Is there something wrong

[ultramanhyata]

Ideally people should be judged by their actions, and their character.

Amen.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

LOL at the comedic gold by Jack "humanities should be the only educational choice subsidized"

 

[Bald1]

well, part of an education (supposedly) is to develop critical thinking skills. too many people (particularly in this forum) think education is just about turning a person into a productive worker bee, and that's hardly the case. being able to think critically and objectively are far more valuable traits to develop.

that sadly doesn't always come across in modern education. i notice a lot of students (similar to a lot of modern republicans i see discuss politics) just want to reinforce preset world views and ideologies, which is the opposite of critical thinking. but to suggest tradesmen are "educated" in a similar fashion is rather misleading. a tradesman is trained to do a particular blue collar labor job. nothing wrong with that, but that's not being "educated" in the same sense.

now, real world experience can be an education depending on the person. such is life. but there's no replacement to a good education, and being trained in a trade falls enormously short of what a proper education can and should provide.

edit: just to reiterate, i don't like crapping on a tradesman or blue collar worker. truthfully, i myself enjoyed my blue collar jobs when i was younger. and my natural disposition is to think critically, but i know through my own education that it has certainly fostered those skill sets of mine in an enormous way.

I think you're confusing laborers with trades people, and installers with techs. Critical thinking, analyzing and processing information is a huge part of being a tech. Knowing the why, and not just the how is a big thing in the blue collar world.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I'm not sure I like the idea of humanities students paying extra to subsidize STEM and other technical fields. STEM fields are valuable for the state to fund because they offer direct utility... Theoretically, anything the state pays for a STEM degree will come back to them through taxes, services/quality of life, and innovation. I'm not sure it would be necessary to actually have humanities students pay for something that it might well be worth the state paying for outright. STEM being a special tax on the arts seems almost punitive to me... "What, you aren't taking something useful? Into the corner, and you pay for all the kids taking the correct courses!" STEM grads will give back to the state in very tangible terms, so it's an investment, not a cost to be shuffled off to other less useful students.

What's more various humanities fields do have practical utility. Not all, in a direct "It creates a product someone wants," but some do have that as well. They just have little enough practical utility so that the rates we are producing majors in those areas is obscene though, and the state paying to produce more seems like a total waste from an economic standpoint. Film, theatre, music, and to a lesser degree creative writing all have a direct input/output with training/utility element which I think the training people receive in a university is beneficial for. It's really just an issue of how many are actually needed? Not many. In this regard, I don't mind funding for certain humanities fields, but simply not a free pass for obscene numbers of students - every kid who saw (insert big movie here) and now wants to be an actor shouldn't get to study Beckett for four years just to discover the job they have developed skills for has thousands of applicants waiting for each position. (side note: theatre, opera, musicals, television, movies, any large theatrical performance all have a need for a certain number of formally trained individuals, mostly behind the scenes - this is the type of utility that comes out of humanities fields, in a dollars and cents sense.)

Now, this is where we'll probably part ways, but I do recognize a value, if long term and abstract, in even the type of abstract stuff that is my passion. Go figure, the person who studies this stuff as a passion finds it valuable, but it is what it is. I think as a culture we'd be worse off if we made the more airy-fairy types of humanities inhospitable for passionate people to pursue. The perspective on history, art, and all that huzzabaloo that comes out of these departments is valuable to keep advancing and in circulation for the framework and referencing of those involved in governing, social engineering, for informing ethical issues, and so on and so forth. You can't point out many cases where you can say "philosophy creates capital and cures diseases or etc etc," but you can point out, on a long timeline, that fostering this type of thought has been important to furthering and informing ideology and thought and arguably civilization itself. I hope you can recognize this value even if you agree with me that the state shouldn't be dishing out to fund snot nosed teenagers to spend five years studying it just so they can get a job as a firefighter after. If someone wants to study the more theoretical and less practical arts, they should be prepared to work for it - because obtaining that degree isn't likely to put much fuel into the economic engine that drives the state. It might just, over a course of centuries, give a nod to the person behind the steering wheel that they should or shouldn't go X direction.

Concerning the trades, I could not agree more. One of my biggest fears of "FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE!" is that it's another step down the direction of the overvaluation of formal, post secondary education at a university VS learning a trade. A lot of my earlier discussion in this thread - I think this one, anyways? - was to this point. The trades are exceptionally valuable, grossly undervalued in senses even beyond economic, and we're rushing to fund kids going to university with little to no mention of the trades. I dislike this and think it betrays an error in valuation we have on a societal level... A master tradesman is worthy of as much respect as a professor, and that position should be equally coveted. In the end, it will produce far more in the way of applicable utility, in any case, so we shouldn't be turning our broad-cultural noses up to people who work with their hands. Some of those trades positions are bloody *sweet* jobs in a lot of ways.

