"I've learned a damn lot about history and humanity, about what brings us together as people and what drives us apart into cultures."
Calm down for a moment. I never said that they should be taken out of the curriculum. Actually, as I've said before, I think a strong core requirement is key to undergraduate education.
What does bug me is what happens when we start distilling the curriculum. After all, the purpose of a university education is not so much to teach about the peculiarities of Yanomano culture as it is to impart vital life skills to the students. The question we should ask is: which life skills are we trying to teach, which worlds are we trying to open to them, and are those skills and worldviews exclusive to any one discipline?
"If the professor implies such a thing, he's an arrogant ass who shouldn't be trusted to teach. If the student assumes it, he is a weakling who needs not only a stronger spine, but a healthy dose of self-esteem."
The scenario I was thinking of is more common (especially among engineers-who are strange) and goes something like this:
Student reads Great Book, and finds it about as profound as the writing on the back of his morning cereal box. Student goes to class. Professor assigns essay on (for example) how one of the societal themes is developed in the book, along with authorital intent. Student writes essay instead about how the theme is ineffectually developed, and explains reasoning. Professor reads draft and tells the student that said student is missing the point, or is possibly just not expending effort, and asks student to write it again before final draft. Student resolves to come up with some line of bullshit that Professor wishes to hear and feed it to him.
There's a tendency in introductory lit. classes (and other classes) for Professors to ask for essays about facets of the story that may seem profoundly uninteresting or badly handled by the author. In this case, students soon learn that there are a few things that Professors actually want to hear, and they tend to turn them in. There is little honor in failing a class just because you want to stand up for some abstract principles.
My statement would be that, even though the knowledge that feeding people bullshit can result in success is valuable, this is not the path that the Liberal Arts wants to take, nor the lesson they should want students to walk away with.
"Considering that I'm forced to learn the rudimentary basics of scientific disciplines just to get my music degree (because, as we all know, understanding red shifts and imaginary numbers are terribly important in the real world - why, I couldn't even buy a can of pears without knowing that x=5), I think the playing field is rather even."
I have two arguments with that, but one I'll save for another time. It concerns the adjusted level of knowledge in the two fields that a student is required to learn, and it is an argument that takes some time to develop.
My other is that, you've proved a bit of my point. I don't need to know redshift to buy a can of pears. I also don't need to know the techniques of literary criticism, or the principles of music composition. In fact, all I need to know is how to read the label on the can. Both sides of the college curriculum have to know that what they teach is irrelevant in ninety percent of their students lives.
What I'm objecting to is the attitude that there is only one true way to acquire the critical thinking skills that you need later in life, and it has to be done through a specific curriculum. There's a lot of arrogance about this on the scientific side, but there's the same amount on the Liberal Arts side. It's almost like, among college faculty, the thought that the liberal arts is the true path to actual critical thinking skills is so deeply ingrained that it is no longer even questioned-and that's where the trouble starts.
"selling out to appreciative audiences of people who surely aren't so enlightened as the scientific crowd, and I'm a little sleepy."
We like concerts to, although I don't know how tongue-in-cheek your comment about selling out it.
no subject
Calm down for a moment. I never said that they should be taken out of the curriculum. Actually, as I've said before, I think a strong core requirement is key to undergraduate education.
What does bug me is what happens when we start distilling the curriculum. After all, the purpose of a university education is not so much to teach about the peculiarities of Yanomano culture as it is to impart vital life skills to the students. The question we should ask is: which life skills are we trying to teach, which worlds are we trying to open to them, and are those skills and worldviews exclusive to any one discipline?
"If the professor implies such a thing, he's an arrogant ass who shouldn't be trusted to teach. If the student assumes it, he is a weakling who needs not only a stronger spine, but a healthy dose of self-esteem."
The scenario I was thinking of is more common (especially among engineers-who are strange) and goes something like this:
Student reads Great Book, and finds it about as profound as the writing on the back of his morning cereal box. Student goes to class. Professor assigns essay on (for example) how one of the societal themes is developed in the book, along with authorital intent. Student writes essay instead about how the theme is ineffectually developed, and explains reasoning. Professor reads draft and tells the student that said student is missing the point, or is possibly just not expending effort, and asks student to write it again before final draft. Student resolves to come up with some line of bullshit that Professor wishes to hear and feed it to him.
There's a tendency in introductory lit. classes (and other classes) for Professors to ask for essays about facets of the story that may seem profoundly uninteresting or badly handled by the author. In this case, students soon learn that there are a few things that Professors actually want to hear, and they tend to turn them in. There is little honor in failing a class just because you want to stand up for some abstract principles.
My statement would be that, even though the knowledge that feeding people bullshit can result in success is valuable, this is not the path that the Liberal Arts wants to take, nor the lesson they should want students to walk away with.
"Considering that I'm forced to learn the rudimentary basics of scientific disciplines just to get my music degree (because, as we all know, understanding red shifts and imaginary numbers are terribly important in the real world - why, I couldn't even buy a can of pears without knowing that x=5), I think the playing field is rather even."
I have two arguments with that, but one I'll save for another time. It concerns the adjusted level of knowledge in the two fields that a student is required to learn, and it is an argument that takes some time to develop.
My other is that, you've proved a bit of my point. I don't need to know redshift to buy a can of pears. I also don't need to know the techniques of literary criticism, or the principles of music composition. In fact, all I need to know is how to read the label on the can. Both sides of the college curriculum have to know that what they teach is irrelevant in ninety percent of their students lives.
What I'm objecting to is the attitude that there is only one true way to acquire the critical thinking skills that you need later in life, and it has to be done through a specific curriculum. There's a lot of arrogance about this on the scientific side, but there's the same amount on the Liberal Arts side. It's almost like, among college faculty, the thought that the liberal arts is the true path to actual critical thinking skills is so deeply ingrained that it is no longer even questioned-and that's where the trouble starts.
"selling out to appreciative audiences of people who surely aren't so enlightened as the scientific crowd, and I'm a little sleepy."
We like concerts to, although I don't know how tongue-in-cheek your comment about selling out it.