Academic Specialization continued...

Reader P.F. responds:

I still think college experience is unique. At this age, in this well-developed country, and being the fortunate people that we are, sources of knowledge are readily available at our finger tips and within the reach of our grasps (or our commuting distance). But how many people, if they don't feel intellectually stimulated, will go to local library and spend hours exploring arcane subjects (starting from introductory books that everyone can read!) after work? Yes, there will be a few, but the majority of them have their other priorities pile on top of out-of-work intellectual pursuit.

Compared with this scenario, for most of us, being a student in college is the most carefree time where you are not burdened with bills to pay, food to cook, family to take care of, utility bills to pay and a life to earn, not to mention the duty or privilege of a student is to learn.

This seems to be missing the drift of my argument. Nowhere am I claiming that your college years aren't a unique opportunity to learn. The question is of how you're going to use that opportunity.

Are you going to use it to learn lots of things that come straight out of books? Book knowledge won't change very much over a lifetime (unless it's cutting edge science), and college presents itself as no special advantage when in comes to learning this kind of knowledge. By your logic that the thing that makes college special is that it is a carefree time free from responsibilities, you would be just as well served during your college years if you were sent off to a desert island for four years with a bookcase full of books.

What does make college unique is your almost unlimited access to professors, the people who spend their entire lives advancing the frontiers of knowledge and thinking of new ways to use that knowledge. Yes, some of your professors can help you to understand your academics better. But I would argue that by college age, one should be moving towards the goal of teaching him or herself things. When you're out in the real world, in a job, no one sits by you telling you what the relevant skills to learn are and making sure you learn them. It's up to you to pick out and pick up on these things, so I would argue that having a teacher be intimately involved with your own learning process all the time when you are college aged is regressive and counterproductive. What is the use of professors then? Most professors, I would hope, are producing something of value to the world beyond their small academic field. Even an african-american literature professor can be an "expert" on black cultural trends and attitudes in contemporary America who may be interviewed on a TV talk show or cited in the newspaper. This kind of knowledge is not purely academic, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. Now, it is this, rather than book knowledge, that you get the unique opportunity to experience in college.

In one of you previous comments you wrote: "The main aim of college is to educate us in academics. After all, where else can you go for an education like that?" Actually, I think that high school is a pretty accurate answer to your question. I for one would hope that my college experience offers something my high school experience didn't.

We Have a Comment!

Itt looks like my previous post on academic specialization has generated a comment. Reader P.F. writes:

Specialization is inevitable as our knowledge branches out to every known and unknown corners of this world, physical and theoretical. There is indeed, more and more to learn, and more basic information in every subject to swallow. The question is, at what point should we start specialize and does specialization put us on an irrevocable path that is devoid of real world attachment and application?

I, on the other hand, have thought that your undergraduate education provides what you probably will never experience once you step into the work force. Classes in esoterics, ancient history, classic theories and advanced science are doors that will likely never be opened again for you after college. Certainly, most of them have no practical value in the real world. They don't necessarily make you a better citizen. The society as a whole teaches you how to be a good citizen, not an institution. In college, you still have time off school to get a little taste of the the world outside of the academia through your part-time jobs, internships, traveling, etc. In school, it depends on the individuals to seek out problems to solve and challenges to take on academically and socially. Out in the real world, problems thrusted upon you no matter how ready you are. So it is a personal choice as to how much exposure of the real world you want to have before entering the jungle; college neither limits or, in your words, broadens such opportunity. The main aim of college is to educate us in academics. After all, where else can you go for an education like that?

A few points:

The point is not to end specialization. Specialization is inevitable at this point in history, barring some kind of massive civilization meltdown. The point isn't that we should halt the progress of knowledge from probing deeper into specific areas of inquiry, or that we should prevent the formation of a class of specialists who get to know limited areas of knowledge very well; both of these are probably inevitable given the limitations of the human intellect and the current stage of sophistication in many fields.

And there's nothing inherently obscure or inapplicable about specialization. In the sciences at least, specialization simply reflects the wide scope of things capable of being explained by research.

About the "college experience," I don't at all agree with the view that college is the last time you have to study impractical, intellectual things, that once you graduate some door to learning is closed behind you. If you have a job that doesn't stimulate you in this respect then go to a library after work. There are more scholarly works available to you in your local library network than you could possibly care to finish. You're not going to be getting a class in them, but are books in classics, ancient history or history of science so difficult that you'll require a class to help you understand them? To motivate you?

Given that the world is becoming a more complicated place with "problems being thrust upon you no matter how ready you are," the goal of any college concerned with the future well-being of its students should be to cultivate the skill of applying known knowledge to new problems. The best way to do this is to teach how the methods of the past and today are being used to solve today's problems, not studying some narrow academic field devoid of context.