And you know, I don't even need my post grad paid for. I'll take funding where I can, but frankly, if this notion of "furnished soul" is to have any value and not be the joke you're making it out to be, it isn't going to be coming from a few years of cramming for tests, slamming off papers last minute, and getting a degree from a formal-education assembly line. The idea of "oh, you've finished off X credits? You've reached a knowledge milestone! Here's your paper saying you're a clever academic" always seemd a bit ridiculous to me. I've been tinkering around the university for just over fifteen years now, with no intention to stop, and after getting my first grad degree, I stopped rushing for degrees and thought of it in terms of "what learning will help me complete my next big project and inform my solution for/treatment of Nietzsche's big problems?" From there I have taken and audited courses in damn near every type of humanity faculty you can think of, pursued specialists who have particular insights I want to know more about, and done things outside of the university. Oddly, the latter part has been one of the most valuable things in "furnishing my soul," so to speak, and can't be discounted. Working in the trades has been one of the most valuable experiences I've had for adding context to a lot of my formal education. Now I have professors request I audit their grad courses, or come in for a day to speak on a particular topic, not the other way around. If you want to actually "furnish your soul," look beyond a degree program in the humanities - but by all means, include what the humanities have to offer. Kids coming out of degree programs these days are more ideologically conditioned than taught to be critical, philosophical thinkers, as far as I can tell.

Short story? In a "free education" plan, a stark limit on humanities degrees should be set, in my opinion. Their utility doesn't warrant a universally free pass, even though some have utility. Push the trades - they are criminally undervalued in our culture.

I agree with everything mentioned about the trades; they are too undervalued and present prospective HS grads a great chance to make solid living wage and carve out a secure life for themselves. Again, think about all the situations you would need a plumber, linesmen, welder and compared that to all the times you would need gender studies major...

Passion is a subjective, almost nebulous term in education. Again, you can currently seek out an education in the humanities for free by just auditing classes and going to the library; it can be a self driven exercise. Do you really need a degree on your wall to be shown as someone who knowledgeable in philosophy?

On the flip, engineering, hard sciences, math and medicine require a more guided approach that the education system offers AND provides a real, required and necessary ROI. Would you want the person about to operate on you not to have a proven academic accomplishment, but do you really care if the person discussing true altruism has a degree?

I also have no idea where the notion that only humanities students have passion for education. I would say STEM students have more passion, as well need more characteristics of passion (drive, perseverance, work ethic, etc) to accomplish their degree.

If it comes down to just funding peoples interest with no real ROI to society, then why not fund Johnny's dirt bike lessons or Sally's equestrian training? Those are passion interests; at least people pay to see those acts performed.

If publicly funded post secondary education is going to be a reality; i think the majority of people are going to argue it should be exclusive to fields that actually support and further the strength of the economy and provide a value add service - that would be scientist, engineers, doctors, tradesmen etc.

So far no one has been able to argue the value of the humanities beside the absurd rhetoric of "the pursuit of education"

Also, good on you for working a physically demanding job while pursuing your academic interest; not an easy task

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I think you're confusing laborers with trades people, and installers with techs. Critical thinking, analyzing and processing information is a huge part of being a tech. Knowing the why, and not just the how is a big thing in the blue collar world.

except when you guys go off schematics and i have to explain the legality of why we follow stamped blueprints

other than that, spot on.

 

[Bald1]

except when you guys go off schematics and i have to explain the legality of why we follow stamped blueprints

other than that, spot on.

Are you saying that sometimes we butt heads with engineers? That sometimes we think we know better? Well, I never...!! Lol

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Are you saying that sometimes we butt heads with engineers? That sometimes we think we know better? Well, I never...!! Lol

Nope, never happens - and especially never the 25+ year guys...i never have to hear how the design could be better, lol.

 

[Bald1]

Nope, never happens - and especially never the 25+ year guys...i never have to hear how the design could be better, lol.

I used to hate people like that, now that I've spent over 20 years in the trade I'm turning into one of those old timers.

Don't you send stuff into orbit? I imagine following prints is more vital in your field than mine. If I change my boiler designs to suit the environment things won't be plummeting to earth. Unless I really, really screw up.

 

[ehtheist]

I agree with everything mentioned about the trades; they are too undervalued and present prospective HS grads a great chance to make solid living wage and carve out a secure life for themselves. Again, think about all the situations you would need a plumber, linesmen, welder and compared that to all the times you would need gender studies major...

Passion is a subjective, almost nebulous term in education. Again, you can currently seek out an education in the humanities for free by just auditing classes and going to the library; it can be a self driven exercise. Do you really need a degree on your wall to be shown as someone who knowledgeable in philosophy?

