Florida Governor Rick Scott has suggested that universities focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) [defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields ]
rather than on social sciences like anthropology
[link: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/metascience/florida-hates-anthropology-2011.html .
Slate on-line magazine has published a recent article, "America Needs Broadly Educated Citizens, even Anthropologists" at this link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/michael_m_crow_president_of_arizona_state_university_explains_wh.html
In it, Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, argues with Rick Scott, saying:
"As a university president, I can assure Gov. Scott that his approach to both higher education and economic development is misguided and counterproductive. The notion that we must strip away academic programs not seemingly relevant to workforce development reflects a simplistic and retrograde view of the role of higher education in the American economy."
This gets even more quarrelsome and arguementative. Razib Khan, an Unz Foundation Junior Fellow, has a blog on Discover magazine in which he links to all the links above as well as a telling additional source of information, some ratios by Dan Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University (link at:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/survey.htm ) :
rather than on social sciences like anthropology
[link: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/metascience/florida-hates-anthropology-2011.html .
Slate on-line magazine has published a recent article, "America Needs Broadly Educated Citizens, even Anthropologists" at this link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/michael_m_crow_president_of_arizona_state_university_explains_wh.html
In it, Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, argues with Rick Scott, saying:
"As a university president, I can assure Gov. Scott that his approach to both higher education and economic development is misguided and counterproductive. The notion that we must strip away academic programs not seemingly relevant to workforce development reflects a simplistic and retrograde view of the role of higher education in the American economy."
This gets even more quarrelsome and arguementative. Razib Khan, an Unz Foundation Junior Fellow, has a blog on Discover magazine in which he links to all the links above as well as a telling additional source of information, some ratios by Dan Klein, professor of economics at George Mason University (link at:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/survey.htm ) :
"As you can see, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in anthropology is about 30:1. This obviously has an effect in the orientation of the discipline in terms of the values which they impart to their students. A substantial number of anthropologists don’t consider themselves scientists. Quite often they’re clearly activists, and you know very well what direction their activism is going to go. As one of five non-progressive people involved in science communication I have seen firsthand how narrow-minded and partisan people who come out of the social sciences aside from economics can be."
--Razib Khan
And there is more:
"In a straightened fiscal environment I think it’s reasonable to suppose that public education should be focused on fields which have a practical import. Honestly I think that an elaborated land-grant attitude should suffuse more public universities. I emphasize public, because private universities can continue to cherish the idea of a liberal education. And the reality is that the wealthy and upper middle class who tend to attend these private colleges (only 25% of American college students are at private universities, many at relatively non-selective religious institutions) can afford a liberal education because their connections will guarantee them a good job after graduation. In contrast, working class students are unlikely to be approached by any investment banks after getting a degree in history at a public university. The American elite is highly stratified, and the chances are going to be that the top echelons will come from private universities. No surprise that Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are the top three feeder universities for Congress. There shouldn’t be a worry that the American elite is not sufficiently liberally educated, that elite is drawn from a set of top-tier universities where the student body is elite in class and intellectual aptitudes. Social capital and prestige of their institution are such that a degree in English or or history can still go a long way."
-Razib Khan
After giving some examples of liberal arts graduates from fine universities whose understanding of their own specialty is superficial and biased, Khan draws four conclusions:
1 – The professoriate seems inordinately hostile to half the political spectrum. That’s fine if you’re drawing from private resources, but this is not usually the case.
2 – Those without social capital derived from family connections need to accrue specialized technical skills to compensate for their deficit. Upper class and upper middle class individuals with an entree into white collar jobs by virtue of their class status can afford to focus on becoming more polished. Everyone should not be given the same advice, because not everyone starts from the same life circumstances.
3 – The average American college student doesn’t learn much, because they aren’t that bright or intellectually oriented. They don’t do their reading until the last second, and have only marginal passion for the books which they purchase. Your mind can’t be broadened if you barely use it.
4 – Those liberal arts graduates who are very bright are too often enamored of the latest intellectual fashion, and are keener upon signalling their ideological purity and intellectual superiority than actually understanding anything.
--Razib Khan
Khan’s blog of October 24, 2011 is at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/10/think-right-not-deep/
--Razib Khan
And there is more:
"In a straightened fiscal environment I think it’s reasonable to suppose that public education should be focused on fields which have a practical import. Honestly I think that an elaborated land-grant attitude should suffuse more public universities. I emphasize public, because private universities can continue to cherish the idea of a liberal education. And the reality is that the wealthy and upper middle class who tend to attend these private colleges (only 25% of American college students are at private universities, many at relatively non-selective religious institutions) can afford a liberal education because their connections will guarantee them a good job after graduation. In contrast, working class students are unlikely to be approached by any investment banks after getting a degree in history at a public university. The American elite is highly stratified, and the chances are going to be that the top echelons will come from private universities. No surprise that Harvard, Stanford, and Yale are the top three feeder universities for Congress. There shouldn’t be a worry that the American elite is not sufficiently liberally educated, that elite is drawn from a set of top-tier universities where the student body is elite in class and intellectual aptitudes. Social capital and prestige of their institution are such that a degree in English or or history can still go a long way."
-Razib Khan
After giving some examples of liberal arts graduates from fine universities whose understanding of their own specialty is superficial and biased, Khan draws four conclusions:
1 – The professoriate seems inordinately hostile to half the political spectrum. That’s fine if you’re drawing from private resources, but this is not usually the case.
2 – Those without social capital derived from family connections need to accrue specialized technical skills to compensate for their deficit. Upper class and upper middle class individuals with an entree into white collar jobs by virtue of their class status can afford to focus on becoming more polished. Everyone should not be given the same advice, because not everyone starts from the same life circumstances.
3 – The average American college student doesn’t learn much, because they aren’t that bright or intellectually oriented. They don’t do their reading until the last second, and have only marginal passion for the books which they purchase. Your mind can’t be broadened if you barely use it.
4 – Those liberal arts graduates who are very bright are too often enamored of the latest intellectual fashion, and are keener upon signalling their ideological purity and intellectual superiority than actually understanding anything.
--Razib Khan
Khan’s blog of October 24, 2011 is at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/10/think-right-not-deep/
No comments:
Post a Comment