30 ms·

Not to contradict your conclusion, but I believe "folks" in general have it easier now. But the "folks that went to university" 200 years ago had it easier than

by soneca 11y ago

Not to contradict your conclusion, but I believe "folks" in general have it easier now. But the "folks that went to university" 200 years ago had it easier than "folks that go to university" now. 200 years ago the privileges of the elite were much more permanent and resilient than they are now. And even if this is false, the university was much more exclusive back then. Meaning it was a much more elite elite.

cstross 11y ago
200 years ago, we're talking about 1815. Universities were largely training schools for clergymen; surgeons were jumped-up barbers: medical doctors were a trade guild taught by apprenticeship -- only in 1815 in England with the passing of the Apothecaries Act was a requirement introduced for those practicing as doctors without a university degree to be examined for a license. Women were excluded not only from higher education but from education in general (with the exception of a governess or tutor for the daughters of well-to-do families), and the really privileged didn't bother with university at all -- that was for younger sons, the eldest (inheriting) sons went to Eton or Harrow then into the House of Lords. The great flowering of universities as colleges of liberal arts -- and of scientific research in general -- happened a lot later, generally in the 1870-1970 period. History is another planet, populated by fascinating aliens.
- mc32 11y ago
  And so you see how easily this novelist fell for a romantic vision of liberal arts which enrich us all and free us of mental shackles and deliver us to the "promise" land of enlightened beings.
  - cstross 11y ago
    Speaking as a novelist myself, I think she's exactly right. (And yes, I have a CS degree. Oddly, it didn't teach me anything useful about participation in civic life or how to understand the ethical implications of a proposed course of action.)
    - mc32 11y ago
      That is great. It's nice that people can be successful in a liberal arts career. I applaud it, but I don't think we should try to emphasize it when people are simply looking for a way to make a living. Sure, emphasize it in K-12, but don't structure it as a career path. Rather something which supplements a path to career.
      - ska 11y ago
        There is a difference between a "liberal arts career" and a "liberal arts education". Arguably the latter is exactly what you describe (supplementing).
- soneca 11y ago
  Thanks, nice comment. I used the "200 years" loosely, and I was thinking more about my country (Brazil). Here the first college was founded in 1827 (a law school) and was completely top-elite focused; basically a politician/ruling class training school. History is a lot of planets, populated by diverse aliens.

by soneca 11y ago

cstross 11y ago

200 years ago, we're talking about 1815. Universities were largely training schools for clergymen; surgeons were jumped-up barbers: medical doctors were a trade guild taught by apprenticeship -- only in 1815 in England with the passing of the Apothecaries Act was a requirement introduced for those practicing as doctors without a university degree to be examined for a license. Women were excluded not only from higher education but from education in general (with the exception of a governess or tutor for the daughters of well-to-do families), and the really privileged didn't bother with university at all -- that was for younger sons, the eldest (inheriting) sons went to Eton or Harrow then into the House of Lords. The great flowering of universities as colleges of liberal arts -- and of scientific research in general -- happened a lot later, generally in the 1870-1970 period. History is another planet, populated by fascinating aliens.

mc32 11y ago
And so you see how easily this novelist fell for a romantic vision of liberal arts which enrich us all and free us of mental shackles and deliver us to the "promise" land of enlightened beings.
- cstross 11y ago
  Speaking as a novelist myself, I think she's exactly right. (And yes, I have a CS degree. Oddly, it didn't teach me anything useful about participation in civic life or how to understand the ethical implications of a proposed course of action.)
  - mc32 11y ago
    That is great. It's nice that people can be successful in a liberal arts career. I applaud it, but I don't think we should try to emphasize it when people are simply looking for a way to make a living. Sure, emphasize it in K-12, but don't structure it as a career path. Rather something which supplements a path to career.
    - ska 11y ago
      There is a difference between a "liberal arts career" and a "liberal arts education". Arguably the latter is exactly what you describe (supplementing).
soneca 11y ago
Thanks, nice comment. I used the "200 years" loosely, and I was thinking more about my country (Brazil). Here the first college was founded in 1827 (a law school) and was completely top-elite focused; basically a politician/ruling class training school. History is a lot of planets, populated by diverse aliens.