On the flip, engineering, hard sciences, math and medicine require a more guided approach that the education system offers AND provides a real, required and necessary ROI. Would you want the person about to operate on you not to have a proven academic accomplishment, but do you really care if the person discussing true altruism has a degree?

I also have no idea where the notion that only humanities students have passion for education. I would say STEM students have more passion, as well need more characteristics of passion (drive, perseverance, work ethic, etc) to accomplish their degree.

If it comes down to just funding peoples interest with no real ROI to society, then why not fund Johnny's dirt bike lessons or Sally's equestrian training? Those are passion interests; at least people pay to see those acts performed.

If publicly funded post secondary education is going to be a reality; i think the majority of people are going to argue it should be exclusive to fields that actually support and further the strength of the economy and provide a value add service - that would be scientist, engineers, doctors, tradesmen etc.

So far no one has been able to argue the value of the humanities beside the absurd rhetoric of "the pursuit of education"

Also, good on you for working a physically demanding job while pursuing your academic interest; not an easy task

Not sure this is how you were taking it, but I wasn't meaning to imply that there aren't tremendously passionate, creative, and innovative people in STEM fields as well. The arts have no monopoly on these qualities and, frankly, some of the most creative and passionate people I know are in the sciences, not the humanities. You'll never catch me saying otherwise, except in some drunken stupor where my words just come out wrong.

The main purpose of the formal degree in, say, philosophy is as a litmus test for hacks. You aren't likely to get a Ph.D in philosophy without at least a reasonable knowledge base about philosophy at large so when Dr.Whoever says "Aristotle said this and this" the Dr. plays into an appeal to authority. He knows because he's part of the institution. By no means is it the case that you need that degree to know but, from a society perspective, appeal to authority is still one of our primary mechanisms for accepting statements of fact. The thing is, undergrads with bachelor degrees, especially these days, know just enough to be dangerous. The number of undergrads I hear *horribly* butchering my areas of specialty is ridiculous... So, when Dr.Keith Ansell-Pearson tells us about the finer points of Nietzsche's eternal return, you can trust him - he knows his stuff. Some undergrad student? Not so much. There are *plenty* of uneducated people who know Nietzsche better than undergrads. There aren't many people in this world, educated or not, who know Nietzsche better than Ansell-Pearson. I see value in higher end degrees in this context.. Bachelor's of the arts are somewhat of a joke these days though.

Also, I might add, and you might have skipped it over in my walls of text, but I did give two cases for the value of the humanities beyond the "value of education"... The first is in the productive humanities - that which is integral to the production of entertainment related things. The second is a long term one that still plays into the truism of "philosophy bakes no bread" truism - that of the humanities being part of the long term engineering of society. Most of our great somethingisms somethingogies come from people having education in what were classically the humanities so I don't think it's a good idea to make pursuit of these things inhospitable to the passionate - they just don't necessarily need their way paid. Thing is, as I told Jack, you and I take very different paths to arrive at a similar conclusion - I don't believe much, if any, public funding should go to paying for Susie studying French literature. Kids in theatre, music, and film studies and whatnot? A bit. They learn skillsets directly related to producing much of our culture's popular entertainment.

You know my thoughts on public funding though. Just wanted to clear up that I wasn't giving some long-winded smear on the STEM fields not being the home of passionate individuals.

 

[ehtheist]

You agreed with someone whose response to a defense of education with "put that on your resume" and then stated the position that if people don't have to pay for education we should limit the amount of humanity degrees. Isn't that a philistine position?

Not in the slightest. As I've stated multiple times, it's derived from Platonic and Aristotelian views of social engineering in which the contemplation is the highest value. Could you explain the point you've repeatedly made that this is a "philistine position"? At this point, I'm rather lost and you're either not telling me something, or again skimming over points that are central to our discussion.

It's weird how you keep going there. I don't believe I've ever discussed anything with Judo, and I don't remember what discussions of ours that you think I'm upset about. Generally, I think we've had pretty good discussions, though you seem to be getting pretty pissy now.

I thought I was being quite gracious, because your current strand of criticism of me is *so* far off the mark, I was offering the concession that you might literally have my position mixed up with Judo? You seem to be shoehorning my stance as identical to his, and it really isn't - they just have a similar endpoint. I have striven to explain how my reasoning behind my position is very different from his - "Frankly, I think Judo and I reach similar ends by very different routes and for very different reasons." - yet you persist with this wildly inaccurate assessment of my position.

Lastly, you say "it's weird how you keep going there"... Did I actually do that more than once? I find it weird that you'd even bring this up. Seems more a rhetorical method than a strand of an earnest argument to me.