David Brooks on Why You Shouldn't Go to College (again)

Judging from his previous column on the utter baselessness of college admissions, one would think that David Brooks really hates college. But this column which critiques esoterica in academia makes a much needed point:

It is no accident that Worthen and so many others are drawn to a teacher who is not a lifelong academic, but who was active in the real world. Yet our universities operate too much like a guild system, throwing plenty of people with dissertations at students, not enough with practical knowledge.

Why aren't there more scholars, like Hill, Gaddis and Kennedy, who teach students to be generalists, to see the great connections? Instead, the academy encourages squirrel-like specialization.

Too many universities have become professionalized information-transmission systems, when teaching should instead be this sort of relationship between the experienced Hill and the young Worthen, on whom little now is lost.

Bomb Breaks 4 Month Lull in Israel

In more unfortunate news, there was an explosion set off by Palestinian militants in Tel Aviv today, killing one. It was the first explosion like it in Israel since March 14th.

Let's listen to the international response:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in Bangkok, Thailand, for the World AIDS Conference, condemned the attack and sent his "sincere sympathy to Israel and the families of the victims."

"No cause whatsoever can justify terrorism," he said. "In this connection, the Secretary-General urges the Palestinian Authority to do everything possible to end terror."

Does referring to yourself in the third person constitute a weaker form of a statement? I don't know what that's about. Next response:

"We are against all bombings like this," said Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

I think he should just say "no comment" from now on.

The real news, however, is to be made by Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the group claiming responsibility for the bombing, whose spokesman asserted after the bombing, "This says that we can reach every place, even when there is a fence." This strikes me as very unlikely. I suppose the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades could have waited until everyone thought they were completely safe, and then suddenly detonated a huge surprise attack to shatter everyone's sense of confidence. But the authorities are reporting that this blast was caused by a five pound bomb, hidden in the bushes alongside a bus-stop - hardly the kind of blast that says, "see, you're not safe anywhere." I'm not an expert in terrorist bombs, believe it or not, but that does seem like a relatively small bomb.

Actually it seems to me that Palestinian terrorist groups would be trying as hard as possible to sustain their previous level of attacks in spite of the wall, since what better endorsement is there for a temporary security wall than the fact that it's working? Certainly I have been converted to a supporter of the wall. At first I thought it was merely going to be inflammatory but now it's clear that it's saving lives on both sides. It also continues to put pressure on the Palestinian leadership to reform itself into a viable negotiating partner or lose out in the negotiating process altogether. Certainly the people who condemn Israel whenever it defends itself with force should be happy that the wall is making it less necessary. If they're not, what's their good alternative, and do they expect Israel to just do nothing?

It should show the double standard which Israel is weighed against that it is internationally criticized whenever it raids militant groups responsible for attacks on its citizens, but then also criticized when it enacts a plan for unilateral disengagement so that it doesn't have to. Ultimately the wall is supposed to be a temporary measure, and I hope it is. But for now, it gives Israel a non-violent way to unilaterally disengage itself from the Palestinians while protecting its own citizens from terror attacks.

John Kerry Chooses...YOU!

So it looks like Kerry chose a running mate while I was away. Newspapers don't usually screw this kind of news up, but when they do it's always kind of funny. The New York Post, New York's version of the Boston Herald, was behind the latest lapse of journalistic veracity, by printing a story that announced that Gephardt was John Kerry's VP candidate.

The New York Post, in a front page gaffe reminiscent of the 1948 headline wrongly announcing President Truman's defeat, proclaimed Tuesday that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would select Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate.

"KERRY'S CHOICE," read the headline over the page one "exclusive" story. "Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate."

It's good to know that their journalists have such an intrepid respect for the facts that they printed up an entire story ahead of time about something that never happened. On the other hand, it's only the New York Post, a third-rate newspaper. Oh, but it's not their first time!

Last October, after the New York Yankees defeated the Boston Red Sox in the American League playoffs, the Post mistakenly ran an editorial bemoaning the home team's loss. Post Editor in Chief Col Allan blamed that foul-up on a simple production error.

Production error? Like we went ahead and produced two versions of the story and the one we released turned out to be not the one that happened? This is especially troubling because it was an editorial, and editorials are supposed to be gut reactions to actual events, not something some guy writes up hypothetically, although in this case I think the error speaks more to the fact that Yankees fans have far less confidence in their corporate monstrosity of a team than they like to convey.

In the case of the latest gaffe, the post cites "inaccurate information" as being responsible for the mixup:

Post editor in chief Col Allan said in a statement that he made the decision to go with the Gephardt story based on information that turned out to be inaccurate. He did not elaborate.

I wonder what the source of that bad tip was? Hmmmm:

The Daily News gleefully chortled Wednesday's front page about the embarrassing Tuesday "exclusive" by its fierce rival in naming Rep. Richard Gephardt rather than Sen. John Edwards as Democrat John Kerry's choice to be his running mate for the White House.

