Worth of Academia/Liberal Arts

]I think it's all going to be moot soon enough as technological progress continues. [/B]To answer your last sentence though, yes, universities in danger of losing what is most valuable about them as humanities departments shrink and disappear.



A humanities degree from an elite university is still very valuable, though.

Why do you think it is moot soon? Is it b/c you believe most Americans will have nano technology or some chip in their brain to download knowledge/skills/etc. into?

The humanities are just as important to society as the sciences. Its not a either or scenario. Its more like two sides of the same coin. Some people speak poetry...some people only think linearly and not holistically/organically/spatially etc.
 
Rather than argue with you, I'll ask you that if you believe that line of reasoning is weak and unproductive then you'll agree that all of the research that speaks to unwitting bias is flawed?

Or are you suggesting that professors are above it all simply by nature of being professors?



And that includes the people teaching the humanities. That is where I am going. You are implying that the people's views of the humanities have been changed because of capitalism. Meanwhile, you're working for institutions that constantly drive up the cost of study in part to line their own pockets and provide greater economic benefits to their professors.

For all your communist rhetoric, I notice you subtlely bragging about Ivy League credentials, which I assume includes Ivy League pay to teach Ivy League students.

After proudly climbing to the table of the elite, your dedication to the proletariat is somewhat questionable. :wink:

Words, not deeds, I guess?



Not requiring much is the not the same as not requiring any. The rest of your post makes little sense to me as it doesn't address anything I said. I've never said it doesn't critique itself, the university, and society as a whole. I've never questioned it's value to society.

I question the point of charging young people tuition and lifelong debt to acquire it. Part of the self-critique should be the following: Is it right to economically disenfranchise 18-21 y.o.'s for the knowledge I'm passing along when I know that it might ruin their life?

Then you'd probably ask yourself: If this knowledge is as valuable as I claim it is. shouldn't I be giving it away?

Then you'd finish up with: I have rent/mortgage to pay and I greatly value the esteem of my colleagues over the economic well-being of my students so I choose to ignore the impact this will have on their lives since I only have to deal with them a semester at a time and retirement is far away.

Your predictable responses bore me.

I'll just say that I do not teach at an Ivy anymore. I huge issues with the very idea of elite universities, even though they are often the ones with the money to have strong Humanities programs in the first place. My relationship to the university is tenuous and tactical. I draw the means for my own survival from it, but it also allows me the luxury and time to participate and various forms of grassroots activism and mentoring as well as the various literacy projects I've both developed and participated in for students and adults.

I don't see that as necessarily a contradiction because I am aware of what I am doing and I think ultimately a radical has to make certain compromised decisions in the short term in order to build the foundations for further movement and action.
This is something I didn't necessarily believe even 10 years ago.

I still think you are conflating subjectivity in grading with the subjectivity involved in creating thematic lesson plans and in developing methodological principles in the classroom. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that a professor's overall subjectivity, (something the case in every single field), necessarily lends itself to unfair subjectivity in grading or the suppression of certain ideas. I simply disagree.

Furthermore, you are conflating my broader defense of the humanities as a field less corrupted by capitalism, with the overall costs of college. The overall costs of college is a huge problem that goes way beyond even the university level.

And your insinuation that the administration operates with the motive of giving its professors more money just shows your ignorance of the university structure. They have done everything in their power to eradicate stability and pay for professors which in turn has the effect of operating as ideological control/flak. This is a whole other topic but basically the university is trying to go full short-term contract, adjunct professors. When an older tenured professor retires, they don't look to fill the position with another tenure track position.

Is this to lessen the cost of college for students? Absolutely not.

I also think it's fair to say that the difference in funding needed to run a humanities department and a science department is qualitative in difference and absolutely less corporate and less beholden to the whims of corporate interests.
 
Your predictable responses bore me.

I'll just say that I do not teach at an Ivy anymore. I huge issues with the very idea of elite universities, even though they are often the ones with the money to have strong Humanities programs in the first place. My relationship to the university is tenuous and tactical. I draw the means for my own survival from it, but it also allows me the luxury and time to participate and various forms of grassroots activism and mentoring as well as the various literacy projects I've both developed and participated in for students and adults.

I don't see that as necessarily a contradiction because I am aware of what I am doing and I think ultimately a radical has to make certain compromised decisions in the short term in order to build the foundations for further movement and action.
This is something I didn't necessarily believe even 10 years ago.

I still think you are conflating subjectivity in grading with the subjectivity involved in creating thematic lesson plans and in developing methodological principles in the classroom. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that a professor's overall subjectivity, (something the case in every single field), necessarily lends itself to unfair subjectivity in grading or the suppression of certain ideas. I simply disagree.

Furthermore, you are conflating my broader defense of the humanities as a field less corrupted by capitalism, with the overall costs of college. The overall costs of college is a huge problem that goes way beyond even the university level.

And your insinuation that the administration operates with the motive of giving its professors more money just shows your ignorance of the university structure. They have done everything in their power to eradicate stability and pay for professors which in turn has the effect of operating as ideological control/flak. This is a whole other topic but basically the university is trying to go full short-term contract, adjunct professors. When an older tenured professor retires, they don't look to fill the position with another tenure track position.

Is this to lessen the cost of college for students? Absolutely not.

I also think it's fair to say that the difference in funding needed to run a humanities department and a science department is qualitative in difference and absolutely less corporate and less beholden to the whims of corporate interests.

So you can tell me...are you Angela Davis?
 
