LordShiva and DaShi's homework: Teh Disadvantages of Elite Education

[Asher]

till, the author of this article rants on at length about not being able to talk to the plumber. He could care about the plumber. He could find worth in the plumber. But he would still have no ****ing idea what to say to the guy (or gal).

I disagree. I can talk with "the help" just fine because, as GePap said (damn you for saying something accurate, BTW), I'm naturally curious as to how they do their jobs also. I like to learn about things, so that's always a talking point. Gauge their experience "How long've you been doing this?" etc.

I actually have a very good relationship now with the local Subway shop guy also. It pays off, he gives me free stuff and big discounts now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Arrian
Still, the author of this article rants on at length about not being able to talk to the plumber. He could care about the plumber. He could find worth in the plumber. But he would still have no ****ing idea what to say to the guy (or gal), unless he had some experience with interacting with (non-elite, I guess) people.

-Arrian

Well, one of the problems in the modern university that the author does cite is the lack of class diversity - that for many students, the only people they meet while in college are people of their same socio-economic crowd, and thus aren't able to have experience dealing with the non-elite. Of course, students can volunteer or join organizations that would put them in contact with such people, but for anyone who views their education from a careerist viewpoint, there would be no point.

Having gone to just the kind of institution this guy is talking about (thought thankfully while I was there the place was too self-depricating to instill the same hubris that a Yale or Harvard Alumus has), much of what the professor says is valid, but there is no going back. Sadly my Alma Mater is trying to become just like Yale or Harvard, so they can get more Alumni funds.

[Aeson]

I hardly talk to anyone, and I didn't get an elite education either.

[Elok]

Having never been to an Ivy League school or met a grad thereof (except for my Dad, who graduated Brown sometime in the fifties, before the scope of this article), I can't really comment on that. But I'm wondering why any college education ought to especially prepare you to talk with plumbers. Or how Yale could address that shortcoming. Perhaps he wants them to do anthropological seminars, where they bring in hotel room-cleaners and short-order cooks to explain to the students what it's like to live without horses or a yacht?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
Having never been to an Ivy League school or met a grad thereof (except for my Dad, who graduated Brown sometime in the fifties, before the scope of this article), I can't really comment on that. But I'm wondering why any college education ought to especially prepare you to talk with plumbers. Or how Yale could address that shortcoming. Perhaps he wants them to do anthropological seminars, where they bring in hotel room-cleaners and short-order cooks to explain to the students what it's like to live without horses or a yacht?

Your dad is REALLY OLD.
That's disgusting!

Boycott ELok! :mad;

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, one of the problems in the modern university that the author does cite is the lack of class diversity - that for many students, the only people they meet while in college are people of their same socio-economic crowd, and thus aren't able to have experience dealing with the non-elite. Of course, students can volunteer or join organizations that would put them in contact with such people, but for anyone who views their education from a careerist viewpoint, there would be no point.

Having gone to just the kind of institution this guy is talking about (thought thankfully while I was there the place was too self-depricating to instill the same hubris that a Yale or Harvard Alumus has), much of what the professor says is valid, but there is no going back. Sadly my Alma Mater is trying to become just like Yale or Harvard, so they can get more Alumni funds.

I didn't go to an Ivy, and the only one I know who is at an Ivy (Brown) is getting his PhD in history to become a college professor... and hell, he grew up in NYC with no money. So maybe it's just that this guy is talking about a phenomenon I haven't seen or experienced.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Asher

till, the author of this article rants on at length about not being able to talk to the plumber. He could care about the plumber. He could find worth in the plumber. But he would still have no ****ing idea what to say to the guy (or gal).

I disagree. I can talk with "the help" just fine because, as GePap said (damn you for saying something accurate, BTW), I'm naturally curious as to how they do their jobs also. I like to learn about things, so that's always a talking point. Gauge their experience "How long've you been doing this?" etc.

I actually have a very good relationship now with the local Subway shop guy also. It pays off, he gives me free stuff and big discounts now.

I edited my statement. I can hold a conversation with a plumber too, but it's b/c I am reasonably personable - not b/c of life experience or my education. That I am not a snobby ******* who thinks the help is beneath him says more about my upbringing than it does Trinity College.

