19 ms·

Hate to pull an ad hominem attack, but do we expect any other opinion from someone so entrenched within the existing higher education world? Robinson, who has

Hate to pull an ad hominem attack, but do we expect any other opinion from someone so entrenched within the existing higher education world? Robinson, who has taught at a number of colleges and universities, including her current position at the Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, identified a troubling trend in higher education today. Acedemics and hackers alike tend to idealize their choices, and often turn a blind eye to those that don't fit their chosen educational or business model. Also, "self-discovery" works only for those that have the luxury to explore without the pressures to support themselves or their immediate family.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Cuts both ways: makes her an expert at her field, no? Can we now criticize and ignore experts because they're 'entrenched'?
- josefresco 11y ago
  Bias is always an important consideration. Yes IMHO we should discount (not ignore) opinions from those heavily entrenched on either side of this argument (which is why I mentioned hackers). There's no one solution that applies to everyone. Some need "self discovery" but can't afford it, some need job training but are pressured to obtain a degree solely for the prestige. I'd like to hear from voices without extensive skin in the game. This includes the other extreme, such as successful business people who advocate against higher education simply because that's the route they chose.
- jff 11y ago
  This reminds me of how philosophers seem to spend 50% of their time writing about how important philosophy is. The other 50% is often spent writing philosophy based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic (see: any philosophy of technology book)
bmj 11y ago
Also, "self-discovery" works only for those that have the luxury to explore without the pressures to support themselves or their immediate family. Not every writer or artist is embedded in academia. Robinson's point is that we as a culture are becoming more utilitarian, and therefore losing any sense of the importance of the arts. Certainly, she is most interested in the university setting, but I think her critique applies outside of the academy as well.
autarch 11y ago
> Hate to pull an ad hominem attack This is by no means ad hominem. That would be more "Robinson is a mean person so whatever she says is worthless". Questioning someone's biases is an entirely valid line of argument.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Cuts both ways: makes her an expert at her field, no? Can we now criticize and ignore experts because they're 'entrenched'?

josefresco 11y ago
Bias is always an important consideration. Yes IMHO we should discount (not ignore) opinions from those heavily entrenched on either side of this argument (which is why I mentioned hackers). There's no one solution that applies to everyone. Some need "self discovery" but can't afford it, some need job training but are pressured to obtain a degree solely for the prestige. I'd like to hear from voices without extensive skin in the game. This includes the other extreme, such as successful business people who advocate against higher education simply because that's the route they chose.
jff 11y ago
This reminds me of how philosophers seem to spend 50% of their time writing about how important philosophy is. The other 50% is often spent writing philosophy based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic (see: any philosophy of technology book)

bmj 11y ago

Also, "self-discovery" works only for those that have the luxury to explore without the pressures to support themselves or their immediate family. Not every writer or artist is embedded in academia. Robinson's point is that we as a culture are becoming more utilitarian, and therefore losing any sense of the importance of the arts. Certainly, she is most interested in the university setting, but I think her critique applies outside of the academy as well.

autarch 11y ago

> Hate to pull an ad hominem attack This is by no means ad hominem. That would be more "Robinson is a mean person so whatever she says is worthless". Questioning someone's biases is an entirely valid line of argument.