Thread: Purgatory: A Taste for Bunkum Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001059
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Rant for Comment ...
Henry Ford once said that "History is bunkum!" The UK Education minister, Charles Clarke was clearly deeply traumatised by trivia having reading History at university. He was none too complemenatry about history in the curriculum a little while ago. There are not many history posts available at the moment in the secondary sector of education ... the humanities being squeezed particularly hard by Labour's new "white hot technological revolution.
[ 08. January 2006, 21:57: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I knew it! I knew this would turn out to be a Fr. Gregory attack on the Labour government!
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
A Purgatory rant! What rare animal is this?
I'll happily join in, Fr Gregory. Our 'culture' isn't interested in real education: only in training people to be productive and docile economic work-units. Schools are in the business of making children 'acquire skills', not in the business of forming them as human beings. It's not the schools' fault: you're right that the humanities (those educational disciplines that truly humanise us) have been all but excluded from the 'national curriculum'.
History, literature, music, philosophy - soon they'll all be gone (even, God help us, sociology and politics - the only humanities that would equip us to criticise the political bounders that have created this mess). Even real science is on the way out - real science involving a creative imagination, that is - and all that's left is 'technology' (where's the emoticon for a sneer?). A friend of mine who used to teach M.Sc. Physics said to me a few years ago that his students were now coming to him with no imagination and not knowing how to think. He now works in America. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Something wierd happened when I tried to post this question. I'll try and reconstruct the last part.
................
The only historical subjects that seem worthy for study today in the secondary curriculum are the Romans (sexy), Henry VIII (loveable old rogue who put the Pope in his place ... actually a Saddamesque tyrant), social movements in the 19th century, (PC), and "relevant" history ... usually that which lies within the wartime memories of grandpa and great-grandpa, (endless studies of the First World War and the rise of fascism / communism).
This, of course has affected the churches as well. What possible relevance could Egyptian monasticism have to the concerns of a contemporary rural parish? Who cares about the pedgagogy of the fathers? What use are the Rhineland Mystics to Mrs. Jones on the 92 bus?
When we lose our history we lose our collective memory and the cultural infrastructure of our society. We become a rootless people buffeted and overtaken by contemporary insights and ideologies that are presented as new and exciting (and, therefore, "true") when they are really old and rather battered by re-rendering. The loss of history has enabled politicians particularly to con us in accepting anything thet serve up under the banner of "reform" or "modernisation." Bring back history! Recover who you are so you can know what you can become. End this senseless (literally) cultural lobotomy!
[ 07. January 2004, 17:02: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I knew it! I knew this would turn out to be a Fr. Gregory attack on the Labour government!
The experience of history?
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Okay, now I'm really lost. What are you driving at, Fr. G?
(sorry, crosspost)
So what you're saying, Chapelhead, is that people who remember history are doomed to hear Fr. Gregory repeat himself?
[ 07. January 2004, 17:10: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on
:
You are on the right lines Fr Gregory.
Sciences and maths are "in" because governments like to be seen to be fostering scientists, and to be at the forefront of technology.
On the other hand- trendy subjects like Media Studies, Marketing and on the rise- which means harder, more traditional academic subjects get squeezed out.
Then politicians wonder why we seem to have produced a generation of young people who (on the whole) don't like to vote, don't care about politics, and only care about who wins Pop Idol.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Adeodatus and Flying Belgian have said it for me Mousethief. I am saying that we live as if history had no bearing on the present. The only possible exception to this being the lessons learned from the rise of fascism.
Adeodatus and Flying Belgian have amplified my point about the increasing narrowness of the curriculum in a technocratic culture.
Our historical amnesia is reflected in the churches by our absorption in the present moment. In politics there is a numbing of the senses because most have become political illiterates. Voters (and politicians) look for immediate payoffs rather than long term strategies. Without history we lose memory, culture, everything. We don't care anymore. We don't who we are or what we could become because we know don't what we have been .... the forces that have shaped us and still control our lives whether we are conscious of these or not. We have inflicted upon ourselves a cultural lobotomy.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
When has it ever been different?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Its science and maths that are dying out in schools, not history. Most schools no longer have qualified maths teachers, and many don't have physics or chemistry teachers, Physcis and chemistry departments are closing in universities for lack of students.
You can't even do separate science GCSEs in my daughter's school, they are swept off the curriculum to be replaced by a single "combined science" course and a compulsory "technology" course. For which you choose one out of "textiles" (i.e. what we used to call sewing) "resistant materials" (what we used to call woodwork and metalwork) or "graphics" (what we used to call technical drawing)
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I think it has been different Mousethief. I offer the following thoughts to ponder.
(1) Anecdotal: When I did history at school we looked at English history comprehensively ... right the way through ... and it wasn't just kings and queens either. By the time I took my High School exams at 16 we had done European history in the 19th century very comprehensively. In all the schools I have taught in during the last 10 years history has never been taught with this range and thoroughness.
(2) Church: (Church of England) Anglicans before the War knew their own history. They actually knew who Cranmer was (if only because they used his Liturgy). They had more than a passing acquaintance with Christian history in England ... if only post-Reformation. When I was ordained as an Anglican curate I used to do courses on liturgical development and history. The people I taught were relatively clueless about all of this.
(3) In a pre-literate culture history was communicated, absorbed and made part of culture through story-telling and poetry. Without being too romantic about this it was part and parcel of the culture of nationhood. In recent times the revulsion of PC thinkers against "Eurocentrism" and so-called colonial white imperial thinking has left many English speaking peoples relatively ignorant of their own traditions and historical legacy. This loss has been felt but has been expressed in a warped and sometimes racist manner. This has fuelled PC repression of western cultural history even more.
(4) Modernity good; Tradition bad. Need I say more?
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Ken ... I agree with that as well. Adeodatus' post is relevant on that trend. Even the New Scientist has upgraded and expanded its Technology section. Good hard science is struggling to find a place. Creative thinking has been replaced by that awful English obsession with gadgets and "how things work." There is an anti-intellectualism here as well ... witness the demise of philosophy and public debate about anuything other than economics or political interpretation / forecasting. Our culture ... liberal, humane and scientific is becoming impoverished .... and I haven't even considered religion which has been relegated to the private domain.
If we had a more vivid sense of our history ... SOME of this might not have been lost so easily.
[ 07. January 2004, 18:37: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
But how many people got that level of education back then, Fr. G? Everybody in the country? Just the rich? Just the white? Just the uppermiddleclass?
There has never been a utopia, even a single-issue microutopia.
Which is not to say that we shouldn't aim for better education for our children. On that we are in agreement.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Everyone has said it far, far better than I could, so I won't say it again! History and the other humanities are so sadly lacking - my grandson at his Manchester High School found so many constraints on what he chose to do for his GCSE's (national exams at 16+ for our US friends) that the only subject he could do that he really wanted to was Classical studies! And he's taking 10 subjects - all the others are compulsory.
Its interesting though that high quality extra-mural classes on historical themes are very popular, certainly in this part of the world, and are run in conjunction with Manchester University.
Nic
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Mousethief
I am elitist enough to know that not everyone could or should do history in the same way that I was able and willing to do it. However, the impoverishment of the history curriculum in Britain today is not limited to those who have never exposed to such things. It is a deficit for the academic students as well.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Nicodemia ... you took the words out of my mouth. (You have reminded me ... I will PM you now on your other question).
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
To be fair to Mr. Blair his approach to education only mirrors that of a woman he cleary admires a great deal - Margret Thatcher.
I am sure there was a time when education was acknowledged to have a point besides the getting of a "good" job. I am sure there are many of us who realise that education is useful because it helps people to participate in their communities and cultures more effectively, to have more self-confidence, to think, to know, to debate and to take an intrest in something outside their own narrow experiences. Perhaps, however, I am merely thinking wishfully.
Perhaps most people have fallen for the lies that the sole point of education is to serve the economy and that those of us who are lucky enough to go to university are the only people to benifit from our education in any way. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Perhaps they even think that a good degree automatically confers higher wages upon a person. They may even think that the moon is made out of blue cheese and that pigs can fly.
Actually, I am seriously considering a Master's Degree in Politics.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Yes, Papio ... you are quite correct. (Mousethief, please take note. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Capitalists and socialists can be both narrow minded materialists ... or not ... mileage varies).
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Education as something other than job training is an elitist pipe dream. It's nice when some people can swing it, but not many can.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Education as something other than job training is an elitist pipe dream. It's nice when some people can swing it, but not many can.
Nonsense.
You are sugesting that when someone completes a degree in English, Theology, Politics, Sociology or any number of other alledgedly "useless" subjects then what they have to show for it = that they can stick at something for several years, they can meet deadlines, give presentations and find information and nothing else? Bilge.
Admittedly, further education is elitist in some senses, but perhaps I am enough of an elitist in this regard to think that a contempt for education on this basis is a trifle silly.
In what sense does a love and respect for education and an enjoyment of "book-learning" imply that you are too rich to need a job? It doesn't, does it?
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
... but all should ... and we can never giver up. How many libraries of Alexandria have to burn?
(You got there before me Papio. I was as frustrated and annoyed as you. Rwally Mousethief. I didn't think you were a cultural Philistine?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 07. January 2004, 20:06: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
In what sense does a love and respect for education and an enjoyment of "book-learning" imply that you are too rich to need a job? It doesn't, does it?
Where did I say that?
I think that it is possible to combine a vocational education with self-indulgent (let's be frank) book-learning. I tried very hard to do so while I was at school. But:
1. how many can do so? to what level? who pays for it?
2. you rather seem to imply that those not interested in self-indulgent book learning are somehow less worthy than your good self. That's the type of elitism I can't stand.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
In what sense does a love and respect for education and an enjoyment of "book-learning" imply that you are too rich to need a job? It doesn't, does it?
Where did I say that?
I think that it is possible to combine a vocational education with self-indulgent (let's be frank) book-learning. I tried very hard to do so while I was at school. But:
1. how many can do so? to what level? who pays for it?
2. you rather seem to imply that those not interested in self-indulgent book learning are somehow less worthy than your good self. That's the type of elitism I can't stand.
Wasn't that the implication of your previous post, even if you didn't actually say that?
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it and those with higher wages (regardless of whether they went to university) rightly pay more in tax in any case.
2. Do I? Where? What makes you say that?
and, to be frank, your implication that those of us who love to read are self-indulgent, self-important ninnies is fairly untenable.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Mousethief
I am very sad that you apparently think that "book learning" is self indulgent. Didn't do study philosophy? If I have misrepresented you or got that wrong, I'm sorry. Please put me right.
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
Fr G. Think you are absolutely spot on.
The loss of subjects such as history, english lit, theology, philosophy and the classics will continue to impoverish the country. This will only be compounded by the present government's, policy on Higher Education. (I am reluctant to criticise the govt, as an Anglican priest I am naturally leftwing - so yes nothing to do with the present Labour administration!) These subjects enhance life, not only individual life, but the life of the country as a whole.
I minister in an outer council estate where books are few and far between, but I have seen poetry light up people's lives and a thirst for learning transform situations.
Mousethief, I am surprised that you cannot see beyond the physical image of education to what it is really about. Education can be iconic. It has been for me!
ebor
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Spot on, Fr G. Education should continue to be education - as the immortal Miss Jean Brodie said, a drawing-out of the human qualities of the student, not filling their heads with technical details (most of them obsolete within a year).
In practice, most 'vocational training' can be accomplished in the two or three years before students go looking for jobs. In fact, to leave it till then would be a great time-saver. What's the point of studying half a dozen vocationally-based 'subjects' for half a dozen years when you're only going to have one job at the end of it? (And generally find within the first six months that your 'vocational training' doesn't count tuppence anyway!)
If theology is queen of the sciences, history is the crown princess. It's a cliche, I know, but if you don't know where you've come from, how can you know where you're going? Another cliche - a political one this time - those who control the past control the future. It's in the interests of incompetent politicians that kids know as little as possible about the past, hence the decline of history. Or is that just my conspiracy theory?
I couldn't do without it. Anyway, there's so much great literature in history-writing: Livy, Suetonius, Gibbon (!?!), Trevelyan, Asa Briggs, John Julius Norwich .... *sighs and heads off towards bookshelf*
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
It's quite entertaining that in a rant about the standard of history education Father Gregory presents his own experience as the whole history of education.
As far as I am aware, universal state education in the UK was introduced because manufacturing technology demanded a more highly educated workforce. The subsequent periodic raising of the school leaving age was usually about massaging unemployment statistics.
My own historical education in primary and grammar school in the 1960s-1970s consisted of the ancient Egyptians, the feudal system, the six wives of Henry VIIIth, the Paris commune, the 2 World Wars and Stalin. There may have been more but that's all I remember. I had no idea what history was actually about till I recently started studying church history. My son is doing GCSE and he seems to have a much better grasp of the methodology than I had at his age.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a personal choice to pursue that subject because it interests you. If you like it, knock yourself out. But you can put up for it your own self and not ride society's gravy train because you don't feel like getting a real job.
Besides, history is, to be honest, boring as hell.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a personal choice to pursue that subject because it interests you. If you like it, knock yourself out. But you can put up for it your own self and not ride society's gravy train because you don't feel like getting a real job.
Besides, history is, to be honest, boring as hell.
Yeah, fair enough. My statement was rather general and taken in conjunction with my statement that I intend to undertake a postgraduate course, I can see your point.
I do think that higher education very often benefits society as a whole and to reject that seems close to endorsing atomism. But, you are right, not every degree is equally useful and some seem to be very little use to society really. Such as a degree in David Beckham's haircuts ( I kid you not)!
My point was really that I think atomism is a load of BS, not that I have every right for your taxes to enable me to do whatever I want. I am not sure if it is legitimate (in purely theorectical terms) to speak of anyone having a "right" to an education but, in general, education is not something society can do without. Education is a collective good - it isn't something that can exist or that has a point apart from society.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I am very sad that you apparently think that "book learning" is self indulgent. Didn't do study philosophy? If I have misrepresented you or got that wrong, I'm sorry. Please put me right.
You are correct, I have an MA in philosophy. Which I got because I enjoyed the subject and hoped to be a professor therein (which didn't turn out). Certainly not for any altruistic reasons.
Posted by 'Lurker' (# 1384) on
:
This isn't a new problem, I recall reading an essay by C.S Lewis on this subject, as he was worried there was too much focus on vocational subjects, and not enough on subjects like English Literature. I'll have to look it out to find out his arguments in favour of the kind of subjects he taught.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Lurker, the essay you want is "On Learning in War-Time".
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Okay, I was close. It's "Learning in War Time" -- it's in The Weight of Glory.
Look, I'm not saying a case can't be made for the idea that all of society is better off when some members are philosophers, professors of medieval english, etc. etc. But the case isn't made simply by saying "I can't believe you think that way" neither does that make what philosophers et al. do anything other than self-indulgent.
Nobody goes into philosophy (I use this example because it's the one I'm most familiar with) for the sake of some vague improvement in the overall society. They go into philosophy because they love philosophy.
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Besides, history is, to be honest, boring as hell.
Nonsense. History as taught in the average American high school, and in a good number of its colleges, is boring as hell.