In the latest skirmish between the morning newspapers in their nearly century-old battle for New York's blue-collar readership, the Daily News cover blared "KERRY'S REAL CHOICE," with a picture of Kerry and Edwards.

"N.C. Sen. John Edwards will be the Democratic veep candidate, and the Post is wrong again," added the Daily News, which is privately owned by publisher Mort Zuckerman.

Welcome Adam

Following Noah's lead, I will take it upon myself to welcome myself back from my 5 day long stay in New York City. A large contingent of my family lives in New York so I'm no stranger to the place. But being in New York for the first time without parents allowed me to put some things I've always noticed about New Yorkers into light:

* They're all obsessed with shopping. I used to just write this off to a culture of japiness, whatever that means. Now I understand what's behind it: in New York there's so much to buy, and so much of it is good stuff you would want, as opposed to the stuff you can buy around here.

* They're status and image-conscious. Then I realized, when you're from New York, it's not like you live in a rich town or a poor town, you live the same place as everyone else. The only way to define yourself status-wise is to wear it on your sleeve, literally.

* They have this sense of self-importance, like they're living at the center of the world. Because they do, at least financially speaking, and probably commercially as well. They have every right to be proud and self-important. New York is a microcosm of everything that works about America: open free society, capitalism, lots of ethnic diversity melding harmoniously - and it works so well that it's the greatest city in the world. I think that's something to be proud about. Going from one amazing building to the next, I couldn't help but think that these buildings are the equivalent of royal palaces in other countries, except the difference is that in this country they're completely open to anyone and everyone. And then I thought that's what makes our country great.

Brooks Still a Sociologist

David Brooks has apparently not given up on sociology, as evidenced by his column this week. I'll put on my sociologist's hat and do my best to keep up. This week, David writes about one of his favorite things: cultural segregation. After doing lots of research, he puts forth the conclusion that political and cultural polarization in America are increasing, and that this effect is structural. This is because a) Americans are better educated and b) the information-based economy leaves people more flexible in choosing their residence.

To a large degree, polarization in America is a cultural consequence of the information age. This sort of economy demands and encourages education, and an educated electorate is a polarized electorate.

In theory, of course, education is supposed to help us think independently, to weigh evidence and make up our own minds. But that's not how it works in the real world...

Once you've joined a side, the information age makes it easier for you to surround yourself with people like yourself. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past generation, it's that we are really into self-validation.

I think he's right, but the point is a little too ambitious to try to get across in a single column, and leaves questions. Like why would education make people more radical? Maybe it's time for another treatise.

This clip highlights one of David Brooks' favorite ideas, his "social modules" idea. Basically, it states that American culture is on the whole remarkably unhierarchical, because it lacks a uniform basis for defining status. Bankers, lawyers, inventors, sports stars all populate America's elite, and likewise, no singular kind of excellence holds preeminence over any other. On the other hand, within any given endeavors, there are clearly defined criteria for achievement which in turn define status within that field. So America is modularly hierarchical. The problem with this is that it's a little too utopian. A preeminent sports star certainly has more status than a preeminent school teacher, and Brooks has to know this. What determines the differential value of various endeavors?

Here's an answer I would venture: Say there's a social role for both athletes and teachers. The value of each profession as a whole is determined by how much money it can bring in. Even if sports stars and teachers are equally valuable to a society, there are many more teachers than sports stars, and thus the benefits of that profession are spread thinner and individual teachers are valued less than individual sports stars.

Hyperbole, Conspiracy, and the Best Target a Liberal Could Wish For

Like Bowling for Columbine and even more than Roger and Me, Michael Moore’s latest film is skillfully crafted piece of rhetoric. Facts, speculations, opinions and conspiracy theories are combined to provide what is supposed to be a K.O. indictment of the Bush administration. From the misguided war in Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to incompetence of our current commander and chief, the Bush administration supplies Moore with plenty of ammunition. An effective critique of the president should not require either hyperbole or conspiracy. That Moore relies on such strategies, as he does in his previous films, is therefore a disappointment. The time Fahrenheit 911 spends exposing dubious ties between the Bush and Bin Laden dynasties could have been used to more thoroughly dissect the Patriot Act or examine the administrations stonewalling of the press. The effect of Moore’s overkill is that in searching for a sinister plot he overlooks many of the most relevant and important, though perhaps more banal, transgressions of the administration.

That being said, there was much I liked in the film and I didn’t expect anything else from this filmmaker. Moore is to the left what Rush Limbaugh is to the right: a polemicist entertainer for whom provoking a reaction is of greater importance than giving a coherent, or completely truthful, argument and in this role he’s damn good. A scene in which Bush reads Peter and the Wolf to a group of elementary school kids for several minutes after being told that America is under attack (the truth of this is confirmed by the 9/11 Commission’s report) visually exemplifies the Commander and Chief’s utter incompetence. As he sits there he looks confused and nervous, like a man who is way, way over his head and that is exactly what he is.