Well that was an interesting little discussion you guys had over the "Antic Case". I'm particularly thankful to those who made long and considered comments. A couple of academics even made an appearance. Cheers.
Accompanying that, of course, was our poll and the numbers are in. Those who agree or strongly agree that a chess master title is equivalent to a university degree win hands down.
Yet I'm not now sure that this is all settled. That's because I'm still honestly struggling to understand how or on what basis we can even compare the pursue of chess excellence and scholarship (and by this latter term I refer specifically to those areas of study that are typically found in a university prospectus). It's also why I posed the question in that Antic post.
I do like Dr Smirnov's take on this. Says he, "[A]s an economist I would suggest to ask who is more useful for the society (a PhD or GM). I believe the answer is also obvious."
So, who is more useful?