That's because history is taught as "What happened when." What they don't teach, lest too many students actually become interested in history, is how you figure out what happened when, and how you sort through the disagreements of what happened when and what it meant.
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
And where exactly would society be without philosophers, sociologists, and politicians to form the modern governing structures (namely democracy) that society relies upon to function? The idea of everyone only learning practical skills to benefit society is simply Orwellian.
This is why I'm a monk. Monastics realized early on the spiritual benefit of joining the mind and the heart. Thus, the four points of a balanced life as outlined by my order, in an attempt to join the head and the heart, are prayer, study, work, and rest. Joining the head and the heart leads to self-knowledge. Monasticism is quick to point out that knowing God is only possible when one knows oneself. Less quickly acknowledged is that it is similarly impossible to know my neighbor without knowing myself. And how can I serve my neighbor if I do not know him/her?
Case in point. Education (in the US too) is very concerned with cross cultural understanding. This is a very good and important thing, especially in the pluralistic society in which we live. However, it is impossible for a person to understand and appreciate another culture if they do not understand and appreciate their own culture. In fact, without such understanding and appreciation, there is no "another culture" because that culture is the only one known. The emphasis acknowledged by Father Gregory on non-Eurocentric education means that those of us with a European backround are left with nary a clue as to our own culture and history.
Monasticism, especially in the Benedictine tradition, is known for its emphasis on study and learning. This is in the pursuit of self knowledge which leads to other knowledge, the combination of which is necessary for a person to be able to substantively contribute to society at large.
Yes, my generation is largely uninterested in voting and is generally apathetic. This is because most of my generation does not know itself and does not even want to. There is no desire to understand and know and better oneself, which ultimately does lead to the betterment of society.
If you earned a degree in philosophy without having the desire for self knowledge instilled deep within you, in my opinion, you should ask for your money back.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Phoenix_811
I agree wholeheartedly.
Dear Mousethief,
The idea that philosophy and other disciplines in the humanities has little impact on society would have sounded very strange to Greeks. On the other hand the Greeks had not whittled away their metaphysic to the smile on the proverbial Cheshire cat and replaced it with linguistics and existential ramblings. The impoverishment of WASP philosophy is a self fulfilling prophecy for those who see little practical use for it.
On a wider front I cannot accept that non-vocational education is a more or less inessential pastime for who wish to amuse themselves. I fear that much of what you and Erin seem to be saying just confirms my suspicions about the narrowing of WASP culture ... even if one isn't WASPish oneself ... the culture is. There's more to life than mending machines ... so there's more to education than mechanics.
[ 08. January 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
I agree Fr. G!
The lack of properly educated cklergy within the CofE will be its downfall, not splits over women or gays (although one does effect the other).
I work with colleagues who know nothing of Luther and even less about the Fathers. It is as if the Church and secular society thinks it need no nothing of the wider canvass in which it was set.
Regarding society paying for education. Yes, I think it should. I did a PhD in New Testament studies (and paid for it by the sweat of my frau and other friends). Has it benefitted society. The subject matter may not; but it has definitely made be a rounder person, so I would like argue that society enjoys positive spinoffs.
What a sad place society will be if we only pay for things if we can see ££ or $$ signs as a result.
ebor
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a person
I do. We all benefit hugely.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
If "vocational" education at high school age was so good, how come the well-off don't do it? They pay for their kids to get a decent general education, and leave the vocational bits till later.
But the poor are made to learn whatever the rich, or the government, or business, think that they ought to learn to serve them better.
And they nerly always get it wrong - secondary schools in Enbland are desperatly falling over each other to give less-academically minded chikldren the skills they need to survive in the 1980s.
Just as when I was at school in the 1960s and 70s many of us got taught the science and technology that would have fitted us very well to be air-force recruits in World War 2.
Schools shouldn't touch vocational education with a bargepole. They always get it wrong.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Besides, history is, to be honest, boring as hell.
Nonsense. History as taught in the average American high school, and in a good number of its colleges, is boring as hell.
That's because history is taught as "What happened when." What they don't teach, lest too many students actually become interested in history, is how you figure out what happened when, and how you sort through the disagreements of what happened when and what it meant.
Nope. I actually had some good history teachers who did exactly the things you describe. My analysis is still the same: it's boring. Why should I be forced to learn something that puts me to sleep, or be sneered at a la Fregory and others on this thread because it doesn't interest me in the slightest?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a person
I do. We all benefit hugely.
Ante on up then. You can personally fund their educations since you see such a benefit.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The idea that philosophy and other disciplines in the humanities has little impact on society would have sounded very strange to Greeks.
You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they don't impact society. I'm asking you and your fellow elitists to explain how and give proof. Which so far nobody has done.
I guess it's more fun to pitch and moan about how narrow-minded Erin and I are.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Mousethief
OK ... so there's this Sartre guy. He's an atheist and an existentialist. He really respects the individual person and gives him a cosmic centrality in the scheme of things, otherwise absurd. French film makers, having read him at university, make films exploring these themes. People go and watch films and say: "Yeah, that really makes sense to me."
quote:
The unique experience of French film-makers was evident in their films. During the war France was an occupied country, unlike say England or the USA, and the experience of austerity and internal tensions, created by a population that in part resisted and in part collaborated with the Nazis, left a mark on the country's psyche. A distinctive philosophy - existentialism - evolved in France in the post-war years. This philosophy, associated with Jean-Paul Sartre and other French intellectuals, was a major influence on La Nouvelle Vague. Existentialism stressed the individual, the experience of free choice, the absence of any rational understanding of the universe and a sense of the absurdity in human life. Faced with an indifferent world an existentialist seeks to act authentically, using free will and taking responsibility for all their actions, instead of playing pre-ordained roles dictated by society. The characters in French New Wave films are often marginalized, young anti-heroes and loners, with no family ties, who behave spontaneously, often act immorally and are frequently seen as anti-authoritarian. There is a general cynicism concerning politics, often expressed as a disillusionment with foreign policy in Algeria or Indo-China. In Godard's A Bout de Souffle (1959) the protagonist kills and shows no remorse, while in Varda's Cléo de 5 á 7 (1961) the protagonist stops playing the roles others expect of her, when she discovers she has cancer, and starts to live authentically.
That's a quote from this essay on the French New Wave ...
"The French New Wave" by Stephen Nottingham
You asked for some evidence. There you are.
Dear Merryn
I am not sneering at you but I am saying that a dismissal of history is a failure of collective memory. It wasn't a personal comment at all. There are plenty of subjects we all found boring at school but which are absolutely vital to the human endeavour.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a personal choice to pursue that subject because it interests you. If you like it, knock yourself out. But you can put up for it your own self and not ride society's gravy train because you don't feel like getting a real job.
If you are a taxpayer in the state of Florida, then I would personally like to thank you very much.
You just paid for my Ph.D.
You are presently paying for my post-doctoral training.
I'd explain what I've learned and what I do, but it's probably too obscure, of no benefit to society and you're so busy with your real job.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory in response to Erin
I am not sneering at you but I am saying that a dismissal of history is a failure of collective memory. It wasn't a personal comment at all. There are plenty of subjects we all found boring at school but which are absolutely vital to the human endeavour.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I personally found Maths quite dull but that doesn't mean it wouldn't matter if no-one could add up. History is collective conscience and memory (as you say, Fr. Gregory).
It helps us to understand who we are and where we are going. It grounds us. That doesn't mean every person has to become an expert in the subject (and Lord knows I'm not) but it does mean that a misguided attempt to make education "relavent" by scraping arts programmes makes about as much sense as a paper kettle with no spout.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
1. Society should pay for higher education since society benifits from it...
I disagree. I don't think society, as a whole, benefits from someone getting a PhD in some obscure field. That doesn't benefit society -- that's a personal choice to pursue that subject because it interests you. If you like it, knock yourself out. But you can put up for it your own self and not ride society's gravy train because you don't feel like getting a real job.
If you are a taxpayer in the state of Florida, then I would personally like to thank you very much.
You just paid for my Ph.D.
You are presently paying for my post-doctoral training.
I'd explain what I've learned and what I do, but it's probably too obscure, of no benefit to society and you're so busy with your real job.
Clearly it wasn't in English or logic, and I want my money back.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
Congratulations, Ley Druid. Why don't you go ahead and update your profile from "student" to "research associate" or whatever the correct category is.
I'm not sure who's paying for my training, but it isn't me. Of course, my work is going to cure cancer and solve global warming so it's money well spent.
Wish me luck.
By the way, it does bother me a lot that humanities cost so much money. It bothers me that people who want to formally study it under an expert in order to stimulate and perhaps improve their quality of life often can't afford to do it. Society probably can't afford to give everybody as much as they want and I have no idea how much they really truly "need" if any at all. But I find that the scientists and students around me who pretend publically that they couldn't care less about "social issues" are doing things in their spare time like translating English articles on the Palestinian question into Korean because it reminds them of their grandparent's stories about Korea being colonized by the Japanese. Funny that I discovered that about my new officemate the day after I made my last post here on the "Palestinian question." I told my officemate that my personal interest came from my father still calling Arabs "towelheads." We had a nice non-scientific chat. Maybe that's the way it should be.
But we probably should have been working. Or not?
Despite some conservative credentials, I never really lost sight of the fact that there is three quarters of a trillion dollars in global benefit waiting for humankind when and if we can agree to fighting each other with words instead of guns. Here's the proof. That should pay for a few humanites electives at least.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
Thank you JimT. If there's NIH or NSF money around, then you can brag that Erin is also paying for you too. Best of Luck.
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I am not sure if it is legitimate (in purely theorectical terms) to speak of anyone having a "right" to an education but, in general, education is not something society can do without. Education is a collective good - it isn't something that can exist or that has a point apart from society.
Ben - everyone has a right to an education, see the UN declaration of human rights, Article 26.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
If "vocational" education at high school age was so good, how come the well-off don't do it? They pay for their kids to get a decent general education, and leave the vocational bits till later.
But the poor are made to learn whatever the rich, or the government, or business, think that they ought to learn to serve them better.
And they nerly always get it wrong - secondary schools in Enbland are desperatly falling over each other to give less-academically minded chikldren the skills they need to survive in the 1980s.
Schools shouldn't touch vocational education with a bargepole. They always get it wrong.
Ken, vocational courses are getting better in schools and more schools are seeing that they are a good thing to teach. I disagree that schools should not touch vocational education, if schools don't teach them who will?
There are some pupils who cannot cope with a usual A level or GCSE course. We need to teach these pupils vocational and life skills but this is still a relatively new thing in schools. Schools are still trying to work out the best way of teaching them. A levels have been around for a long time now, but GNVQ's and vocational A levels are still relatively new. There are bound to be problems.
Tom
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I think I may have to go back on something I said earlier.
Education is, and always has been, the province of the privileged. The idea that it is not is a very new phenomenon -- up until very recently, if you learned to read and write you were ahead of the game. I think education was only looked at seriously once children could no longer toil in the mines for twenty hours a day. Gotta give the brats something to do, right?
So public education for the non-elite was put in place to equip people for the job market upon reaching adulthood. That's it. That's what it was designed to do then and what it is designed to do now. I'm not sure about the UK, but it is not my experience that US college students are immersed in some ivy-walled tower of academia -- they're there to learn what they need to learn to have a decent house and support the rugrats they'll be spawning in a few years.
Cast in this light, the complaints in the OP sound like "the proles have tainted our beloved educational institution". Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the reality. Humanity, as a whole, doesn't have time for half the population to go off in search of some obscure, dead language. You -- every single one of you -- have to food on the table. The majority of the effort behind that comes from people who have maybe a high school education. You -- every single one of you -- need a place to go when you are sick. Sure, the doctors and some of the other allied technical staff have spent years learning their craft, but a majority of the people who work in a health care facility have, again, a high school education or the equivalent.
If you want to live in the comfort to which you are accustomed, you need to learn that the world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring. If you don't think that, you try surviving this world surrounded by PhDs who share your desire to be in school for the rest of their lives. You can't do it, and that's the bottom line -- we can survive without you. You can't survive without us.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Merryn
quote:
Cast in this light, the complaints in the OP sound like "the proles have tainted our beloved educational institution". Maybe that's not what you meant,
No, I meant no such thing. I am simply saying that everyone is entitled to a broad liberal education. I am delighted that some go vocational and some go PhD. What I can't accept is that one kind is better or more important than the other.
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
I am not sure that it is correct to argue that education is the domain of the privileged alone.
I am reading a fascinating book
J Rose, The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes (London: Yale UP, 2001)ISBN 0-300-08886-8
Rose chronicles the influences of education of the so-called working classes (a misnomer perhaps today, but not then). He charts that when given the opportunity people who are from less privileged backgrounds do not shun 'non-vocational' subjects but have a thirst for knowledge.
Indeed it is certainly true that for the British working classes, one of the ways out of poverty was seen as being through education.
When this happens that which is learnt is not bunkum but life-giving
ebor
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you want to live in the comfort to which you are accustomed, you need to learn that the world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring. If you don't think that, you try surviving this world surrounded by PhDs who share your desire to be in school for the rest of their lives. You can't do it, and that's the bottom line -- we can survive without you. You can't survive without us.
The annual conference for the Society for Neuroscience brings together over 30,000 people. My boss mused about what a city of 30,000 neuroscientists would be like. I asked him who would take out the garbage. Without hesitation he responded "the graduate students, of course!"
By definition the powerful run the world. If they have convinced Erin and others that "world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring", then they are powerful indeed, and have little need to provide other education than this simple lesson.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Would that be the Illuminati, Ley Druid?
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I am not sure if it is legitimate (in purely theorectical terms) to speak of anyone having a "right" to an education but, in general, education is not something society can do without. Education is a collective good - it isn't something that can exist or that has a point apart from society.
Ben - everyone has a right to an education, see the UN declaration of human rights, Article 26.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
If "vocational" education at high school age was so good, how come the well-off don't do it? They pay for their kids to get a decent general education, and leave the vocational bits till later.
But the poor are made to learn whatever the rich, or the government, or business, think that they ought to learn to serve them better.
And they nerly always get it wrong - secondary schools in Enbland are desperatly falling over each other to give less-academically minded chikldren the skills they need to survive in the 1980s.
Schools shouldn't touch vocational education with a bargepole. They always get it wrong.
Ken, vocational courses are getting better in schools and more schools are seeing that they are a good thing to teach. I disagree that schools should not touch vocational education, if schools don't teach them who will?
There are some pupils who cannot cope with a usual A level or GCSE course. We need to teach these pupils vocational and life skills but this is still a relatively new thing in schools. Schools are still trying to work out the best way of teaching them. A levels have been around for a long time now, but GNVQ's and vocational A levels are still relatively new. There are bound to be problems.
Tom
I meant morally, not legally. Tom - let's hope Tony bloody Blair loses the vote in top-up fee's. He deserves to.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin
If you want to live in the comfort to which you are accustomed, you need to learn that the world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring. If you don't think that, you try surviving this world surrounded by PhDs who share your desire to be in school for the rest of their lives. You can't do it, and that's the bottom line -- we can survive without you. You can't survive without us.
