Reading this reminds me of "A Very Peculiar Practice"[1][2] which foreshadowed this by nearly 20 years
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Very_Peculiar_Practice
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9St60ZzwGgc&list=PLJ4mcFE1FY...
The Slow Death of the University
61–70 of 134 posts
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#62What's it with humanities people that make them believe that only them, of all people, are able to do critical thinking? Anyway, the author is part of the problem. Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time. Until the professors themselves stop thinking this way, no government will prioritize them. (And no, I don't agree that humanities are useles…
At the risk of being overly confrontational, the things that make humanities people believe that they are capable of critical thinking (in contrast to STEM types) are comments like yours. > Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time Where in the article does the author state or imply this? The section beginning "When I first came to Oxford 30 year…
Humanities major spotted.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
They certainly aren't the only ones capable of critical thinking, but they are supposedly the ones who received a 4-year education in critical thinking , while other people were spending time learning about physics or what have you.
Yet, they largely have a reputation as incapable of critical thought. When an archeology professor is talking about critical thought they mean an argument capable of convincing people. Technical people may view this as sloppy thinking as a transistor does not care what you think, but it’s a very valuable skill. It's not just useful for convincing other, but also to notice when you’re being manipulated. PS: With this…
"When an archeology professor is talking about critical thought they mean an argument capable of convincing people."
No, they don't.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#64This is only mildly related to the article, but does anyone else have difficulty imagining what others' jobs are? For example, I'm just young enough to remember a time when I thought a programmer was someone who hid in a closet to slam at a keyboard for nine hours a day, but that notion was only corrected by entering the workforce. What about my other misconceptions? There's no way to learn about all of them firsthan…
"Working" by Studs Terkel comes to mind. http://www.amazon.com/Working-People-Talk-About-What/dp/1565... So many people have this question early in their careers, it really seems like something is wrong. Perhaps we need a serious/mandatory/formal job-shadowing program for teens and college students.
This is a stunning book. 15 years ago, when I first came to this country from India, a classmate gave me a copy of this book. I guess he wanted me to understand America or Americans or whatever. It definitely affected me at some deep level. I still have my copy, and I read it everytime something upsets me about my job & I get those "maybe I should just switch to something else..." feeling.
Its not "by Study Terkel" because he didn't really write this book....I mean, its his book, but he basically ran into all these chaps, and let them do all the talking. And they talk and talk and talk. He prompts them from time to time, but mostly, its a book by these people. And their stories and lives are super compelling. I often used to wonder why people do dead-end jobs like parking cars in a building, or store clerk etc. Here, those people tell you why. There is this hooker who tells you how she got into the business, how she turns tricks, dealing with cops, offering freebies to pimps,the whole thing is simultaneously amazing and sordid and just puts everything into perspective. It taught me that America is a hard country. Its not some first world paradise. America is like, seriously fucked up. I mean, all these people, they were here long before I got here, and they have friends & families & homes & connections, and yet their lives are so hard and messed up and its not all whining & complaining, but I did get the impression things are very hard out here for the blue collar guy. Ofcourse had Turkel gone to Sand Hill road & bumped into a hundred VCs, that would be a very different book. It a definite must-read, especially if you are an immigrant.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#65"It would also seek to restore the honorable lineage of the university as one of the few arenas in modern society (another is the arts) in which prevailing ideologies can be submitted to some rigorous scrutiny." Then the battle is lost, because universities, at least in the USA, are the home of "free speech areas" and not letting people speak who a group disagrees with. When people are talking about "safe areas" to p…
[deleted]
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're leaving out most of what the instructor does: -Prepare lessons -Answer student questions (during and) after class -Grade homework -Prepare, proctor, and grade examinations And instructors rarely spend their entire instructional period interacting with students; usually, they have a lecture they deliver for the majority, and a small time at the end for questions - about the material, class errata, unrelated que…
It depends on the instructor and the way the university is set up. I had classes as an undergrad which the professor had literally been teaching for decades - these guys hadn't spent time on a lesson plan since before the Beatles broke up. And they had grad students to grade papers and tests, plus teaching assistants the students were expected to see first before bothering the professor. The test questions were just…
You had one professor who had a system worked out. How did the rest of your professors handle their workload? I too had a few professors that had it all figured out, a lot that were hard-working professionals, and a few that struggled to be on time to class.
