilege will have greater access to. I think what you are asking is does the person with a privileged background develop a better set of life skills over their lifetime than one from a less privilege background???

I think the answer to that question is, people from a better socioeconomic background will probably lead a more "successful" life. If you going into specifics like throwing them both in a dangerous urban area then the answer will be skewed. It is like if I pushed you off a boat the only life skill that matters is the ability to swim. Even if you had 100 more life skills than the other guy, if he can swim and you can't he is better off.

 

Yes (for both parts), I do. So as to fully understand the gravity/concept of the statement made. So there's no confusion between either party.

That's great, we agree on something.

Ok, consider this then. What about people who are full-time students, I mean study not one subject but many and never actually getting any experience in those fields of study because a new topic has sparked interest. Because the head is buried in a book to accomplish such a feat, nothing gets contemplated outside of study. An example, not learning any new skills that don't involve anything currently studied, such as learning to navigate without a map or compass, fix a tap washer, things like that. I know a person like that, my cousin. A 52-year-old student. Has limited life skills, street smart skills. He has been a uni student from the age of 19.

Yes and no. I'm not being specific about a college student. If anything a generalisation. I'll try and explain what I'm banging on about differently.
we have the haves and have-nots. The haves, privileged, the have-nots (the underdog), underprivileged. Each has their education, but the haves gets a better shot at it. The underdog has underlying factors stacked against them regarding their education. Factors that include, their home environment, neighbourhood, etc. Having a poorer psychological condition, however, pick it up a notch, because they know how to dodge punches, know short-cuts through the neighbourhood, and where to get free soft drinks(sodas). Things like this.
Whereas the haves, may still have dysfunctional families, they have better standards of education, and possibly not know as many street smarts because they've not needed to rely upon or develop them as much as the underdogs. Then the statement was made about having both. From my perspective, a balance of the two is my preferred option. Neither heavy on one or the other.

 

OK, let make sure I understand what you are trying to say. I think your use of the term "full-time student" means someone that only goes to school and spends all there free time studying their course material. The example you gave is a 52 year old student. I am going to assume this person does nothing but go to school. He has no job or career and he has no skills or interest outside his education.

Let me start off by saying I have never met anyone even close to this and I have spent a fair amount of time in school. I have a degree in business. After graduation I worked in an accounting firm for about 2 years. I didn't think this was the career for me and went back to school and have a degree in computer science. I have spent the last 20+ years working developing software applications for the financial industry. I have never met a person that is in their 50s that has not done anything else but go to school. How many degrees does this guy have?

At best we can view this as extreme behavior. As with any type of extreme behavior whether it is someone addicted to drugs or alcohol, gambling, junk food it is all destructive behavior. I think we can all agree we can find examples of this regardless of someone's socioeconomic background. You can have a high school dropout that collects welfare and spends his entire life addicted to drugs. He would develop no life skills beyond being able to score his drugs and maintain his minimal life style. I can't use that as an example of people with no education having no life skills because it is abnormal. Just as your 52 year old cousin is abnormal.

See, I thought we were making progress. We had define what "street smarts" were. We were using the term interchangeably with life skills and now you are going back to referring to "street smarts" as something only the underdogs experience. You mentioned things like fighting, knowing short cuts, where to get free drinks as life experience. What about the other side, the types of life experience your so called "haves" may learn. Maybe they don't know how to get free sodas but maybe they know how to scuba dive, rock climb, sky dive, ride dirt bikes, travel independently in foreign countries, manage their finances, use a credit card responsibly. All of these life skills can also be important and not learned in school. You may view knowing how to get free drinks as an important life skill and I may view learning the discipline to use credit card responsibly as an important life skill. Everyone regardless of their background learns except maybe in those extreme cases I talked about earlier. The problem here is you wish to rank one as being better than the other. I keep going back to my example the only "street smarts" a drowning man needs is to know how to swim. All the rest are irrelevant at that point.

 

Which is it better to be, street smart or academically smart?

I depends on where one lives. Where I live there are no streets so street smart is meaningless.

 

Reminds me a little of the expression Churchill (IIRC) said that government is too important to leave it up to the experts.

 

Interesting. So opinions don't count?

 

To elaborate on my last, street smart is a self-taught set of skills and knowledge through experience and necessity. Academic smart is taught via a teacher and classroom environment experimenting in a controlled environment.

It was in relation to this. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street smarts

 

The number of odd rarities you had to come up with to defend the indefensible, is insane.

First, I'm talking about LEGAL migrants. And they worked the same kind of 'don't use your phone' jobs you're talking about. Their kids weren't out wandering the streets, though .. they were at home cooking the dinner, looking after their younger siblings, and doing homework. If that confuses you, it's because you may be unfamiliar with the concept of parents raising responsible and reliable kids. Yet another parenting choice.

Second, lets focus on regular kids, because that's what this is about. The 90+% of 'bad' kids who aren't disabled.

Third, it's never about wealth. It has nothing to do with money .. there is only a loose correlation between money and better parenting (non-causative). In my country for example, our public schools top the academic ranks .. every year, without fail. Some of those top schools are very run down, poorly funded, and in rough areas. The kids who attend them are from across the socio-economic spectrum from welfare families to wealthy families. The ONLY thing they have in common is parents who care about their education. I have been associated with this education system for decades, and have known many professionals who work in that system. They will all tell you the same - that the only commonality in academically excellent kids, is parents who take education seriously.

 

For someone to be good at quantum physics means they are good at learning, so in the given situation, they would both face challenges, but I think the quantum guy would learn how to adapt more quickly and would find ways to succeed.

 

Yes & no. Depending on the environment and what the challenges actually are?
As you said,

- Yes, they have a good memory and possibly a good upbringing. Learning in an academic environment. The underdog is not so fortunate as the academic, but has learnt skills to survive and adapted to their environment. More so than the academic, because the academic doesn't have the necessity to learn the skills of the underdog.

 

How about both

 

you can have both but there are different levels of street smarts, In Buxton, Maine you really don't need the same street smarts as you do in NYC

 

Yes indeed. It has been mentioned and responded to before. Examples are of such, Sirius Black & myself, we balance this equation.

 

Clever is a great quality to have. It helps with street smarts, but also academically. In fact, being clever could help someone find the opportunity for academia where it didn't naturally present itself.

 

Yes, they should. But it doesn't happen.
Higher Education Gap Between Rich And Poor Reaches 10-Year High

 

No. To the contrary opinions count for a lot, especially in a democratic republic. The point was don't turn your opinions over to a powerful elite of self appointed (authoritarian) experts.

 

More tenacity to survive from the street smart. Has been living a high-stress life for some time already. Has an advantage over the academia guy.

True. On a daily basis?

 

Most definitely. I wouldn't give them the time of day, but only if that's letting them know that it's time for them to head to the gallows.

 

For many years there was an inverse correlation between high high school achievers (upper Midwest mostly) and administrative spending per child, like Washington, DC.

 

The comparison doesn't really match the point. It should be between the street smart guy and the college grad that has been indoctrinated in the liberal Marxist philosophies in the law and social studies department, and who run the country. Quantum physics majors often couldn't care less.