Palpable and utter bollocks. Firstly, I do think that and am not surrounded by Ph. D's. It is obvious - totally and utterly - that education benefits everyone. Secondly, let's see the world survive without vicars, medicals, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, tutors etc etc etc. Good luck!!!!
Education is important. more important than whether or not some amoral, selfish bollocks company like McDonalds makes a profit or not.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Secondly, let's see the world survive without vicars, medicals, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, tutors etc etc etc. Good luck!!!!
It did. For a very long time. Or haven't you studied your history?
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Secondly, let's see the world survive without vicars, medicals, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, tutors etc etc etc. Good luck!!!!
It did. For a very long time. Or haven't you studied your history?
But the world has moved on a tad, no? and where did i say I was an expert in history? I seem to remember saying the very opposite?
Posted by 'Lurker' (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Lurker, the essay you want is "On Learning in War-Time".
Thanks, Mousethief, but I still can't find it. I think I lent the book to someone in my church.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
vocational courses are getting better in schools and more schools are seeing that they are a good thing to teach. I disagree that schools should not touch vocational education, if schools don't teach them who will?
Jobs are getting more diverse. Schools can't hope to teach the skills needed for most individual jobs any more.
Also curriculum development inevitably lags a few years behind the job market. If certain skills are in short supply now, it would take a year or two at least before courses could be developed to teach them in school. More likely four or fice. Curriculums have to be designed, developed, approved, piloted. Course materials, textbooks and so on, need to be produced. Teachers themselves need to be trained. It would probably be 5 to 10 years before a significant number of kids who had done the course were joining the job market.
quote:
There are some pupils who cannot cope with a usual A level or GCSE course. We need to teach these pupils vocational and life skills but this is still a relatively new thing in schools.
Actually they are a very old thing in schools! But "life skills" aren't the same as vocational education, i.e. job training.
Whatever "life skills" are, they are probably a good idea to have them in schools. And they probably will help getting jobs later. But that's very different from training for particular jobs
quote:
Schools are still trying to work out the best way of teaching them. A levels have been around for a long time now, but GNVQ's and vocational A levels are still relatively new. There are bound to be problems.
GNVQs are a joke. Sorry, but they are. No-one outside education much cares a damn about them. Even teachers call the kids who get them "Generally Not Very Qualified". Though not to their faces.
If a 15 or 16 year old really isn't suited to academic study, whether through temperament or ability or choice; and if they already have the basics of general education such as reading and simple arithmetic; and if school isn't doing anything for them; and if they really do want to improve their chances of getting a good job in the long run, the best thing to do is to go out and get a job and learn by doing.
Training and education are very different things. In some respects they are opposed. Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather thatn that way. Education is about opening up choice.
Kids in school deserve to be offered the best general eduction we can give them. If they can't, or won't, proceed any further with that, school might not be the place for them. But we shouldn't be fobbing them off with outdated training for vanishing jobs.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
J Rose, The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes (London: Yale UP, 2001)ISBN 0-300-08886-8
Rose chronicles the influences of education of the so-called working classes (a misnomer perhaps today, but not then). He charts that when given the opportunity people who are from less privileged backgrounds do not shun 'non-vocational' subjects but have a thirst for knowledge.
I work at Birkbeck College in the University of London, which grew out of one of the "Mechanic's Institutes" founded to provide education to working people in the 19th century. Birkbeck is Britain's (maybe the world's) most academically distinguished adult education college.
Last year I went to alecture on the history of the College and adult education. One of the main points was that for its whole existence there has been pressure from the College authorities and from government to provide more business-oriented "useful" courses, but that many of the students want more academic courses.
Government looks on adult education as a way of fitting people for jobs - but not all, or even most, of the students do.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Ken
quote:
Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather that that way. Education is about opening up choice.
Singularly one of the most important things that has been said on this thread.
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather thatn that way. Education is about opening up choice.
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone trained offering me medical treatment, flying my plane or defending my country.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather thatn that way. Education is about opening up choice.
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone trained offering me medical treatment, flying my plane or defending my country.
Yes, but we're talking about schoolkids here. 12, 13, 14, 15 years old. Do you want their teachers to decide for them at that age that they are going to grow up to do those things?
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
This is a bit of as straw person, ken. You have made a blanket statement that education and training are in many ways opposites, I am merely pointing out that training has its uses.
In fact, I don't think you can separate education and training. If you want to particularise it to school age children, I would say teachers have to do quite a lot of training before education can take place, and always have done, e.g. writing an essay, taking notes, listening and remembering accurately, pronunciation of languages, correct procedures in laboratories etc. Similarly, there is a lot of educational content in vocational courses (which is what you seem to mean by 'training'.) When I taught in an FE college a lot of my time was spent helping students aged 16-19 on vocational courses with the educational components of their courses. 'Vocational' courses are not merely practical instruction courses.
Public schools have always had a strong emphasis on sports and cadet corps as part of the educational experience, I presume these activities also encompass an element of 'training'!
Incidentally, my son is doing a higher level GNVQ in computing and ITC which is the equivalent of 2 GCSEs and is only open to children who are deemed able to cope with the work. It's news to me that teachers hold them in such low regard.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Not all of us .... but I am not sure what the attitude of employers is .... not that I fret too much about whether the employment sector is happy with us or not. Most employers want reasonable numeracy and literacy, social skills, problem solving, a good personality, initiative and drive. You have not said everything there is to say about education when you have said that.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Public schools have always had a strong emphasis on sports and cadet corps as part of the educational experience, I presume these activities also encompass an element of 'training'!
No, they are a means of social control by enouraging the majority to humiliate and mock those who are weaker than they are.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Would that be the Illuminati, Ley Druid?
They might be people with whom you are not familiar.
They might not be mediocre
They might not quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
think higher education is boring
By the way, where did you learn that
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring
Is this the product of your education or lack thereof? You suggested that
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you want to live in the comfort to which you are accustomed, you need to learn that the world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring.
What sort of education and/or training would you advocate to learn this necessary lesson?
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
And why should taxpayers subsidize wealthy, profit-making corporations by having public schools train their employees for them?
Humanities and social sciences are dangerous and subversive because they make people aware that things have not always been the way they are, so they might not have to continue being the way they are. Ever since education began to be extended to the masses, there's been a fear it would give the lower orders ideas above their station. This is as true in America as anywhere else, even if we have different ways of talking about it now.
Timothy
Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Public schools have always had a strong emphasis on sports and cadet corps as part of the educational experience, I presume these activities also encompass an element of 'training'!
No, they are a means of social control by enouraging the majority to humiliate and mock those who are weaker than they are.
You'e missing the point, ken, this is simply not an answer to my comment.
The activities I have mentioned may well be what you say, but that does not affect the fact that they do contain a large elemetn of 'training'. This suggests that 'training' is regarded as educational by the sort of schools which turn out, and in the past turned out the vast majority of, the type of people that go to 'good' universities and study humanities in the form of classics, philosophy, history etc. This would indicate that 'training' as you define it - telling people how to do specific tasks with no element of choice - has long been regarded as complementary to, not inimical to, the sort of education that Father Gregory and others have been regretting as lost to this generation. I think classical Greek education was based on similar lines wasn't it?
I woud also dispute that the sort of vocational courses that have been mentioned are 'training' in the sense that learning drill or practising sports are 'training', but that is a separate issue.
['A spearate issue'?????]
[ 09. January 2004, 17:20: Message edited by: Arrietty ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
blah blah blah blah. blah blah.
I was trying to ascertain the identities of the powerful who run your world.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
blah blah blah blah. blah blah.
I was trying to ascertain the identities of the powerful who run your world.
Do you think it is possible for quote:
Orignially posted by Erin:
the mediocre, who think higher education is boring
to ascertain these identities? Has your higher education, or lack thereof, helped or hindered you?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
Public schools have always had a strong emphasis on sports and cadet corps as part of the educational experience, I presume these activities also encompass an element of 'training'!
No, they are a means of social control by enouraging the majority to humiliate and mock those who are weaker than they are.
And there was me thinking they contained valuable lessons about teamwork and sportsmanship, as well as keeping kids fit.
How depressing it is to discover that all along they were just a means for the weak to be victimised.
Thank God Nintendo, Sega, Sony et al are working so hard to save our children from the tyranny of fresh air and sport.
[I wish I could spel]
[ 09. January 2004, 20:16: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
blah blah blah blah. blah blah.
I was trying to ascertain the identities of the powerful who run your world.
Do you think it is possible for quote:
Orignially posted by Erin:
the mediocre, who think higher education is boring
to ascertain these identities? Has your higher education, or lack thereof, helped or hindered you?
You, one of the educational elite, made the claim, sunshine. As such it's up to you to provide the details.
Clearly your advanced degree has nothing to do with communications, either.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I think everyone should be taught to read, write and balance a checkbook. Additionally, all students up to age 16 should be force-fed lots and lots of history, geography and languages, both living and dead. History and geography are not adequately taught in public schools.
People who are not academically inclined should be able to switch to training for some sort of useful vocation earlier.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
blah blah blah blah. blah blah.
I was trying to ascertain the identities of the powerful who run your world.
Do you think it is possible for quote:
Orignially posted by Erin:
the mediocre, who think higher education is boring
to ascertain these identities? Has your higher education, or lack thereof, helped or hindered you?
You, one of the educational elite, made the claim, sunshine. As such it's up to you to provide the details.
Clearly your advanced degree has nothing to do with communications, either.
I don't apply labels to people like "mediocre" or "the educational elite". You seem to.
If knowledge and education helped empower people, then denying them the same knowledge and education could help disempower them.
Do you think that the idea that
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
the world is run by the mediocre, who think higher education is boring
helps or hinders the empowerment of those who you label "mediocre"?
Why do you think it's so hard nowadays to convince young black males of the value of education? Has your education or lack thereof helped or hindered your understanding of this phenomenon in the African-American community?
[ 09. January 2004, 22:18: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posted by David Weaver (# 300) on
:
Why don't we all just go back to being hunter gathers and stop this silly argument right now?
Seriously though, last year I obtained my degree in computer science and philosophy. I have yet to find work in either of those areas - was it worth me studying my degree? (given that it cost me around 13,000 punds sterling (sorry my acient computer doesn't do pound signs). I have no interest in being one of the elite - and the illuminati turned down my application to join them as I didn't get a 2.1.
I studied philosophy, because I thought it could answer questions which other academic disciplines couldn't. Questions concerning ethics for example seem very relevent to todays society but I doubt placing the average young offender on a philosophy 101 course would cut crime rates for example. Is it better or worse for me to have studied this than plumbing, or was it simply a waste of time and money? What about the computer science side of my course? It was taught academically rather than vocationally, so does that make it mere intellectual onanism?
I know I have posed more questions than answers - but I genuinely want to know what people think. Most of the people I knew at university were studying medically related subjects with strong vocational application who tended to frown on my degree - Were they right to do so?
David
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Don't ask me, I studied religion, ancient dead languages and medieval history before going to law school for more of the same.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Ley Druid, I asked you a question you have yet to answer. Instead you bleat on and on. Until you actually answer my question, you're wasting your time, my bandwidth and Simon's server space posing questions to me.
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
For the sake of clarity, I am defining Education as the institutional reality of education as exemplified in schools while education is the ideal of education as it has been defined by FG and others in an ideal sense. Thus:
quote:
Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather that that way. Education is about opening up choice.
I think what is being said is that education is about opening up choice. Education is blend of training and education.
Thus:
quote:
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone trained offering me medical treatment, flying my plane or defending my country.
Actually, you wouldn't. You would want them to receive an Education which includes elements of training which allow them to do their job by closing down the wrong options as to, for example, how to fly a plane. At the same time, you would want them to receive an education so that options are open as to how to change tactics when the plane is about to crash so that it lands safely.
I think several people have been trying to say this but they have been so busy being witty and sarcastic that we have had several rather redundant posts.
quote:
I studied philosophy, because I thought it could answer questions which other academic disciplines couldn't.
In my philosophical studies, I learned that philosophy does not teach one the answers to such questions, but teaches one how to ask the questions and how to go about searching for the answers. Philosophy is not about answers, it is about questions.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
If you earned a degree in philosophy without having the desire for self knowledge instilled deep within you, in my opinion, you should ask for your money back.
What an incredible leap of logic. Because I recognize that higher education is elitist and nobody goes into it for altruistic reasons, I must therefore have no desire for self-knowledge.
May I suggest a logic course or two? I think all society will benefit if you learn not to make such irrational conclusions.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Father G: people enjoying movies is a pretty thin foundation for the entire edifice of higher education, isn't it? How many people can enjoy those movies, anyway? I'm not sure you're helping your cause any arguing this line. French existential movies are far, far more an elitist pleasure than a general education.
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
Philosophy is not about answers, it is about questions.
And questions are about, um, um, um,....
Hang on; I'll think of it....
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
Congradulations, you just proved my point. To my satisfaction anyway.
Ciao.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by phoenix_811:
Congradulations, you just proved my point. To my satisfaction anyway.
Pity they didn't teach you to spell.
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
No one goes into HE for altruistic reasons...
I would have thought, Mousethief, that you would not be able to justify that position.
What about in the UK where the University of the Third Age is still growing rapidly: older people learning, not to make money, but for self-development.
And there are of course sufficient number of people studying theology for vocational reasons: not to make money, but to deepen their understanding of God.
Education is elitist? What about the OU? Has it completely failed in its raison d'etre?
I ask whether I am now elitist having had a tertiary education. I would not have gone without a full grant. Why? Not because of the lack of ability. I was the first in my family ever to go to University. I don't think I am actually elitist, although perhaps my siblings would say that the educative process has changed me.
You raise more questions that you have answers for, my friend. This is not a problem, except that you look like are sticking up the proverbial two fingers at the countless numbers of students who are in HE because of a desire to know more, to become more aware of themselves - and I am sure that you do not intend to that...
ebor
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
No Mousethief ... I don't care whether you think such movies are ephemeral, elitist or anything else, (that could could just as well reflect the difference between American and French popular culture ... French cinema doesn't tend to go in for saving-the-world-blockbusters). You challenged me to give an example of the relevance, that is, a connection, between, say, philosophy and culture. I did.
Everytime you encounter something in a post that suggests that something may be worthwhile notwithstanding the fact that it may not have mass appeal you use (overuse) the PC curse, "elitist." Why? Don't you think you're "over-egging the omelette"? Must education only deal with the pedestrian and the universal? How can such a reductionalist, functionalist view of education enrich our culture? I have to ask an impertinent question because I am losing patience with the elitist mantra. Have you been over-influenced by your own experience in academia?
[ 10. January 2004, 08:08: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
No one goes into HE for altruistic reasons...
I would have thought, Mousethief, that you would not be able to justify that position.
What about in the UK where the University of the Third Age is still growing rapidly: older people learning, not to make money, but for self-development.
Self-development is altruistic? This is clearly a new use of the word "altruistic" with which I was not previously familiar.
quote:
And there are of course sufficient number of people studying theology for vocational reasons: not to make money, but to deepen their understanding of God.
Same applies here
quote:
Education is elitist? What about the OU? Has it completely failed in its raison d'etre?
The what? I'm sorry but the only meaning for the acronym "OU" that I can think of is "Oregon University".
quote:
You raise more questions that you have answers for, my friend.
