There have been a couple of posts on this blog earlier this year discussing the limits of the good of a humanities education. Blogger John Armstrong recently shared his thoughts in a similar vein.
I have amassed plenty of formal education (including a master's degree in which the diploma is written in Latin, which I find very pretentious, so I don't display it). In my growing up, formal education was basically a part of the cultural environment of the home - both parents with PhDs (I remember people calling asking for "Dr. ___________" and I had to ask the caller which one), and all four of my grandparents even had at least a four-year degree, with three of them holding graduate degrees. It was just always pretty much assumed that I and my two younger siblings would earn bachelor's degrees at the very least. Two of us have gone the formal education route, and the third easily could have, but had employable skills in the technology (software development) field, and he couldn't resist making good money so never finished a formal degree. My degree is in humanities; my sister's at least is a practical one in nursing, which she uses in real life.
A humanities degree has worked out for me only because I knew in college that my profession would require a certain type of masters degree anyways, so I could study whatever the heck I wanted in college - I still would have to go on a step further. If I had not known then what profession I would be entering, the degree would have left me with nowhere to go in the real world. Even though I found the subject matter interesting, I would not make the same choice now, 10 years after graduation. In fact, if I ever wanted to change professions, neither of my formal degrees would matter at all - I would pretty much have to start from scratch.
All of this on my mind because I now have the role of being a father myself. It is important to me that I be careful not to let the kinds of assumptions that were in place for me be in place for my children. The world of the next generation will only see continuing specializations in terms of professional opportunities; unless my children show a particular aptitude for humanities, I will most certainly steer them away from such a course of study. It may leave the world a somewhat less culturally enriched place, but hopefully it will spare my children impoverished existences in the kind of global marketplace that will develop during their lifetimes. The world in which I grew up, one that encouraged college as a way to secure a good life for yourself, simply is not the world that is down the road.
Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label higher education. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Question of the Day
Frank Warren, the artist behind Post Secret, recently delivered the commencement address at St. Mary’s College in Maryland. In preparation for it, he asked members of the graduating class to write a one-sentence response to the question “What do my classmates, and I, need to hear on Graduation Day?” Here are a few of his responses:Be wise enough not to be reckless, but brave enough to take great risks.
It’s okay to fail – learn from it and you will succeed.
It’s better to be pissed-off than pissed-on.
If you were to asked to deliver a commencement speech that was only one sentence long, what would it be?
Friday, February 06, 2009
Is College a Scam?
Kathy Kristof recently wrote in Forbes (H/T) that a college education, for many people, does not pay off its cost. I can certainly understand: I went to a rather pricey liberal arts college and it is only now starting to pay off with a salary really commensurate with the tuition cost and lost income for four years there.
But Kristof went a step further and argued that college education is a scam perpetrated by the education industry to encourage young people to incur huge debts that will not be paid off by subsequent income:
The two disillusioned attorneys were victims of an unfolding education hoax on the middle class that's just as insidious, and nearly as sweeping, as the housing debacle. The ingredients are strikingly similar, too: Misguided easy-money policies that are encouraging the masses to go into debt; a self-serving establishment trading in half-truths that exaggerate the value of its product; plus a Wall Street money machine dabbling in outright fraud as it foists unaffordable debt on the most vulnerable marks.
I'm inclined to accept Hanlon's Razor on this one, especially as I've seen how groupthink can operate within an organization, wherein salespeople can start to really believe that their product is essential for the prospective customer. As for my own case, I knew, going into my history major, that job prospects would be challenging, but did it anyway. I blame no one for my decision but myself, although I would now choose a career based upon financial return, rather than personal interest.
But I'm glad that even in college I had some connection with market realities, as well as lacked the money necessary to attempt something really foolish. Namely, go to graduate school and become a medieval historian. That was my dream, back in the day. English professor Thomas Benton wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education (H/T) that it is exceedingly risky, if not foolish, to acquire doctoral degrees in the humanities:
Most undergraduates don't realize that there is a shrinking percentage of positions in the humanities that offer job security, benefits, and a livable salary (though it is generally much lower than salaries in other fields requiring as many years of training). They don't know that you probably will have to accept living almost anywhere, and that you must also go through a six-year probationary period at the end of which you may be fired for any number of reasons and find yourself exiled from the profession. They seem to think becoming a humanities professor is a reliable prospect — a more responsible and secure choice than, say, attempting to make it as a freelance writer, or an actor, or a professional athlete — and, as a result, they don't make any fallback plans until it is too late.
Some people make it into academia. Good for them. But the risks are so very, very high, that anyone studying the humanities -- at the graduate or undergraduate levels -- should be fully aware of the real hazards of choosing personal interests over marketability.
But Kristof went a step further and argued that college education is a scam perpetrated by the education industry to encourage young people to incur huge debts that will not be paid off by subsequent income:
The two disillusioned attorneys were victims of an unfolding education hoax on the middle class that's just as insidious, and nearly as sweeping, as the housing debacle. The ingredients are strikingly similar, too: Misguided easy-money policies that are encouraging the masses to go into debt; a self-serving establishment trading in half-truths that exaggerate the value of its product; plus a Wall Street money machine dabbling in outright fraud as it foists unaffordable debt on the most vulnerable marks.