Much like anywhere in life.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers are probably a big one. Most people think they spend all day in the courtroom, but many lawyers never set foot in a courtroom. Instead, their days are spent meeting with clients and preparing documents: their job is to translate the plain-English requirements of what the clients want to agree upon into legalese that has specific meaning in court.
So law is in a way programming?
That's one reason why the tax code is a perfect domain for computer assistance (read: Intuit).
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#68What's it with humanities people that make them believe that only them, of all people, are able to do critical thinking? Anyway, the author is part of the problem. Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time. Until the professors themselves stop thinking this way, no government will prioritize them. (And no, I don't agree that humanities are useles…
At the risk of being overly confrontational, the things that make humanities people believe that they are capable of critical thinking (in contrast to STEM types) are comments like yours. > Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time Where in the article does the author state or imply this? The section beginning "When I first came to Oxford 30 year…
Thank you for this comment...I thought I was going insane for a minute reading the others.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#69This was easily one of the wittiest and funniest articles I've ever read from a British author...
But why shouldn't vampires be more lauded than Victorians? Why should Jane Austen, with her painfully circumlocutions, be more academically welcome than that woman (forget her name) who wrote 50 shades of gay? In many ways, old "classical" works are telling the exact same stories as modern "trash novel" works, except the modern "trash novel" works are doing it in such a way that is clear, simple, relevant (to today's audience), and thus free of misunderstandings. From them, through clever literally mental contortions, one can still elucidate all the themes, lessons, and humanities like you could from confounding classics - just less obfuscated like "there is no place like home" instead of "lost is my homecoming", "...and then they had sex and fell in love..." instead of "... I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine, the gentle fine is this...", etc.
And who says the arts are dying? The arts are vibrant and alive in today's web-comics, video games, movies, and tv-shows. The medium has changed from a completely closed system of ink and paint to a modular, copyable, and distributable one of .mdl files, computer images, and carrier streams. It's just intentionally confusing junk like cubism, poorly drawn junk like medieval art, and inhumane junk like pyramid building that's gone away.
The pressure to have to constantly monetize, I'll admit, is painful... but that primarily hurts the large institutions who have bottom lines that must be covered. And in my opinion as a flexible small business kind of guy, that's a good thing. Large institutions were necessary for centuries for individual survival at the cost of individual self-actualization, but in today's flexible scale era, it's entirely possible to just be good at something and survive without having to give up your soul to a large corporation. In that case, going small, lean, and individual is the way of the bright future.
Re: The Slow Death of the University
#70What's it with humanities people that make them believe that only them, of all people, are able to do critical thinking? Anyway, the author is part of the problem. Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time. Until the professors themselves stop thinking this way, no government will prioritize them. (And no, I don't agree that humanities are useles…
At the risk of being overly confrontational, the things that make humanities people believe that they are capable of critical thinking (in contrast to STEM types) are comments like yours. > Just at the beginning of the article he states that humanities are only good for rich students to pass their time Where in the article does the author state or imply this? The section beginning "When I first came to Oxford 30 year…
> Universities, which in Britain have an 800-year history, have traditionally been derided as ivory towers, and there was always some truth in the accusation. (...) Across the globe, that critical distance is now being diminished almost to nothing, as the institutions that produced Erasmus and John Milton, Einstein and Monty Python, capitulate to the hard-faced priorities of global capitalism.
I never looked at Oxford people with the same eyes again after reading Giordano Bruno's works and about how the professors in there treated him. From his wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#England.2C_1583...):
> His views were controversial, notably with John Underhill, Rector of Lincoln College and subsequently bishop of Oxford, and George Abbot, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. Abbot mocked Bruno for supporting "the opinion of Copernicus that the earth did go round, and the heavens did stand still; whereas in truth it was his own head which rather did run round, and his brains did not stand still",[23] and reports accusations that Bruno plagiarized Ficino's work.
I've recently read a book by French historian Jacques Le Goff who was saying something along the lines of: "the University as we know it was born around year 1,000 and flourished for the next couple of centuries, only to become more segregated and focused on itself starting with the 14th century, so much so that the Renaissance happened outside of its sphere of influence".
So I will keep my hopes up. This downfall of the University as an institution has happened before but we still managed to create and produce great things outside of it.