Well duh. I'm asking YOU GUYS for the answers because you're the ones who believe something I don't. I'd likey y'all to justify your position. So far you haven't; you've just insulted me and made "but it's obvious" noises. No it's not obvious.
quote:
This is not a problem, except that you look like are sticking up the proverbial two fingers at the countless numbers of students who are in HE because of a desire to know more, to become more aware of themselves - and I am sure that you do not intend to that...
I'm sticking up finger(s) at people who say that people becoming more aware of themselves, desiring to know more, etc., are ipso facto doing so in order to improve society. Or that their doing so somehow makes ALL of us better off. Surely it makes them better off; I've never denied that nor said anything of the sort.
Father Gregory:
You said or implied that having some people go into higher education improves society for EVERYBODY. Showing that a tiny number of people like French existentialist films doesn't show how society is improved for EVERYBODY. Hence the elitist barb. You haven't done anything like give evidence for your grandiose claim, nor has anybody else who supports you in this. So far what I see is higher education by the few, of the few, and for the few. Forgive me if I call that elitist. I don't know a better sobriquet.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
OK Mousethief. Let the whole human race not reach for the stars, not consider anything more pedestrian other than to explain how to make this or make that. I can't make anything. Does that make "makers" elitist? Of course not. Now switch boots.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Education is elitist? What about the OU? Has it completely failed in its raison d'etre?
The what? I'm sorry but the only meaning for the acronym "OU" that I can think of is "Oregon University".
OU = Open University. It offers postal courses within the UK for those who cannot (or will not) go to a "regular" university. It is thus for all, and I imagine it will grow in prominence when top up fees are introduced next year.
AFAIK, it's degrees are of equal value to any other university's.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
No one goes into HE for altruistic reasons...
I would have thought, Mousethief, that you would not be able to justify that position.
What about in the UK where the University of the Third Age is still growing rapidly: older people learning, not to make money, but for self-development.
And there are of course sufficient number of people studying theology for vocational reasons: not to make money, but to deepen their understanding of God.
You raise more questions that you have answers for, my friend. This is not a problem, except that you look like are sticking up the proverbial two fingers at the countless numbers of students who are in HE because of a desire to know more, to become more aware of themselves - and I am sure that you do not intend to that...
ebor
And in what way are any of these reasons altruistic?
Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What an incredible leap of logic. Because I recognize that higher education is elitist and nobody goes into it for altruistic reasons, I must therefore have no desire for self-knowledge.
May I suggest a logic course or two? I think all society will benefit if you learn not to make such irrational conclusions.
yay! I teach logic and thinking skills. they are *so* important - anyone want to send business my way?!
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
Come on Mousethief, what way have we insulted you?
I admit that my definition of altruism was little too Anglican (i.e, broad).
I still don't think that people who study for their self-development or for vocational reasons should be regarded as elitist.
I understand elitist as a negative word..., and perhaps you do not.
ebor
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
Erin - Good to know you know the difference between the powerful (who ipso facto run the world)- and most of them seem to be well educated (for all we laugh at Bush, he does have a degree from a good university), the Mediocre who maintain it- there is a difference, the innovators who try to improve it materially (and almost all tend to be highly educated- it is far easier in most cases to innovate if you know the options and understand the reasoning behind them rather than having to re-invent the wheel) and the visionaries (who also try to improve the world- and again it is advantageous if they are well educated as it gives them a better overview of what they are trying to improve).
As for surviving without the mediocre, yes- but without the educated and innovative, no one would survive half so well (I don't want to go back to hunter-gathering- do you?)
When it comes to deconstructing altruism, you reach the point at which altruism doesn't exist because you get an emotional reward for every act of charity.
One thing that I do regret is that you Americans don't either have (relatively) free education, thus opening up more to the less well off or an equivalent to the Open University.
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
I understand elitist as a negative word...,
Many do, but would you care to explain why? Also would you care to explain how the [insert sports team of choice] isn't elitist?
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Forgive me if I intervene but I want to say that elitism is not necessarily all bad.
Elitism of excellence is vital but instantly vitiated by pride ... in any sphere of endeavour. Elitism of class or privilege through birth or wealth is foul.
However, to pretend that everyone is equally able is unscientific and betrays an ideological a priori position. The trouble is that excellence per se in any given field is invariably contaminated by selfishness or self orientated concerns. That's why holiness is so vital and not just skill or ability. Many highly competent and intelligent people have been a curse for humanity.
"Secular" education that sidelines development of the whole person is monstrous and demeaning to the human spirit. You cannot pretend that education can function properly without spiritual values. That's why countries that rigidly separate Church and State are not truly free. (Awaiting the missiles from across the Atlantic). By eschewing one tyranny (monochrome established religion) these societies create another (an impoverishment of the Spirit in the field of human knowledge).
[ 10. January 2004, 23:28: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
Fr. G.
No missiles here. Just a bit of clarification. The separation of church and state issue has not affected the spiritual development of those of us who have actively gone out and sought it. I guess it comes down to whether you see education as solely something provided by the government (in the case of public education in the US) and thus wholly secular, or something that is sought out, in which case the education provided by the government is only one component. I hope that makes sense. Maybe an example will help. In high school, I actively participated in my church youth group and went to Sunday School, two parts of education not provided by the public school system. Now that I'm in college (a secular, private school) I still find opportunities, through class selection and campus organizations and religious groups in the community, to help me develop spiritually. I think that's the whole idea of separation of church and state, that one is allowed to seek out one's own spiritual development as opposed to having it provided by the government. The down side is that it is not required and is thus often neglected entirely. This is how we end up with Enron, et al.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
That's why countries that rigidly separate Church and State are not truly free. (Awaiting the missiles from across the Atlantic.)
Actually, I don't know about that. I believe that spirituality is much, much more vibrant and alive in the US than it is in the UK, simply because the state hasn't taken it over and turned it into yet another bureaucracy. I believe that forced spirituality is neither beneficial nor valid.
[ 11. January 2004, 00:06: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
Why do I see elitism as negative?
Probably because as a working class kid from Full Monty country, I have an inherent bias against people born into privilege and/or money.
The short answer is that I do so because I am an opinionated git...
and also because I think elitism is anathema to the Gospel
ebor
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
Why do I see elitism as negative?
Probably because as a working class kid from Full Monty country, I have an inherent bias against people born into privilege and/or money.
So the aristocracy of birth is the only one you recognise? It is, I'll grant, a bad one- but all sports teams are elitist, as are all other groups working any where near the frontiers of human capability or any centres of excellence.
quote:
The short answer is that I do so because I am an opinionated git...
and also because I think elitism is anathema to the Gospel
ebor
And the 12 apostles aren't an elite? Bishops aren't an elite? The OT prophets aren't an elite?
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Training is about closing down alternatives, getting people to do things this way rather thatn that way. Education is about opening up choice.
Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone trained offering me medical treatment, flying my plane or defending my country.
To add support to Ken's point, intellegence is what you use when you don't have knowledge. The purpose of training is to give people the necessary knowledge to do their job. The purpose of education is to increase their effective intellegence so that they can gain knowledge in a hurry, can get by on less complete knowledge in a variety of circumstances, to increase their knowledge base in related situations to allow them more modifiable solutions and to increase their effective intellegence[1] so they can see solutions to unexpected problems more easily.
Yes, you want them trained- but you also want them educated when they are in a situation that could go wrong (and no plan survives first contact with the enemy).
To be competant, you need a little education and some training, to be good you need more education and very little more training. Most of the time, competant is good enough.
[1] I don't want to get into whether intellegence is increased by education or simply appears to be- or whether there is a difference. It is IME effectively increased by education, whatever else happens.
Posted by ebor (# 5122) on
:
The OT Prophets and the 12 Apostles were supposed to be servants not members of an elite club. The Apostles were considered the refuse of the earth.
The fact that Bishops sometimes do not act like servants is an anathema to the Gospel, but that is a topic for another thread...
ebor
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Secondly, let's see the world survive without vicars, medicals, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, tutors etc etc etc. Good luck!!!!
It did. For a very long time. Or haven't you studied your history?
I'm not sure about that.
Early societies woould have had a shamn, herb-lore people, tool makers/users, teachers.
What is it with humans??
You can be an expert sportsperson and be accorded supermoney, superadulation and respect but be an expert brainy person and you're "elitist / geek / "get-a-life".
Why do we not honour thinkers??
Of course higher education requires evidence of high ability in learning.
So do the AA (note for our pals across the Pond; motoring organisation who operate an emergency help to motorists whose cars have conked out). They take less than 10% of the applicants, but you don't hear of folk screaming "unfair and elitist" about that.
On the contrary, there'd be no support for the AA if they didn't employ the best, so the business would fail.
So will universities if we don't keep them "elitist". As in "those with the best brain" in the area of book learning and abstract thinking.
We need everyone in society. We need binmen, printers, engineers, flower growers etc etc.
I would be useless as an artist in any field, or as a butcher, or as a carpenter.
But I acknowledge that. I don't go around moaning that they've got a skill I haven't, so it's "elitist".
It's how we're made.
It's called "different, unique".
We should thank god for it and stop moaning about the thinkers in our world.
[Edited mystery UBB in quote]
[ 11. January 2004, 23:08: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ebor:
The OT Prophets and the 12 Apostles were supposed to be servants not members of an elite club. The Apostles were considered the refuse of the earth.
The fact that Bishops sometimes do not act like servants is an anathema to the Gospel, but that is a topic for another thread...
ebor
The 12 apostles were selected out of a larger group by some virtue (faith and being in the right place at the right time had a lot to do with it) and as a result of their actions- an elite group on these lines. That they were also servants doesn't mean that they weren't an elite (and remember "Minister" means servant, something Mr. Blair would do well to take note of).
One of the distinguishing factors IME of groups that are genuinely elite rather than those that simply claim to be is a tendency towards genuine modesty and that almost every member of the group wonders what they are doing there along side the others to whom they don't think they can compare (the others in the group tend to say "don't be silly- it's me that shouldn't be here").
Note: Mensa is not IMO an elite group- it just thinks it is.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
No one is "moaning" about "the thinkers". All Mousethief (who I think has given up) and I have done is challenge the stated a priori assumption that higher education of all stripes benefits the entire world. So many people have said it, but when asked to provide just one little teeny shred of evidence, no one can or is willing to do it.
If someone wants to get some obscenely advanced degree, go for it. No skin off my nose (well, except for what's-his-butt above, I still want my money back). But to pretend that it's all for the good of humanity and they get nothing out of it... shyeah, as IF.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Well Erin a number of us have provided evidence of the benefit of higher learning ... it's just that some don't want to focus on that. OK ... I'll give you one more .... where would cancer treatment be without elite scientists?
Dear Ebor
I think the trouble is that elite means "good at something that others are not good at" in my book so not all elites are bad. Autobailer has given a good technical discourse on that.
Dear Musician
This is exactly what I have been laimly and imperfectly trying to get across.
To the general question as to why we do not appear to value thinkers ... I think it has been said before ... technocracies value movers and shakers who produce things.
We are not SUPPOSED to stop long enough to ask WHY we are doing all of this stuff. That's just too subversive; so just rattle something off about "elitism" and everyone feels suitably guilty so as not to ask those awkward questions. What it actually communicates is condescension. The working class ought to be just that ... working. That's real life ... not some stuck up academic in his / her ivory tower!
Chaplin warned us about that in the last century ... and we know what America thought about him then; a dangerous leftie! Uhmmm. Just because he asked those awkward questions. Damned elitist!
[ 11. January 2004, 16:27: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
Come on Erin,
you can't seriously believe that extending the brain doesn't make for a more thinking person??
An example??
A colleague of mine, who was alwys dead against the inclusion of pupils with special needs, especially in his classes, was sent, much against his will on a postgraduate course on special needs.
He'd to produce a 4000 word essay on it.
The moans and groans were awesome!
Still, he finished it. When he had finished it, and passed the criteria, he was heard to remark on a number of occasions that "so & so was not really lazy after all, they had such & such a condition".
He'd then go on to explain the condition and actually make allowances for the pupil. Before that, he didn't. He was stuck in a way of thinking, but once it was challenged by fresh thinking, he grew.
I can only speak for my own sphere, but it must be so in others.
Actually, along that line, Psyduck's completing a PhD, off his own bat, not for more money, nor a title, but because he reads voraciously, because god's given him an enquiring mind and he wants to set himself a target by using it AMDG.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin
But to pretend that it's all for the good of humanity and they get nothing out of it... shyeah, as IF.
I wasn't aware that a single person on this thread had said anything even close to that, tbh with you Erin.
Do you believe that Bill Gates, Richard Branson, J.P Morgan, Rockefeller and all the other super-rich capitalists you can think of had/have purely altruistic motives? Nor do I. Yet you have frequently stated your belief that their existence and the existence of capitalism in general benifits most people?
As for:
quote:
but when asked to provide just one little teeny shred of evidence, no one can or is willing to do it.
Imagining a world with no decent education anywhere and no chance to get any is all the proof I need thanks all the same.
(code)
[ 11. January 2004, 16:49: Message edited by: Papio ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
Come on Erin,
you can't seriously believe that extending the brain doesn't make for a more thinking person??
Where did I say this? I never said this. What I said was that I have a hard time understanding how anyone can claim that advanced degrees in obscure fields have any substantial benefit to anyone but him/herself. Which is exactly what ken and Papio did on the first page of this thread.
quote:
Actually, along that line, Psyduck's completing a PhD, off his own bat, not for more money, nor a title, but because he reads voraciously, because god's given him an enquiring mind and he wants to set himself a target by using it AMDG.
And I'm happy for him. But by your own admission he's doing it not for altruistic reasons, rather he is doing it because he can. Bully for him, but don't pretend it makes my life any better.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you believe that Bill Gates, Richard Branson, J.P Morgan, Rockefeller and all the other super-rich capitalists you can think of had/have purely altruistic motives? Nor do I. Yet you have frequently stated your belief that their existence and the existence of capitalism in general benifits most people?
I know they didn't have altruistic motives. I've never said they did. I also never said that their existence benefits most people. I do think capitalism benefits most people because it allows for the widest degree of personal freedom, and IMO the freer you are, the more you benefit.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Could you give examples of degrees in "obscure fields" please Erin?
As to Psyduck's studies ... the point is that they better HIM and if they better him they better you because they better us all. It's this bloody individualism that there must be payoffs for ME that I can't and won't accept. Even a untilitarian redefinition of that as in "at least benefit SOME others" is illicit if you accept (as I do) that there is an increase in humanity's overall intellectual capital through one person's enlightenment.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
Erin - ok, sorry if I have misunderstood some of your previous comments about capitalism then. I suppose that, if I got a Ph. D and then sat on my arse and never used it then maybe it wouldn't benefit the world.
However, if I use it to teach others, or my research helps towards a medical breakthrough, or can be used to help dispel pernicious stereotypes, or my work helps to solve a currently intractable problem of theology, or whatever, then surely my work has been of benefit to others regardless of what my motives were or are?
In most cases (perhaps in all) the "discoveries that shock the world" would not have been possible without a background of much less famous researchers and academics whose relevance to the final result may or may not be obvious.