I'm inclined to accept Hanlon's Razor on this one, especially as I've seen how groupthink can operate within an organization, wherein salespeople can start to really believe that their product is essential for the prospective customer. As for my own case, I knew, going into my history major, that job prospects would be challenging, but did it anyway. I blame no one for my decision but myself, although I would now choose a career based upon financial return, rather than personal interest.
But I'm glad that even in college I had some connection with market realities, as well as lacked the money necessary to attempt something really foolish. Namely, go to graduate school and become a medieval historian. That was my dream, back in the day. English professor Thomas Benton wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education (H/T) that it is exceedingly risky, if not foolish, to acquire doctoral degrees in the humanities:
Most undergraduates don't realize that there is a shrinking percentage of positions in the humanities that offer job security, benefits, and a livable salary (though it is generally much lower than salaries in other fields requiring as many years of training). They don't know that you probably will have to accept living almost anywhere, and that you must also go through a six-year probationary period at the end of which you may be fired for any number of reasons and find yourself exiled from the profession. They seem to think becoming a humanities professor is a reliable prospect — a more responsible and secure choice than, say, attempting to make it as a freelance writer, or an actor, or a professional athlete — and, as a result, they don't make any fallback plans until it is too late.
Some people make it into academia. Good for them. But the risks are so very, very high, that anyone studying the humanities -- at the graduate or undergraduate levels -- should be fully aware of the real hazards of choosing personal interests over marketability.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Modern Academy
In the latest issue of City Journal, classics professor Victor Davis Hanson writes about the erosion of the study of the humanities and traditional university education in American campuses:
Over the last four decades, various philosophical and ideological strands united to contribute to the decline of classical education. A creeping vocationalism, for one, displaced much of the liberal arts curriculum in the crowded credit-hours of indebted students. Forfeiting classical learning in order to teach undergraduates a narrow skill (what the Greeks called a technê) was predicated on the shaky notion that undergraduate instruction in business or law would produce superior CEOs or lawyers—and would more successfully inculcate the arts of logic, reasoning, fact-based knowledge, and communication so necessary for professional success.
And good riddance to it.
If I were eighteen again and graduating from high school, I would not have majored in history in college. In fact, I would not have even acquired a 4-year degree at all.
Instead, I would have gone to a community college and acquired an associate's degree in computer technology in a track that would qualify me a network administrator upon graduation. It would not only have saved me tens of thousands of dollars, but earned me more money than my frivolous explorations of medieval Europe, the Latin language, and Biblical studies ever did or could.
Studying the liberal arts expanded my mind and made me ask important questions. And when you get to be an old man of thirty-three years like me and reflect upon one's choices, transcendent truths shine consistently through the dark years.
When I look at all that I have seen and experienced, I think that only one grand thing really matters in life: money.
I've long been drawn to causes, professions, and issues that make the world a better place; that contribute to a greater humanity. But this has all been foolishness and a waste of my youth and opportunities. These were all delusions that led me astray. All that matters is the security of me and mine, and that comes from money, and the power and freedom it purchases.
It's like John Lennon sang "Money is all you need." Or something like that.
Over the last four decades, various philosophical and ideological strands united to contribute to the decline of classical education. A creeping vocationalism, for one, displaced much of the liberal arts curriculum in the crowded credit-hours of indebted students. Forfeiting classical learning in order to teach undergraduates a narrow skill (what the Greeks called a technê) was predicated on the shaky notion that undergraduate instruction in business or law would produce superior CEOs or lawyers—and would more successfully inculcate the arts of logic, reasoning, fact-based knowledge, and communication so necessary for professional success.
And good riddance to it.
If I were eighteen again and graduating from high school, I would not have majored in history in college. In fact, I would not have even acquired a 4-year degree at all.
Instead, I would have gone to a community college and acquired an associate's degree in computer technology in a track that would qualify me a network administrator upon graduation. It would not only have saved me tens of thousands of dollars, but earned me more money than my frivolous explorations of medieval Europe, the Latin language, and Biblical studies ever did or could.
Studying the liberal arts expanded my mind and made me ask important questions. And when you get to be an old man of thirty-three years like me and reflect upon one's choices, transcendent truths shine consistently through the dark years.
When I look at all that I have seen and experienced, I think that only one grand thing really matters in life: money.
I've long been drawn to causes, professions, and issues that make the world a better place; that contribute to a greater humanity. But this has all been foolishness and a waste of my youth and opportunities. These were all delusions that led me astray. All that matters is the security of me and mine, and that comes from money, and the power and freedom it purchases.
It's like John Lennon sang "Money is all you need." Or something like that.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
UMC School Gets Top Ranking in List of Party Schools
Congratulations to Randolph-Macon College, a United Methodist-affiliated who claimed the #6 position in the Princeton Review's list of top party schools in the country.Really, the University Senate should evaluate and rank UMC seminaries based on party-ness.
Now, your homework assignment, dear readers: devise a drinking game appropriate for United Methodists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