I guess that's my main objection here.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

I look down on certain schools only if certain people I know to be remarkably stupid managed to get a degree there.

Then you should be praising the school in that they successfully got me through.

I have a very hard time understanding why we need people using tax dollars to simply memorize what happened hundreds of years ago.

Several points.

First. It's not about memorisation. Sure the facts are important, but that's not why people go into history, to learn what's already there. That's like saying the goal of an archaeologist is to memorise digs and findings.

Second, History is all about research first and foremost. Think of the facts as a steel framework of the building. It tells you where and when and how things happened overall. What history is, is the space between that. You have to know the names and dates and places and be familiar with them in order to do any conductive research. To find the stuff in the middle? That takes plenty of skill in both finding the proper material in the first place, and then you have to take all the material you have and distill it into a coherent account.

I feel sorry for you that your teachers only taught the facts and the framework of history, which is essential, but nothing else. It's only the start of what history is really about.

History is important and we should all be taught history to some extent (in primary and secondary schools), but I've never met a single person who studied History who then goes and actually uses that degree in any meaningful way.

To use it in a meaningful way, you can either use it to teach as either a professor, teacher or even a tutor as I do. The second is to publish or write a book about history.

There are tons of spin off jobs, which either concentrate on several areas. Either they do research of some sort, in being able to dig into an archive or they write for a living doing something else.

I would say there are really three aspects that a history degree can be used, in teaching, writing or research, and there are plenty of jobs that rely on those skills.

The vast majority of them become tutors for people too dumb to find a better tutor,

Gee thanks. My students consistently get A's. I could even get you an A in history.

I think History is one of the most wasteful public university disciplines because many people take that course, and the public subsidy, to study something just because they find it interesting.

It teaches you skills and a mindset of the world which is very helpful for later on.

Then they go and do something completely different.

Remember you are talking about building minds, not careers.

You can do that if you wish at a private school, I just don't want to pay for it.

So we should only pay for practical things? That's a philosophy Asher, which is contrary to the one you are promoting here. I think it's so funny, you list all these ideas, but you don't have a clue where they came from, you just toss them out there. Did you ever wonder who came up with this philosophy Asher?

You must've missed the part where you successfully argued that studying history in university means you are both enlightened and someone with a competent "mind". I don't think history in university enlightens anyone in any meaningful matter that they couldn't get simply by going to a public library or even wikipedia today.

Wikipedia has issues which you don't even have a clue about. The fact that you rely on wikipedia opens you up to so many problems. Wikipedia is a signpost, nothing more. It can point you to where you should go, but it is not reliable.

As for the public library, where would you start? Do you even know how to find the materials that you need?

Do we need our painters all educated with a BA in Painting?

Do we need all our computer programmers with a BA in Computer Science?

Fine Arts will do.

You raised an excellent point, but one you are oblivious to and is counter to your position. History, like painting, is not something that needs to be taught at a university level.

Another idea. You can learn how to paint yourself, and it's important that you develop your own style. But learning the tricks of the trade from the masters allows you to go beyond them rather then reinventing the wheel.

I haven't had the time to study much of Art and techniques associated with painting, but there is much more involved then you percieve. A computer program may look simple, but you don't see the code underneath.

[Asher]

I just got an instant headache when I saw Ben last replied.

[Sirotnikov]

One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not. Graduates of elite schools are not more valuable than stupid people, or talentless people, or even lazy people.

yes they are

[Asher]

One quote to demolish your whole argument

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Remember you are talking about building minds, not careers.

You have ably demonstrated that taking a history degree doesn't give you the capacity for thought. It doesn't build your mind, quite obviously.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

yes they are

Certainly more valuable than an Israeli, to be sure.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have ably demonstrated that taking a history degree doesn't give you the capacity for thought. It doesn't build your mind, quite obviously.

If we assume that arts degrees DO build minds, why would someone who has a science degree assume that he would be capable of understanding the arguments of those with arts degrees?

Do I need to post Asher-note versions so you can read?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

yes they are

He specifically says "valueable in some moral or metaphysical sense." Still, it's a questionable line.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If we assume that arts degrees DO build minds, why would someone who has a science degree assume that he would be capable of understanding the arguments of those with arts degrees?

Do I need to post Asher-note versions so you can read?

WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS THE STUPIDITY OF YOUR POST.