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe that spirituality is much, much more vibrant and alive in the US than it is in the UK,
OK, no argument so far.
quote:
.. simply because the state hasn't taken it over and turned it into yet another bureaucracy.
What!? Not sure how you can say this. The CofE wasn't nationalised like the railways, NHS, steel etc. The CofE is the only part of the wider church under royal or government influence. The majority (of all faiths) is open to the 'free market'.
There's no connection between the UK's less-than-vibrant spirituality and government beaurocracy.
quote:
I believe that forced spirituality is neither beneficial nor valid.
... I agree.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
One thing that I do regret is that you Americans don't either have (relatively) free education, thus opening up more to the less well off or an equivalent to the Open University.
Wrong. Every state has a thriving state university and community college system that offers low-cost education -- part-time if need be -- to in-state residents, thereby offering an easy outlet for those with a love of learning.
I'm thrilled that people are able to fulfill themselves by majoring Early Medieval Whatsits. What appalls me is that people expect the factory workers, the burger flippers, the bedpan emptiers, the lettuce pickers -- people who really work for a living -- to subsidize them.
I agree that the state has an interest in seeing that its citizenry has the basic tools to exercise the rights of citizenship, e.g, they can read a newspaper, understand issues that a voter needs to grasp, and make change. Ater that, if you want an advanced degree in the humanities, great. Just don't expect expect taxpayers to buy it for you.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Presleytarian
I don't agree with nuclear weapons but my taxes pay for them. This is a stupid line of argument. It makes social capital a matter of personal consumer choice. Even the loopiest of freedom warriors do not go down this route. Oh yes, I'm sorry. Nuclear weapons DO have a real use; learning Sanskrit doesn't. Except that it says somewhere:- "I am become Death; the destroyer of worlds."
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
quote:
Where did I say this? I never said this.
Sorry if I've misread your posts, but I do think, Alicroc, that you're wriggling just a little!
You asked for specific examples, but when they were given, you trotted (do crocs trot?) to another angle.
What Fr G. said. Why does it have to come to a direct, quantifiable benefit to Me?
There may be many folk with whom you come in contact who are the people they are because of some "obscure degree", although you may not know it, but which shifted their centre away from their own self to give you space to be you.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
You asked for specific examples, but when they were given, you trotted (do crocs trot?) to another angle.
What Fr G. said. Why does it have to come to a direct, quantifiable benefit to Me?
There may be many folk with whom you come in contact who are the people they are because of some "obscure degree", although you may not know it, but which shifted their centre away from their own self to give you space to be you.
I asked for examples of how post-graduate research into, say, dead languages has any benefit to me. The only examples I've heard is "well, it makes so-and-so a better thinker". Big woo. Again, how does it benefit me?
There is a continuum from 100% learning to 100% doing. When you are born naturally you start out at the 100% learning end. As you mature, you should start moving towards the 100% doing end. If, by the time you are an adult, you're not putting in AT LEAST as much as you're taking out -- and you are capable of doing so -- then you're a drain on society and your ivy-league security blanket needs to be yanked out from underneath you.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It makes social capital a matter of personal consumer choice.
Uhm...well, if you're paying for it, from the taxes on what you earn, why shouldn't you have an opinion on it?
Besides, I'm familiar with graduate schools and graduate students on a once-removed basis. And Academia is a pretty twisted and unreal place that frequently seems to exist only to perpetuate itself.
Posted by Jengie (# 273) on
:
The answer to how one doing research into Dead Languages helps the individual is actually it gives them an awful lot of skills that are applicable in various roles in daily life. They practise to a high art the ability of reading between the lines, the learn how to collate data from a wide and dispersed sources and use it to assess a problem and come to a conclusion. They learn to express the ideas founded on these ideas coherently. They can even end up learning if they are unlucky some statistics because some of the ways of assess authorship depend on statistics.
These are not just the skills of thinking better, though they are ceberal. They are the skills that are becoming at a higher and higher premium as we get into the information age. In other words through studying a dead language they are learning the skills of making sense of data and using data to get a result.
It is no longer a problem in the wealthy west of getting hold of information, it is of classifying information and making decisions of its value. We are swamped by too much not by too little.
That some become lowly paid secretaries is not a sign of how little it is of revelance but how little we know where the real skills are lying and who really runs organisations in the real world.
Jengie
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
My problem, Father Gregory, isn't that your study of Sanskrit doesn't help me. My problem is that your study of Sanskrit doesn't help anybody but you.
I don't doubt that your study of Sanskrit helps to make you a lovely, well-rounded person. Just as a three-month vacation exploring the wine region of France would help make me a lovely, well-rounded person. The difference is that I'm willing to pick up the tab for my foray into self-fulfillment. You, however, expect a hand-out.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I am sorry that you haven't gotten hold of the sublety of my previous post Presleytarian. Do a Google search on the phrase and ask yourself what connections I was trying to make between Sankrit and nuclear war.
On a point of economics ... the capitalist assumption that society shouldn't subsidise its social capital (in this context, learning) is a political belief I have absolutely no time for.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And I, conversely, have no time for career students who belly up to the public trough without putting in their fair share. Checkmate!
Jengie, I never said that studying a dead language didn't benefit the person studying it. What I STILL want is someone to show me how it benefits everyone else.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Why is this SO difficult Erin? If a better acquaintance with Sanskrit in ancient religious literature helps YOU (and me and whoever) to be more aware of the opportunities and dangers of modern life; such raising of consciousness here, there and everywhere will make our culture more reflective, more questionning, more humane, more likely to protest and act when occasion warrants. My comments about the public purse to Presleytarian apply to your comments as well. I think we have hit an ideological impasse with that one. The problem here I think is that you don't really mind discussing how many angels can dance on a pin ... provided that it is privately funded. Perhaps a UK thread on top-up univeristy tuition fees?
[ 11. January 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: Fr. Gregory ]
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: I am sorry that you haven't gotten hold of the sublety of my previous post Presleytarian. Do a Google search on the phrase and ask yourself what connections I was trying to make between Sankrit and nuclear war.
A few points, Fr. G:
1) I've been a professor for 19 years. I'm familiar with The Bhagavad-Gita. I'm familiar with Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. The difference is that I learned about both without picking the taxpayer's pocket.
2) Sweetie, your posts are many things, but "subtle"? I think not.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
It's so difficult because you ARE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. What has been asked, repeatedly, and what has been ignored, is this:
How does you (Fr Gregory) studying Sanskrit benefit (and I'll restrict this here) me (Erin) and my local community (north Florida)? I want a specific benefit that doesn't involve the "well, it's raised MY (Gregory's) consciousness" bullshit.
You can talk about whatever you want to talk about from now until the Judgment Day. I couldn't care less. I have my views, probably best left to another thread, about the merits of getting out there and being the kingdom of God, rather than sitting in the ivory tower of academia and talking about it, but if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out. I shouldn't have to pay for it when my money would go to a FAR better use if it were directed to a charity which actually gets people off the streets and puts food in their mouths.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
OK professor, then you were being oblique perhaps in not picking up on my allusion which was actually so clear to you (but not evident to me from your reply). I must assume that you, like Erin, don't accept the contention of my example.
And so to Erin ...
"Bullshit." Well, that's the end of the debate then.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Well, that's the end of the debate then.
Thank God. Waiter! Check please!
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
My problem, Father Gregory, isn't that your study of Sanskrit doesn't help me. My problem is that your study of Sanskrit doesn't help anybody but you.
I don't know enough about Sanskrit to really argue with you about this specific point. However, it seems to me that there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can extend this arguement to the whole of higher education.
There is nothing sinister or immoral about society paying for a service to it's itself (esp as student and profs. are part of society) but to price intelligent people out of education because of some misguided atomistic view is both sinister and immoral.
If you really want to argue that education doesn't benifit society that you are logically forced to argue that society was as good or better during the dark ages, if not before. This view is untenable.
Perhaps Fr. Gregory is correct and we have just hit an impasse. This is certainly starting to remind me of Wood's thread about making a point.
and if education really didn't benifit anyone else than the comparison with a three month holiday would be valid, but it does, so it's not.
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 11. January 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Fr. Gregory wrote: OK professor, then you were being oblique perhaps in not picking up on my allusion which was actually so clear to you (but not evident to me from your reply).
Apologies, Fr. Gregory. I didn't realize that it was my appointed duty to acknowledge every literary or historic reference made in your posts, regardless of relevance. My bad. Consider your head patted for the nuke comment.
quote:
Papio wrote: There is nothing sinister or immoral about society paying for a service to it's itself (esp as student and profs. are part of society) but to price intelligent people out of education because of some misguided atomistic view is both sinister and immoral.
Lovin' ya more than lunch, Papio Dear, but a few comments nonetheless:
1) True, there is nothing sinister or immoral about society paying for services. We pay for mail service, trash pick-up, and police protection, just to name a few. What we get in return are our letters delivered, our refuse disposed of, and our 911 (999) calls answered. But what service is being rendered to society by a professional student who expects the rest of us to pick up the tab for his personal indulgence in Sanskrit?
2) Nobody is talking about pricing intelligent people out of an education. It may take some elbow grease, but in the US at least, there are numerous public colleges that students can attend at a low cost. Work-study programs make it even easier to pay one's own way -- which is what I did.
3) How 'bout doing society the service of grasping the difference between "it's" and "its"?
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
quote:
then you're a drain on society and your ivy-league security blanket
????
It's maybe different in the USA. In the UK, you'd only ever get state help for a first degree, and that help's diminishing rapidly.
Simultaneously, there's state help to re-train should your job go down the tubes.
Is that not in the same category??
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
In the UK, you'd only ever get state help for a first degree, and that help's diminishing rapidly.
I got a Research Council grant for my second degree. Though I accept such support in Arts and Humanities is virtually non-existant. Which is odd, if society values the knowledge gained from bashing atoms together in an accelerator why not the knowledge of sanskrit? Or, put it another way, the skills gained in conducting original research and presentation of findings etc are similar in both cases ... and are of value in other careers if not in continuing academic research and teaching. But then, maybe people are saying my PhD had no value to society either.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But then, maybe people are saying my PhD had no value to society either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of this thread was Fregory's bitching about the lack of respect accorded to history and other humanities. I wasn't aware that we'd branched out.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
It seems to me, Dr. A, that the benefit of an advanced degree isn't in the various research skills it imparts. It's what one can actually do with it -- which is why if I understand your field of expertise (but it wouldn't surprise me if I didn't) I would differentiate your studies from a degree in Sanskrit. You may save lives by detecting radioactivity after a Three Mile Island-type episode or by making existing plants safer. How is a Sanskrit student making a comparable contribution?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
No, you're not wrong ... it just seemed to me to have taken in other subjects of supposed dubious value to society.
[refered to Erins post ... crossed with Presleytarian]
[ 11. January 2004, 20:40: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I'd have to go with Presleyterian on this one. The value of the contributions of a nuclear physicist and a Sanskrit expert are several orders of magnitude apart.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
It seems to me, Dr. A, that the benefit of an advanced degree isn't in the various research skills it imparts. It's what one can actually do with it <snip> You may save lives by detecting radioactivity after a Three Mile Island-type episode or by making existing plants safer.
That's what I do, more or less, but that's a result of work I've done since my PhD ... very little of what I studied in my PhD has actually been all that useful. The abilities I learned in terms of assessing research papers for relevance, thinking through problems, writing scientific papers and reports to disseminate results etc have, however, been very useful. In many ways a practically focussed PhD (say in measurements of environmental radioactivity) would have given me the same skills and the knowledge I've had to pick up on the job.
Right, time to relate it to Sanskrit. Knowledge on Sanskrit is very unlikely to be of use in itself (though might do in some fields of academic research). But, someone who in studying Sanskrit has picked up key skills in assessing literature and communication (for example, plenty of other skills picked up) has gained abilities which can be employed in other fields. I'd have thought lawyers would appreciate the ability of people to digest complex documents and communicate to others what they say, if the documents I had to read and sign to buy a flat are anything to go by.
And, that's in addition to the cultural value of translations of literature from other cultures. For an example (picking up an earlier strand), would Oppenheimer have known that quote from the Bhagavad-Gita if someone hadn't translated it? And, not knowing it he wouldn't have quoted it, and that little bit of our culture would be missing.
[Edited for i.]
[ 11. January 2004, 23:16: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I'd have to go with Presleyterian on this one. The value of the contributions of a nuclear physicist and a Sanskrit expert are several orders of magnitude apart.
They are only so far apart because our culture values science/technology above almost everything else. That, to me, seems to be a matter of mere utilitarianism.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And why do you think that is? Could it be a sign of societal evolution, in which case we've learned to differentiate between needs and luxuries?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Is experimental investigation of many-body quantum mechanics a need or a luxury?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Couldn't tell you, as I have no idea what that means. It looked like English. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Looked like English ... might as well have been Sanskrit
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
I got a Scottish Education Department studentship for my PhD in Scottish history. They were rare as hen's teeth, you had to have a first class honours degree and a glowing recommendation to get one and they entitled you to your PhD supervision ( there wasn't a big tutition element in UK humanities PhDs at the time) and a small grant of 3, 000 pounds per year for three years.
As a result of doing the PhD, I was able to go straight into a public service job (aged 24) where the skills and knowledge I had gained allowed me to do the following.
(1) I was able to catalogue a previously uncatalogued collection of documents making them available to the public and attracting scholars from the UK and overseas to visit Scotland to use the collection.
(2) I was able to train many other students and members of the public in historical research and also to answer many hundreds of specialist queries from around the world. Everything from helping people trace their family history (a multi-million pound business for Scotland) to evaluating whether documents were important enough to be bought with public money.
(3) I was able within a year of starting my job to take on a major exhibition as a curator - an exhibition which was seen by large numbers of tourists - because I already had substantial skills in using and handling original documents and doing original research.
(4) I then played a major part as consultant in my specialist area for an even bigger exhibition to coincide with the millennium.
(5) Because I was acknowledged as an academic with an in-depth knowledge of my field I was asked to appear on television and radio and have used my knowledge of history and manuscripts to produce and contribute to radio and TV history programmes reaching thousands of people interested in history.
(6) I was able to help set up a group which produced the first ever complete web database of a large area of Scottish History of great interest to the public. That resource is still there and being well-used.
(7) I was able to edit a major publication on Scottish history for the millennium which sold widely - again I was drawing on the skills learned initially in my PhD
(8) I have edited a large selection of Scottish historical documents which were not previously available to the public.
(9) I have lost count of how many schools and local history societies I have lectured to on my specialist subjects. I have also lectured abroad to students and members of the public in Australia, Canada, Belgium and the United States.
(10) My PhD helped change thinking in my field and has influenced stuff ranging from what other people teach their students or write in their books to TV progammes. Only last year I used that exact same research as the basis for a programme which received an excellent public response.
Because I worked in the public sector my pay was not high. For most of my career I earned less than the current average graduate starting salary. So it was hardly a route to riches, but what it did do was allow me to start a highly-specialist public service career at an early age and to achieve a lot. I live and work in a country which takes a great interest in its history, which feels in many ways it has been deprived of knowledge about its history (Scottish history was rarely taught in schools for a long time), Scotland also earns a great deal from its heritage industry - people like me are the consultants/curators who make high quality heritage programmes and exhibitions possible.