So you can tell me...are you Angela Davis?

Mostly unrelated, but my high school english teacher was arrested a long time ago in an airport on charges of being angela davis. She was let go when she was able to prove she was not angela davis.

Hostile? You are tone projecting.

You're attempting to derail because you can't defend your claim.
 
I find that interesting.

Why don't you answer those questions?

convince me they aren't dumb questions and that there's a reason you are asking them to me out of nowhere.

I did not even know you existed until I saw that post of yours.
 
convince me they aren't dumb questions and that there's a reason you are asking them to me out of nowhere.

I did not even know you existed until I saw that post of yours.

You are an university professor, so you much be intelligent.

But your ideas like communism are stupid.

So I'm wondering why an intelligent person has such stupid ideas. So I'm thinking maybe your bad at math ( logic ) and so your ideas are illogical.

Or you are an emotional person. So maybe you are driven by emotion instead of rationality. Maybe that's why your ideas are irrational.
 
Last edited:
I know Angela Davis, but no I'm not her.

i-am-disappoint.jpeg
 
In this day and age, you can educate yourself far cheaper than the cost of college tuition. So if your only reason for going to college is to learn about liberal arts and the humanities, I see absolutely no reason to spend tens and maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars on college.

If that's what people are starting to understand, I am genuinely glad.
 
You are an university professor, so you much be intelligent.

But your ideas like communism are stupid.

So I'm wondering why an intelligent person has such stupid ideas. So I'm thinking maybe your bad at math ( logic ) and so your ideas are illogical.

Or you are an emotional person. So maybe you are driven by emotion instead of rationality. Maybe that's why your ideas are irrational.

I would start by arguing that emotion and reason are not a strict binary.

Secondly, I am pretty good at math. Was in the 90's percentile on the GRE quantitative, which for a humanities person is pretty insane.

Do your credentials exceed mine to the point where you would not instead be questioning yourself instead of me?
 
I would start by arguing that emotion and reason are not a strict binary.

Secondly, I am pretty good at math. Was in the 90's percentile on the GRE quantitative, which for a humanities person is pretty insane.

Do your credentials exceed mine to the point where you would not instead be questioning yourself instead of me?

I'm more interested in ideas than credentials.

And to me Communism is a failed idea. Just look at the difference between Soviet Union and America, East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, China under Mao and China after Mao.

I don't understand how intelligent people ( not only you ) can support bad ideas like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc.
 
I'm more interested in ideas than credentials.

And to me Communism is a failed idea. Just look at the difference between Soviet Union and America, East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, China under Mao and China after Mao.

I don't understand how intelligent people ( not only you ) can support bad ideas like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc.

I'd wager it's something to do you with you not being a very intelligent person.
 
I'm more interested in ideas than credentials.

And to me Communism is a failed idea. Just look at the difference between Soviet Union and America, East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, China under Mao and China after Mao.

I don't understand how intelligent people ( not only you ) can support bad ideas like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc.

I don't think general intelligence has a lot to do with it. If people are trained in something they will absorb it. The really smart ones might just absorb it even better.

Meanwhile, that same person could have been trained in something completely different and contradictory and absorbed that extremely well instead.
 
I don't think general intelligence has a lot to do with it. If people are trained in something they will absorb it. The really smart ones might just absorb it even better.

Meanwhile, that same person could have been trained in something completely different and contradictory and absorbed that extremely well instead.

So they are trained in bad theories, like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc. They are intelligent so they understand those theories very well, but they lack common sense or intuition to understand that those theories are wrong?
 
So they are trained in bad theories, like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc. They are intelligent so they understand those theories very well, but they lack common sense or intuition to understand that those theories are wrong?

When immersed in something that has a certain appeal and being surrounded by like minded people there are many factors that can draw people in. Not to mention in an education environment the students tend to listen to authority.

A communist would call capitalism a bad theory. A capitalist would call communism a bad theory. Sometimes it just sort of turns into a sport I think and people can lose sight of the bigger picture.

I'm sure there is a lot to it, but certainly there are intelligent people in all 'isms'

The focus going in would be more on the positives, and without context it could appear fantastic.
 
So they are trained in bad theories, like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc. They are intelligent so they understand those theories very well, but they lack common sense or intuition to understand that those theories are wrong?

Not sure how you think that feminism is "wrong." Does it even have a single definition? To the extent that it does, isn't it just a matter of opinion? And "Keynesianism" is an even loonier thing to include there. What do you think people who study economics are missing? To your point, I would argue that there are probably some non-stupid people who believe that Austrian "economics" isn't just dated hokum, but the answer there is not that they study too much, but that they study too little (some of it can make sense if you're not familiar with the facts--the last page or so of this thread really shows the problems with that thinking: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f5...hike-do-so-your-own-risk-2643221/index29.html).
 
Last edited:
So they are trained in bad theories, like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc. They are intelligent so they understand those theories very well, but they lack common sense or intuition to understand that those theories are wrong?

Saying theories are "wrong" is pretty 1st level, crude thinking.

I also have a very loose and fluid conception of communism and Marxism.
 
I don't understand how intelligent people ( not only you ) can support bad ideas like Communism, Feminism, Keynesianism, etc.

Because some people need a religion even if they don't want to call it that. These people put faith and dogmatic logic at best to support their stances, then when asked to prove a point they reference their own 'bible' so to speak coming up with flawed statistics and biased research. Same goes for many libertarians too. People hold their political stance in the same way many hold a religion.
 
Back
Top