I happen to live in a country which believed in investing in people like me who did not come from wealthy backgrounds to make it possible for us to dedicate ourselves to acquiring this sort of specialist knowledge and applying it. I know many people who weren't as lucky as me and who tried to self-fund their PhDs and work their way through and I saw many of them drop out - it took a very high toll on people.
I fail to see how funding a tiny handful of people to acquire these skills which give so much pleasure and benefit to others is some sort of crime. If somebody who flips burgers or empties bed-pans suddenly decides he or she wants to hear a programme on Scottish history - the chances are that I was a consultant on it or somebody like me. If they want to study Scottish history they will find some one like me teaching or lecturing them or end up reading our books. If they want to take the family out to visit a castle or a museum somebody like me will have been involved in its conservation or in the information available. If they want to go the whole hog in tracing their family ancestry back to the 16th or 17th century somebody like me will advise them or help them find the manuscripts or translate them for them, and if they have a child who turns out to be a gifted historian - hopefully people like me will have campaigned to make sure that that person has the chance to be properly funded to do research if they have the talent for it.
I'm sure small numbers of people in the US win scholarships which fund humanities PhDs. The only thing that's different here is that we have a very small government programme which also awards studentships in addition to having organisations like the Carnegie Fund.
L.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Right. Fine, then, don't tell me. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
At any rate... I think that knowledge for knowledge's sake IS a luxury. That is not a value judgment, it's a statement of fact. Food, clothing, shelter -- those are needs. Going a bit up the food chain, anything that has as its ultimate goal the physical saving of humans or humanity (be it medicine or geology or whatever kind of science will determine whether or not we ever stand a chance of getting off this rock before the sun dies) is a need. Not an immediate need in some cases, but a need nonetheless.
While the study of humanities may enrich our lives (and I don't think anyone has denied that), I can't see where we would literally die without them. Yeah, life would blow if I could never read another book or listen to another piece of music, but life will END if I don't eat or get in out of the cold or get vaccinated.
That's where I draw the distinction. To be honest, I don't think study of humanities or most subjects, for that matter, are as important as the study of medicine, biology and ecology. We currently have SO MUCH physical suffering in this world that I believe that should be society's highest and chief priority.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Right. Fine, then, don't tell me.
So, it's now alright for me to branch out once you're interested?
OK, a translation of "experimental investigation of many-body quantum mechanics" into something closer to English. Quantum theory produces equations with exact solutions for two bodies (say, an electron orbiting a nucleus). But as the number of bodies increases the complexity of the equations makes an exact solution impossible. As a result a variety of approximations to these many-body problems are used. To test how good these models are, and when is the best situation to use each, it's necessary to collect some experimental data from many-body systems described by quantum mechanics. One of these systems is the atomic nucleus, composed of a large number of bodies (protons and neutrons). My PhD involved collecting a very small amount of data for such purposes, though not enough to conclusively prove much.
Did this benefit society in any great way?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
In the long run, probably. About halfway through reading the post my brain crawled out of my ear and is now whimpering in the corner of the room so I can't be sure. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on
:
Fr. G: on many topics, political and social I agree with you, but not here.
Education paid for by the society as a whole, must be either a general school education including history, science etc (not too restrictive, we want rounded young adults) or at a higher level must be of some visible benefit to society. If you can make a case for anything else, please do so.
Too many people expect others to subsidise their interests. Study whatever you want at your own expense. If you choose your education wisely, it will end up paying for itself. If there is a shortage of people to fill certain necessary jobs, then taxpayers can help.
I'm with Erin and Pres.
[ 11. January 2004, 22:21: Message edited by: Corfe ]
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Reading the American (largely) contributions here has been a sobering, and to be honest, somewhat depressing experience. I am not going to characterise American cultural attitudes to education based on the remarks of a few people but my existing prejudices about technocratic cultures (anywhere) have not been challenged. For me this is even sadder in the context of a Christian ecumenical forum where I might have expected a more positive cultural evaluation of the worth of the humanities. I know that Merryn will probably say "tough s**t" but I don't give a damn about that. I suppose I'm just self indulging by telling folks how I feel about this.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
I love the humanities. I majored in the humanities. (And paid for my education myself, of course.) My point is that people don't need financial incentives in the form of a free education to study the humanities.
That's why I think Corfe is right. If there is a shortage of people in a certain field, allocate the available resources to provide financial incentives to educate people to perform those functions. In the US, for example, there a great program to pay the med school tuition of promising students who agree to devote x number of years at a reduced salary treating patients in inner city public health clinics, on Indian reservations, and at other under-served locations. I think tax dollars are better allocated to that purpose than to subsidizing arcane study in the humanities.
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." I just think we place more emphasis on the action and life that results, rather than on the "bettering" of one's own person. The string of letters that may come after someone's name only has universal meaning if some good for others has come from it. If not, they have meaning only for the one who wears them.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Oh look. Fregory is disappointed in and disapproving of American culture. Day is night, up is down, my world is in turmoil.
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
At any rate... I think that knowledge for knowledge's sake IS a luxury. That is not a value judgment, it's a statement of fact. Food, clothing, shelter -- those are needs. Going a bit up the food chain, anything that has as its ultimate goal the physical saving of humans or humanity (be it medicine or geology or whatever kind of science will determine whether or not we ever stand a chance of getting off this rock before the sun dies) is a need. Not an immediate need in some cases, but a need nonetheless.
While the study of humanities may enrich our lives (and I don't think anyone has denied that), I can't see where we would literally die without them. Yeah, life would blow if I could never read another book or listen to another piece of music, but life will END if I don't eat or get in out of the cold or get vaccinated.
That's where I draw the distinction. To be honest, I don't think study of humanities or most subjects, for that matter, are as important as the study of medicine, biology and ecology. We currently have SO MUCH physical suffering in this world that I believe that should be society's highest and chief priority.
I think I may have found part of the problem we are having. Erin, you have drawn the distinction in a different place from Fr. G and myself, as well as several others. The problem, for you, is that we have modern psychology to back us up (since it is a social science I am hoping that you are not discounting it as well ).
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs states that the basics you described: food, drink, shelter, etc., are the essentials. However, once those needs are met, there becomes a need for safety, after that belongingness and love, and then self-esteem. Each of these must be met before moving on to the next level. And they are all needs. The highest need, according to Maslow's model, is the need for Transcendence.
Yes, there are a lot of people in the world that lack those basic needs, but they are not the only needy ones. Just by being participants on this forum we all demonstrate the need to know and understand. Those of us who have met the basic needs have an obligation to help those who don't (as Jesus pointed out so eloquently). However, the fact that we have these higher order inate needs indicates that in some way we are intended to meet them. The Humanities are a part of how we do that. This is where the discussion of elitism comes in. It is easy, and entirely too common, for people pursuing such higher order needs to place themselves on a pedestal and claim superiority. However, without the people working and supporting them by making sure their lower level needs are met, these people would not have leg to stand on, let alone a pedestal. Society needs both types of people in order to make sure that the needs of all people are met. In fact, society as we know it would not exist without people pursuing the higher order needs (i.e. the "Founding Fathers" of the US) as well as the more basic needs (i.e. the soldiers fighting for the more basic need of freedom (no offense to my friends across the pond)).
I would hope that knowledge is never for knowledge's sake. For me knowledge is for the sake of my relationship with God, and springing from that, my realtionship with the rest of humanity. You are right that our chief priorities must be meeting the basic physical needs of the people that lack the basics, but in order to do that, some of the higher order needs must be met. I would cite history as an example, but that's boring ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
.
[Edited UBB in quote for clarity]
[ 11. January 2004, 23:23: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Please tell me what's arcane about producing books, exhibitions, training and history programmes for an eager public who take a keen interest in their country?
Heritage is a major industry in Scotland, a key part of our tourist appeal and a passion for large numbers of Scots. We fund a tiny number of people who are essential for the teaching, research and preservation of that heritage at a high standard.
We make that choice because as a country we believe that it's an important part of our culture - that it's worth taking care of our heritage and worth making sure that there will always be people who are able to take care of it and I'm glad that we have those priorities because in the course of my work I've seen how much it means to people over and over again, and I've been glad to be able to help them.
L.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Please tell me what's arcane about producing books, exhibitions, training and history programmes for an eager public who take a keen interest in their country?
If this is the case, then this thread is not about you or your job. It's about Fregory demanding that society realign its priorities to what he thinks they should be. Evidently, Scottish society's priorities are already aligned, so you're not part of this and Fregory can head north.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
Well, so far as I am concerned America is welcome to take whatever attitude to higher education and/or atomism it pleases. Whatever.
Virtually no-one in Britain (with the possible exception of Tony Blair) wants an American-style higher education system. That isn't an insult to America. That is just how it is. I'm not saying American universities aren't good at what they do, they clearly are, but bully for them.
There is a funding crisis in British universities (unless you think that most degrees are a total waste of time of course) but, despite the fact that some here claim that there is no evidence that arts education benefits society as a whole, I have yet to see any evidence that it doesn't.
Like Fr. Gregory, I am saddened and really quite astonished by some of the views on this thread. Anyway, I have a self-indulgent and totally pointless essay to finish. At the end of the day, I don't really care what a bunch of people I have never met think of my degree. I'm done with this thread.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
For me this is even sadder in the context of a Christian ecumenical forum where I might have expected a more positive cultural evaluation of the worth of the humanities.
Oh! Oh! How sad! People aren't in lockstep agreement with Fr. G. in his elitist attitude toward higher education! And I thought this was a Christian Website!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thank God Nintendo, Sega, Sony et al are working so hard to save our children from the tyranny of fresh air and sport.
Yes, thank God.
quote:
[I wish I could spel]
If you'd spent less time playing sport perhaps you'd have learned.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
This post is probably going to sound elitist and nasty and very, very, self-serving, and not at all altruistic. It's a Monday morning argument. Altruism kicks later in the day, when my brain stops hurting and I wake up properly.
I strongly imagine that a place where nearly everybody else had some sort of higher education would be a place that I would be likely to have a better life than one in which they didn't.
I suspect I would be more likely to come across interesting things to do, or read, or talk about; and less likely to be robbed or attacked on the street.
And given the choice between being taxed to pay for my neighbour's education, or their unemployment benefit, I'd rather pay for their education.
It's the dustbin principle the reason I support the idea that we all pay for rubbish collection ourt of taxes is not because I want my rubbish collected, its because I want my neighbour's rubbish collected. The reason I support publicly funded education is not so my child can be educated - I could do that myself - but so that my neighbour's children will be educated FOR MY BENEFIT.
Also I really really want there to be a nice sound fast-growing economy in 20 or 30 or 40 years time so that other people's work can pay for my pension. And well-educated people are more likely to provide that. Not because they are trained to do all sorts of techy jobs, but because they are more likely to develop a wide range of interests and tastes and ideas that will continue to increase the diversity and complexity of the economy. Its not a zero-sum game.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thank God Nintendo, Sega, Sony et al are working so hard to save our children from the tyranny of fresh air and sport.
Yes, thank God.
quote:
[I wish I could spel]
If you'd spent less time playing sport perhaps you'd have learned.
Are we still in Purg?
I'm interested in your apparent dislike of school sports. What exactly is so bad about teaching kids to keep fit?
[I've got a really bad feeling I'm missing some subtext or other here...]
[ 12. January 2004, 11:18: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Astro (# 84) on
:
quote:
I'm interested in your apparent dislike of school sports. What exactly is so bad about teaching kids to keep fit?
What have schools sports got to do with keeping fit?
Their main function seems to be humiliation
and seem to be the best things devised so far for putting children off exercise.
I expect lost more people would exercise in middle age if they had not been put off by school sports.
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Well said.
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on
:
Another thought : I find it fascinating the way the word 'elitism' is used. People who find nothing whatsoever 'elitist' about a society which has an hereditary monarch as head of state or an economic system which leads to massive concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few, whilst others starve, consider it the absolute nadir of elitism for some eighteen year-old to be applying post-structuralist analysis to Middlemarch. Curious.
Seems like good old fashioned reactionary anti-intellectualism to me. But then I would think that, since I'm part of a self-perpetuating clique of humanities-educated social parasites.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
(ETA: in response to the sports posts, to avoid confusion)
I genuinely do not comprehend that view. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I was never one of the "bigger boys" (quite weedy actually), but I used to really enjoy sports. Fine, so I got beaten up playing rugby, and had my nose shattered on the hockey field once, but it was still better than maths or geography...
[ 12. January 2004, 11:54: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I see this thread has progressed to whining about all the big bad meanies in PE class. It was fun while it lasted, boys and girls. Time for me to move on.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If this is the case, then this thread is not about you or your job. It's about Fregory demanding that society realign its priorities to what he thinks they should be. Evidently, Scottish society's priorities are already aligned, so you're not part of this and Fregory can head north.
No, you and others asked someone to tell you what use an obscure degree was to the rest of us. Most people would categorise Scottish History as fairly obscure (even in Scotland).
Louise replied with a masterful description of how - as a direct result of her PhD - she has been able to enrich a nation's understanding of itself, enrich the lives of many individuals AND contribute mightily to Scotland's tourism income (a major part of our economy).
Money well spent by the UK government, I'd say.
Now you're saying that doesn't count because she lives north of the border from Fr. Gregory? Eh?
Rat
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Seems like good old fashioned reactionary anti-intellectualism to me. But then I would think that, since I'm part of a self-perpetuating clique of humanities-educated social parasites.
You too? Blimey.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
It seems to me that this argument comes down to the value to society of somebody studying a subject which doesn't directly benefit society.
If you choose to study medicine or engineering, the argument for public subsidy is much more compelling, because the likely benefit to society is much clearer. If, however, you choose to study history or classics, the benefit to society is much harder to quantify; the student in such subjects may benefit intellectually and pass on the fruits of their learning indirectly (as Louise has) or may not. Under those circumstances, some will argue that it is worth the risk of society's investing in such uncertain outcomes, while others will want to restrict investment to more certain outcomes.
I would be interested to know if there's any way of proving which way is better. I suspect the answer may not lie in the utilitarian sphere at all. FWIW, I agree with Fr Gregory, because I think it is worth taking the risk that some people will study subjects which don't directly benefit society, but don't ask me to prove it.
Isaac David
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I am reminded of Keynes' comment about the welfare state. The point, he said, is not to have the state attempt to do those things which the market does perfectly adequately. The point, is to have the state do those things the market doesn't do at all.
Therefore HMG should give priority to training philosophers and medievalists because we can always depend on the private sector to train accountants and engineers.
I can quite see the logic of a completely libertarian position which says that no-one should recieve state help in higher education. I can quite see the point of the old-fashioned European view which says that as far as is consistent with equity and financial reality we should support all academic disciplines.
However, the Blairite position that we should give priority to those fields of study that we think will aid the development of the economy is silly. If the market rules let the market dictate the contents of higher education. If the university is an institution which preserves and extends learning and culture, then by all means let us extend learning and culture. But to have the state second guess the market in this way is rather akin to purchasing paintings for the National Portrait Gallery on purely financial grounds. It's missing the point.
Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on
:
quote:
Therefore HMG should give priority to training philosophers and medievalists because we can always depend on the private sector to train accountants and engineers.
Quite. Part of the government's job in our current system (though it wasn't so before and I imagine it will cease to be so again) is to preserve civilisation. We need people who speak Sanskrit and so forth in order to be civilised. Knowledge is worth something. All knowledge.
IMO.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm interested in your apparent dislike of school sports. What exactly is so bad about teaching kids to keep fit?
[I've got a really bad feeling I'm missing some subtext or other here...]
It's not subtext, its plain ordinary text, I said exactly what I meant the first time. But its off-topic here.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Time for me to move on.
So you accept my answer to your questions in my longish post of 11:40?
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
quote:
It seems to me that this argument comes down to the value to society of somebody studying a subject which doesn't directly benefit society.
Hmm. A quantifiable vs. non-quantifiable outcomes debate. A quantifiable outcome in medicine would be that the patients blood count was raised or some other test statistic was met. A non-quantifiable outcome is that the patient's life became better, but not in a way that can be directly measured. Insurance generally only pays for the former, while it is the latter that really make a difference.
So too here. We can quantify the benefit of doctors by measuring how many patients they have successfully treated vs. the number of total patients they have treated. And we can quantify the benefit of engineers by the number of successful bridges they have built vs. the number of total bridges they have built. It is much harder to quantify the societal benefit of someone critiquing literature or learning an ancient, "dead" language. But does that mean that they do not benefit society? As even Erin pointed out, life would be boring if there were no great novels to read.
[ 12. January 2004, 16:53: Message edited by: phoenix_811 ]
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
I'm sorry I missed out on the active part of this thread. I'm sensitive to the issue of wasting money on luxuries, but I don't think the government should have a target of spending zero on things like parks or history. I see them as investments in people's quality of life, providing them with things they couldn't afford on their own. Ben Franklin was hardly a socialist for inventing public libraries. He saw the value of broad, general education.
The US Defense budget, as I said, is about $320 billion dollars. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities are funded at about $0.2 billion together. The National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health are about $28 billion and account for most of the education and research spending. Here is a chart comparing Science & Health vs. Humanities spending in absolute dollars. If we want to save every penny in the $2.2 trillion US budget, I think there are better places to start. When we're done, then I'd say take a closer look at who's feeding at the public trough in the humanities.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
For research that seems to have no practical benefit, it's hard to beat the phycisist Feynman, who got interested in the way plates spun round when they fell, or on one of those wobbly poles. It seemed to have no use at all except to satisfy his curiosity, yet it led to him getting a Nobel prize for the mathematical theory that came out of it, which turned out to be very useful (though I can't now remember why).
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Why History Is Important, part 94
I was sitting next to a student teacher - i.e. one of those people being educated and trained to educate the next generation of school-children.
She noted that i had something scribbled in the front of my Bible.
"What does that say?" she asked, presumably as my handwriting is so appalling that she could not read it."
"It's a quote from a rabbi," I said, "It says, "Theology is illegal with one's back to Auschwitz'." (Actually, I had misquoted the good rabbi - it should read "forbidden", not "illegal".)
To which this intelligent person, being trained to educate the next generation of citizens, replied:
"What's Auschwitz?"
That's why History is important.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Quite so Dyfrig. Forgive my cynicism, but I predict someone will now come along and attempt to distinguish "useful" from "useless" history. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
quote:
To which this intelligent person, being trained to educate the next generation of citizens, replied:
"What's Auschwitz?"
Dyfrig,
sorry, that wasn't an intelligent person. That was a grade A numpty disguised as a student teacher. We're not all like that.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
quote:
To which this intelligent person, being trained to educate the next generation of citizens, replied:
"What's Auschwitz?"
Dyfrig,
sorry, that wasn't an intelligent person. That was a grade A numpty disguised as a student teacher. We're not all like that.
Sure, I know that, musician - I really do. It's just that there is a distressingly large number who are like that these days. Very, very scary.
CB
[ 14. January 2004, 18:41: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
What really alarms me as a mature entrant into teaching (now 9 years on) is the startlingly low level of general knowlerdge amongst many teachers. I am bound to compare my colleagues with the products of a previous generation who taught me when I was at school. I know this is subjective and anecdotal but I just don't find the same breadth of knowledge. I'm not talking about quiz type facts here ... I am referring to the fruit of a broad liberal education that has some sense of both the bigger picture and the diverse particulars of human culture in time and space.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
I will add that I see a "practical" bent to History in that if it is studied from the standpoint of "putting oneself in the worldview of another" I believe it can help toward trust, understanding and possibly peace. If more in the US for example had an understanding of the legitimate historical claims of the Palestinians as well as the Jews, US policy might be more balanced there. I was appalled at my own lack of knowledge about Palestinians when 9/11 hit.
More than that, if more people were able to put themselves in the mindset of other cultures, I believe there would be less strife of all kinds. The "history" I am talking about goes beyond political, military, and economic history to intellectual, religious, and cultural history. I was lucky to always have it presented to me in that way and not meaningless and unconnected dates.
If humankind had trust and understanding enough to live under one modest police authority with the agreed upon power to use force, hundreds of billions in dollars would be saved. It is worth investing toward this goal if only for practical ends and not intellectual pleasure.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I agree JimT (as you might expect).
Where have the opposing views gone?
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
Perhaps they are out making history.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
In which case, how would they know? You can't forge something ahead except in the context of something behind you. I thought we were talking about temporal amnesia here.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Where have the opposing views gone?
We're tired of
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Gregory:
You can't forge something ahead except in the context of something behind you.
Yes, and the knowledge of that something behind can and should be the impetus of future activity. To dwell in the study of what has already happened only stalls the progression. I would rather be a participant in something I can help create than an expert in something I cannot alter.
"The great end of life is not knowledge but action." (Huxley)
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
quote:
I would rather be a participant in something I can help create than an expert in something I cannot alter.
Why? So you can repeat that which is unalterable?
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would rather be a participant in something I can help create than an expert in something I cannot alter.
Your picture of God does not change and you cannot change the Bible. Yet, you seem to desire expertise in both areas. I would have thought that you loved at least Biblical history.
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
Not repeat it -- create it -- the difference between study and participation. It's good and profitable to know about history, but I don't want to live there.
We all know that "He who does not study history is destined to repeat it." But I say one who studies it too much or too long might miss his destiny altogether.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Mousethief
On this one I don't give up so easily.
Dear Grits
I think that there is a very real cultural difference here between America and Europe, (other nations and groupings doubtless as well).
(This is not a prelude to anti-Americanism ... I am saying some nice stuff as well).
America is a very young nation and, therefore, majors on ideals, goals and frontiers. We need that. I, for example, think it enormously encouraging for humanity that America appears to be pushing back into space again. (Let's hope it's just not an election ploy!)
However, from this side of the Atlantic it does sometimes look as if these goals and aspirations are simply believed in rather uncritically. America has a clear sense of identity and purpose and an evangelical zeal to get everyone to sign up to its philosophy.
Those of us with a little more history behind do not live in it (Grits) but we are perhaps a little more aware of how it has influenced us. I would have thought that such an awareness made true freedom for the future MORE possible, not less.
There is of course a delicious irony in all of this for us. When Americans cross the pond why do they obsess in a touristy way about all our "old stuff."?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
To dwell in the study of what has already happened only stalls the progression.
Other way round. Those who know no history, like those who know nothing but their own village, are likely to be uncomplaining small-c-conservatices who assume that the way things are is the only way they can be.
Even more the case in science of course - a knowledge of how we got to where we are is a neccessary tool for going on further. Ignorant people tend not to make scientific discoveries because they don't know what's new and what isn't.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
There is of course a delicious irony in all of this for us. When Americans cross the pond why do they obsess in a touristy way about all our "old stuff."?
Fr. G
(G-d, this is tiresome)
It's only ironic if you treat the US as united in anti-intellectualism. Perhaps some of us are not, and it is we who enjoy looking at old buildings and museums when we go on vacation. Is there some rule that says we musn't, in order to avoid creating the appearance of irony?
I was about to ask what the use of my education and current profession is (medieval history then to the practice of law), but then I realized I've paid for it all myself, and so anyone who doesn't like it can bite me.
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on
:
There is a good deal of anti-intellectualism in America (for instance, there are surveys showing that a large proportion of Americans believe that highly educated people aren't good at dealing with real-life problems). But I think a large part of this attitude comes from a libertarian individualism that refuses to recognize any such thing as a common good. (Not only on this side of the Atlantic--cf. Old Ma Thatcher's comment that "There is no such thing as society"). In its extreme version, this manifests as people objecting to paying taxes to support primary education because they themselves have no children; a more moderate form simply objects to less widely used publically funded services from which they don't receive a direct benefit (such as graduate education in the humanities, public radio, arts funding, etc.).
Timothy
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...a knowledge of how we got to where we are is a neccessary tool for going on further. Ignorant people tend not to make scientific discoveries because they don't know what's new and what isn't.
No one is denying or condemning the need for knowledge. I do believe that knowledge is power. But to put excessive time and energy (and someone else's money, don't forget!) into the pursuit of knowledge that has little value to anyone or anything other than oneself, it somehow takes on the appearance of vanity. (I would put those who teach in a different category here.)
I would put forth the analogy that you view the study of history the way I view study of the Bible. The words are not going to change. The events are always going to read the same. But I am going to learn something and be better for it every time I read it and study it. I suppose the difference is that the Bible study is on my time, at my expense, and will (hopefully!) make me a better person, citizen, Christian, etc., thus benefitting those with whom I come in contact.
I agree in general with Fr Gregory's last post. I think America has an awesome sense of history, but it is one that spurs us on to action, rather than reflection. Let's face it -- the two societies are very different. They both seem to work nicely for those involved, so let's be grateful for that.
I love the romance of history, and that is why I enjoy museums, "old" things, etc. I don't really have to know the whys and wherefores about what I see; it's that aesthetic appeal that gets to me. I imagine that's true for many of those touristy types. We call it "appreciation".
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Mousethief
On this one I don't give up so easily.
You've already given up; you haven't come up with a single argument to support what I asked you to support, namely, that arcane graduate studies benefit "the whole society" somehow.
Instead you and your compadrés have simply attacked me (and Erin and others) for being luddites, anti-intellectual, uncritical, unthinking, non-supportive of history, the arts, etc. I assure you that I (I can't speak for Erin) am none of these things. But I am sick and tired of this thread.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
the pursuit of knowledge that has little value to anyone or anything other than oneself, it somehow takes on the appearance of vanity
That's the exact point at issue, and no-one on the other side has yet replied to my longish post on it.
Living in a society in which lots of other people are well-educated benefits me. So its not just a private good.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Living in a society in which lots of other people are well-educated benefits me.
How?
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
OK guys, sing along now..after 5.....
"there's a hole in my bucket, dear Henry dear Henry....."
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
I don't see how this song will benefit society.
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
I didn't think it would...but it proves I know the digit for one more than 4, would that help??
Posted by Kyralessa (# 4568) on
:
Well, fine, so long as my tax money's not teaching you to count.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
It definitely doesn't. And anyway, it's "Dear Liza". The "Dear Henry" goes with the response verses ("then fix it, Dear Henry," &c)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Living in a society in which lots of other people are well-educated benefits me.
How?
I already went on about it at great length about half-a-dozen posts ago! No -one has said anything at all in disagreement yet, never mind refutation.
Posted by JimT (# 142) on
:
I'd like to ask the question, "Is there any such thing as 'useless' information, 'useless' facts, and 'useless' knowledge." In my opinion, no information is useless. If it is information, a use for it will eventually be found. This is a belief, I recognize. But many have pointed out here that previously 'useless' information has sometimes turned out later to be useful.
At the same time, I freely admit that society should take a hard look at how much it is spending, if anything at all, for information that has no known current value. It would be ridiculous to spend $10 billion on how accents were placed on syllables in ancient Sanskrit. But it might be worth a grant of a few thousand dollars because some day it will shed some light on processing of language in the brain. That is, if you have a few thousand bucks to spare. It's hard to say we don't have a dime to spare when the Federal budget is $2 trillion.
Posted by musician (# 4873) on
:
quote:
Well, fine, so long as my tax money's not teaching you to count.
ah...I didn't say I could count, just that I knew the digits. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:
It definitely doesn't. And anyway, it's "Dear Liza". The "Dear Henry" goes with the response verses ("then fix it, Dear Henry," &c)
Well there we are then, my education's sadly lacking. I'll go off and apply for a grant to be counselled.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Living in a society in which lots of other people are well-educated benefits me.
How?
I already went on about it at great length about half-a-dozen posts ago! No -one has said anything at all in disagreement yet, never mind refutation.
So far as I can see, Ken, you, Fr. Gregory, myself and others have all given good and solid reasons for believing that education is good for society as a whole and for not believing that we are, or ever can be, wholly seperate from society.
I don't see see a single person giving a single reason why higher education does not benifit society. They have just asserted it.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
I hope you're not referring to me, *** -- I never said any such thing.
[Edited out name - data protection]
[ 15. January 2004, 22:01: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I hope you're not referring to me, *** -- I never said any such thing.
Fair enough. No, I was not thinking specifically of you.
[Edited quote for reason given in previous post]
[ 15. January 2004, 22:02: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
That is, if you have a few thousand bucks to spare. It's hard to say we don't have a dime to spare when the Federal budget is $2 trillion.
Ain't it the truth? Especially when our local school systems are scratching and scraping for every penny they can find. It seems education has almost become an albatross, rather than a precious gift we should want to bestow on our children. Maybe if we didn't have to work so hard to get our kids through the first 12-13 years of school we'd have better resources and advantages to provide any necessary or desired post-graduate schooling.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I am sorry but I subscribe to silly old liberal ideas like "the fund of human knowledge should never be constrained" and "society is more than a collection of individual agents." This is why one group here does not hear the voice of the other ... and vice versa I'm sure.
It's not that evidence HASN'T been given Mousethief ... it's that you do not find it cogent or persuasive ... maybe you don't even register it as evidence. That's why I am trying to get at deeper underlying issues in the cultures of our respective societies. If there is anything to that then this would have to be considered first. I do think that there is another voice of and in America. I am not stereotyping. Nonetheless I do think that one can determine trends and emphases. It would be surprising if one could not.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
It's not that evidence HASN'T been given Mousethief ... it's that you do not find it cogent or persuasive ... maybe you don't even register it as evidence.
Oh come on -- French existential movies as an example of how graduate studies in philosophy benefit all mankind? Give me a break.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
... and the rest?
(BTW ...the movies and directors I gave you were not "art house.")
I think I would have to agree with you Mousethief. We are going nowhere with this. I feel like quitting because I don't want to become even more prejudiced against certain aspects of western culture than I already am.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
Ken detailed his reasons for thinking education was enough benefit to the whole of society to be worth paying for. Louise detailed exactly how her 'arcane' field of study has benefited the society that helped pay for it, in both financial and cultural terms. A post about which I got rather over-effusive earlier because I couldn't understand why it was being ignored. Alan and others have demonstrated that 'arcane' is in the eye of the beholder and unexpected benefits can result from apparently obscure studies.
I am frankly baffled as to why these things don't count as evidence unless, as Fr G says, there is some deep frame-of-reference divide that prevents people seeing it.
[ 16. January 2004, 10:19: Message edited by: Rat ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Okay I went back and looked again at that post by Ken that everybody is telling me I should look at. Quite plainly, it's bunkum.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I strongly imagine that a place where nearly everybody else had some sort of higher education would be a place that I would be likely to have a better life than one in which they didn't.
But the world is the sort of place, and the human race is the sort of group of people, such that you will never find a society in which "nearly everybody else" has some sort of higher education. That's the whole sticking point of this thread: higher education is a benefit of the few, and in some cases the very few.
So all of your wonderful benefits you list as ensuing from a world in which nearly everybody has higher education are just pie in the sky -- it ain't gonna happen.
What I need are arguments why giving a select few PhD's in obscure fields helps all mankind. The evidence is still, sadly, 100% lacking.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What I need are arguments why giving a select few PhD's in obscure fields helps all mankind. The evidence is still, sadly, 100% lacking.
Is that what was being asked for? I thought it was evidence that a select few PhD's in obscure fields helps a sufficiently large proportion of mankind that it can be justified that the tax payer supports such studies. I doubt if anything funded by tax payers benefits all mankind (or even all citizens of the country paying for it).
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is that what was being asked for? I thought it was evidence that a select few PhD's in obscure fields helps a sufficiently large proportion of mankind that it can be justified that the tax payer supports such studies.
I'll settle for that. It doesn't match some of Fr. G's more grandiose claims, but it will do for the nonce.
My point is and has been, that postgraduate education is something that only a few can enjoy, and that it is thus not an automatic given that the rest of us should have to pay for it. Rather there needs to be some argument given for why it is in our interest, as a society, to support this small elite in their pursuit of happiness. I think what Ken said is the beginning of an argument, but he went too far in his assumptions, and the argument in that direction needs to be tailored accordingly.
What has really stumped me is the amount of nastiness my call-for-justification has raised. But I suppose if you tell people their privileges aren't sinecures and they need to justify sucking on the societal teat, you're bound to raise hackles.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I suppose it depends what each society determines as important. Self-selector. Mileage will vary. Look to the fruit.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What has really stumped me is the amount of nastiness my call-for-justification has raised. But I suppose if you tell people their privileges aren't sinecures and they need to justify sucking on the societal teat, you're bound to raise hackles.
That would depend on your definition of privelege. In my book, something that is open to anybody on the basis of merit is not a privilege. When education is only available to those who can afford to pay for it (or whose family can afford it), then it is a privilege. That was the whole point of the grant system, to break down a system of privilege that cut the majority of people off from any possibility of further education.
Similary, a sinecure is something you don't have to work for, or at. Try doing a PhD without working at it.
And yes, insulting people by telling them that their career, which they feel is of worth to society, is a sinecure and "sucking on the societal teat" is bound to raise hackles, because it is extremely rude.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
What has really stumped me is the amount of nastiness my call-for-justification has raised. But I suppose if you tell people their privileges aren't sinecures and they need to justify sucking on the societal teat, you're bound to raise hackles.
That would depend on your definition of privelege. In my book, something that is open to anybody on the basis of merit is not a privilege. When education is only available to those who can afford to pay for it (or whose family can afford it), then it is a privilege. That was the whole point of the grant system, to break down a system of privilege that cut the majority of people off from any possibility of further education.
Similary, a sinecure is something you don't have to work for, or at. Try doing a PhD without working at it.
And yes, insulting people by telling them that their career, which they feel is of worth to society, is a sinecure and "sucking on the societal teat" is bound to raise hackles, because it is extremely rude.
Rat - this strikes me as one of the most, if not the most sensible post on this thread so far.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Swell, but why should I pay for it with my taxes? Sheesh this is like pulling teeth.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Swell, but why should I pay for it with my taxes? Sheesh this is like pulling teeth.
Do you pay for garbage disposal via taxes?
Primary schol education?
Public health laboratories?
Roads?
Do you object to those as well?
BTW tghe argument here isn't really about PhDs (though they are part of it) but higher education in general - certainly including undergraduate courses at universities, but also really the top end of schools such as US high schools.
Which is where Fr. Gregory started it I think.
The stuff you need for minimal funciton in our society gets taught to kids by the time they are 13 or 14 (though lots of them dont; get the hang of of course) It everything after that that's at issue.
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Swell, but why should I pay for it with my taxes? Sheesh this is like pulling teeth.
Because it is something that benifits society (comments passim) to a greater extent than is paid financially and will not be done on an economic basis by private corporations.
Sheesh this is like talking to a brick wall.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autobailer:
Because it is something that benifits society (comments passim) to a greater extent than is paid financially and will not be done on an economic basis by private corporations.
It has not been demonstrated. THIS is what I am asking for "proof" of. Put up or shut up.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do you pay for garbage disposal via taxes?
Primary schol education?
Public health laboratories?
Roads?
Do you object to those as well?
No becuase it's quite clear how these benefit society as a whole. PhD's in obscure subjects, however, aren't nearly so obviously useful to society as a whole.
quote:
The stuff you need for minimal funciton in our society gets taught to kids by the time they are 13 or 14
Bullshorts. We need doctors and lawyers and indian chiefs (well it sounded good). But do we need experts in 12th century BCE Akkadian grammar?
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Swell, but why should I pay for it with my taxes? Sheesh this is like pulling teeth.
Because if you don't, then a huge amount of human potential will be lost. Who knows what this potential will achieve, or not achieve, for society. I can't guess in advance, and neither can you. But wasting potential is not in anybody's interests.
This is like putting teeth back in.
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
quote:
But do we need experts in 12th century BCE Akkadian grammar?
Yes.
I'm not explaining or proving it because, arguably, I could ask you to prove that this DIDN'T benefit society in some way.
In my opinion the burden of proof falls on those who would curtail human knowledge and trim it to some sort of utilitarian ethic.
More brick walls I'm afraid.
There is another dimension here which you yourself have raised Mousethief ... taxes.
In Europe we are used to the idea of social capital funded by taxes. It works by common consent. The attitude:- "I'm not having it if I don't pay for it and I'm not paying for it unless I have it" is not a philiosophy that many of us over here find very helpful.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But do we need experts in 12th century BCE Akkadian grammar?
Depends what you mean by "need". I think we are better off with them. Education and knowledge are a good, one of the ends of society, not one of its means.
I only know one expert in Akkadian grammar (can't remember if she studied the 12th century though). She took paid jobs to pay here way through her PhD. Such stuff is not usually funded from public money. But I would not mind at all if it were.
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Swell, but why should I pay for it with my taxes? Sheesh this is like pulling teeth.
You are welcome to believe and suffer the consequences that you are the judge of why you should pay taxes.
We live in a democratic society where the people have elected representatives who have delegated authority to make these decisions. Many of these people have "higher education" and avail themselves of the expertise of others with "higher education" in making these decisions.
You are welcome to exert whatever influence on this process you can, with or without higher education.
Just to prove you haven't "raised hackles" with me, I would like to thank you too for your assistance in funding my Ph.D. Not only did you help pay tuition, but also a stipend. I used money from this stipend to buy a nice house with a beautiful orange tree in the yard. Come on over any time and we'll barbeque a steak and drink some orange juice. Heck, you helped pay for it.
Posted by phoenix_811 (# 4662) on
:
quote:
Depends what you mean by "need".
Yes. I wrote quite a long post on this quite a while ago. It's another one of the one's that Mousethief has decided to ignore.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The attitude:- "I'm not having it if I don't pay for it and I'm not paying for it unless I have it" is not a philiosophy that many of us over here find very helpful.
Could be. It's not a philosophy I've ever met before and not one I espouse. Try and stick to the point, would you?
Rat: Okay, "loss of human potential" is a good starting point. But society does a lot that lets human potential fall through the cracks. Should we fund everybody to fulfill their greatest potential? If not, why should we fund PhD's in Akkadian to do so?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think we are better off with them. Education and knowledge are a good, one of the ends of society, not one of its means.
Education and knowledge are one of the ends of society, sure. I can buy that. But should that include chasing down every obscure educational or knowledgial (not sure which word I want there!) blind alley? If so, why?
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Just to prove you haven't "raised hackles" with me, I would like to thank you too for your assistance in funding my Ph.D. Not only did you help pay tuition, but also a stipend. I used money from this stipend to buy a nice house with a beautiful orange tree in the yard. Come on over any time and we'll barbeque a steak and drink some orange juice. Heck, you helped pay for it.
Yes, very kind. I'd love to take you up on it. Y'all clearly aren't hearing what I'm saying. I have a master's degree in Philosophy (talk about a worthless subject!) paid for by the good people of the state of Illinois, for which I'm quite grateful. That's not my point. I was trying to get an intellectual discussion going on the topic of the benefit of obscure non-practical studies for society as a whole. A few people have skinned the surface of explanations but most have resorted to misrepresentation and verbal calumny rather than enter into the discussion in the spirit I was asking for. To that extent, it's like banging one's head against a brick wall. I think this is a fascinating subject and there is tons that could be said about it, but clearly not by this crowd. Sorry I mentioned anything. Go back to your smug self-justifying breakfasts. I'll find some other thread to hang out on.
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on
:
quote:
By Freggers
The attitude:- "I'm not having it if I don't pay for it and I'm not paying for it unless I have it" is not a philiosophy that many of us over here find very helpful.
I apologise, Mousethief and others. It had seemed to me that almost every single poster to this thread who was coming from your perspective was taking precisely the attitude mentioned by Fr. Gregory.
If I have misunderstood you than sorry.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thank you, Papio.
I was trying to play devil's advocate and get people to really talk about the role of, and justification for, higher and especially obscure and unpractical education in society as a whole. Learned my lesson. Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me.
[finds rock to crawl under]
Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on
:
I'm confused. I'm sorry Mousethief because I have obviously upset you (or frustrated you terminally, or both). I still don't know though where we are going with this. One person being satisfied with an argument is not enough to convince another ... this I know.
Posted by Autobailer (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Autobailer:
Because it is something that benifits society (comments passim) to a greater extent than is paid financially and will not be done on an economic basis by private corporations.
It has not been demonstrated. THIS is what I am asking for "proof" of. Put up or shut up.
OK. Fields commonly considered useless:
19th Century Alchemy: Responsible for the development of the model of the atom (source: A Short History of Nearly Everything- Bryson, B)
History: Where to begin? Knowing what was done in similar situations in the past can provide solutions.
The spinning of plates on poles: Gave Feynmann the Nobel Prize for applying the same mathematics he developed for analysing that to quantum physics
Pure Mathematics: Quantum Physics, Relativity, models of the universe, Probability theory and many, many more.
Anthropology: Many medicines (Coca derivatives are the only known local anasthetics (Cocaine is another derivative...))
Geography and Geology: Plate Tectonics and helping deal with earthquakes.
Paleontology: See above.
Boiling Kettles: Steam Power (although that may be a myth)
None of these fields look particulaly fruitful for increasing useful knowledge and hence would not have attracted research from corporations. All of them and many more have improved the quality of life. (The chance of any given bit of seemingly pure research being useful is low, but far more has been gained overall by pure research than has been put in).
Is that putting up enough for you or do you want me to continue?
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Rat: Okay, "loss of human potential" is a good starting point. But society does a lot that lets human potential fall through the cracks. Should we fund everybody to fulfill their greatest potential? If not, why should we fund PhD's in Akkadian to do so?
I think yes, in an ideal world. Giving everybody a framework in which they can fulfill their greatest potential - or at least are not prevented from doing so - is one of the jobs of government. Obviously the scope to do this is constrained by current realities, but free access to education is a relatively cheap and productive place to start.
A full implementation would require an Iain M. Banks' Culture-style utopia, where resources had ceased to be an issue, but I see no reason why we can't begin to aspire now.
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I was trying to play devil's advocate and get people to really talk about the role of, and justification for, higher and especially obscure and unpractical education in society as a whole. Learned my lesson. Burn me once, shame on you, burn me twice, shame on me.
OK, I think I have at least a partial justification. Bear with me being anecdotal and probably long winded (if you are still reading this thread!).
I don't have a PhD, but I do have 2 degrees. I have an MA(Hons) in History, and an MSc in Information Technology. In both of these I was partly funded by the government - during the first my parents contributed what they could afford, during the second I supplemented my small grant by teaching.
The MA was my first degree. Due to the way Scottish Arts courses are structured, which I think is not dissimilar to the US style, this meant that as well as History (in which I specialised, but not exclusively, in Medieval), in the first 2 years I also studied 2 courses of English Lit, 1 course of Drama, and 1 course in the Theology Department called, I think, Biblical Studies. (I passed the last with distinction, unbelievably enough, something I suspect may be due to the fact that I was one of the few students not to inform the tutor that he was going straight to hell).
Of these, only the Drama was a waste of my time, and that was because I lacked either talent or ability - something I couldn't have known until I tried.
After graduation I was unable to find the kind of job I wanted. This was due, I think, to the prevailing economic conditions of the time and the fact that I proved to have less ability in the field I wanted to enter than I had thought, rather than the innate uselessness of my qualification. But others will disagree (and have done). So I worked dead-end jobs in video stores and the like for a few years, then applied for the MSc course.
The MSc course did not impress me in itself, but that's a different story. It was efficient in it's way, in that it trained me for a particular type of job. Actually I'd go further and say that it trained me to pass an interview for a particular type of job. Besides filling my head with some badly organised facts and buzzwords, it contributed very little to my education in the wider sense. And I would defy anybody to tell me what my current job contributes to society, other than in the strictly financial sense that it brings money into the economy from abroad and that I pay higher rate tax and - having no children - spend most of what remains on fripperies.
In contrast, my first degree to a large extent shaped the person I am. It broadened my horizons; it shaped my political conciousness through begining an understanding of how our country - and world - became what it is; it shaped my social concience; it shaped what little spiritual conciousness I possess; it fired my curiousity; it taught me how to read critically and for comprehension; and it taught me to try to imagine myself in the place and world of people I would never meet.
Now I know you are going to say that my personal growth is none of your concern, and you are right. But I would claim that everything that I have contributed to society (precious little at the moment, I admit) stems directly from the things I learned and the person I became during my education. In the past I've taught adult literacy, written voluntarily for a talking newspaper for the blind, and been involved in local politics. I honestly believe I would either have never done these things, or would have done them less effectively, had I not had the access to education that I did. Even though my first degree was one many people would have considered useless and did not lead directly to a well-paid job.
I'm not, by the way, trying to downgrade other fields of study, or claiming these benefits only for Arts education. Other fields - whether arts, technical, scientific or philosophical - are equally beneficial in different or similar ways. I fully believe that education is an end in itself, and by letting people follow their hearts, abilities and intellectual curiousities you create better people with more to give to the rest of society, and an increased ability to give it. And that is money well spent in my opinion.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I don't know anyone who thinksa that boiling kettles is useless.
And I have paid my own way through a degree
But pay attention!
Here is a list of every person in the whole world capable of making more than a very rough guess as to whether any field fo inquiry will in the long term prove to be useful or useless:
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0