5 ms·

Eagleton used the same exact phrase twice about teaching and research. So much for his great writing skills. I stopped reading after that. This rant is like a

Eagleton used the same exact phrase twice about teaching and research. So much for his great writing skills. I stopped reading after that. This rant is like anything else that could be posted to Crooked Timber. "Oh no! Humanities professors have to work like anyone else, with measurable results. The university is dying!" I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them. Whereas the knowledge, technology, wealth, and all-around good stuff gained from electrical engineering, astrophysics, materials science, etc. is as limitless as the universe.

alberte 11y ago
>I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them. I believe someone from the humanities would have trouble with this statement. Of what use is all the techno gadgets if we lose what makes us human? I'm a techie, but I've also studied some humanities, and delve into some in my spare time, things like communication, psychology, arts these all make life a lot richer, even if they do have less flashing lights. Humanities professors on the other hand have had it pretty easy, and that seems to be coming to an end, the same for universities in general. It's something I'm torn about, I always loved my time at university, but the reason I went there was for the knowledge, because that was where it was stored. Now universities are in many ways obsolete - all the knowledge is in the cloud. If you need to ask an expert then just ask online, so we still need experts, just the renumeration model is being disrupted - like everyone elses pretty well. What we do need is critical thinking, and traditionally this was what was taught in an arts degree. In many ways the academics have done this to themselves, by dumbing down degrees and focusing more on 'business' outcomes they've eliminated what was the defining characteristic of a degree and it is now just a set of check boxes, which of course you don't need a uni for. I blame the MBA's - the cultureless hoards of middle management that suck the life out of everything that's not quantifiable and can be entered on a spread sheet.
- jackcosgrove 11y ago
  I got a degree in the social sciences and most of the stuff they talk about is just made up. As in, psychology studies cannot be replicated, literature criticism is all just opinion, political science insights are just common sense with weasel words. It's fine as a dalliance or avocation, but there's no there there, intellectually. Science and engineering are so much more honest about the truth and what constitutes knowledge than the humanities and social sciences. The latter two nowadays are mostly rhetoric with a political slant, anyways.
  - alberte 11y ago
    You do make my point well. What used to be taught in an arts degree is how to structure an argument, e.g. 'psychology studies cannot be replicated' should really be 'some psychology studies cannot be replicated' use of the existential quantifier changes the statement totally. This used to be taught in a first year philosophy subject, but do they even teach philosophy any more?
    - jackcosgrove 11y ago
      You're trying to change the topic based on grammatical nitpicking, while being haughty in the process and ignoring the larger point. I spy an academic! And for anyone who actually cares about this point, there was a well known study of psychological experiment replicability I was alluding to which should be part of the assumed context for anyone discussing such topics. It is also painfully formalistic to attach qualifiers to every statement when that is not the cant of a forum like this. You should know this, but instead you're latching onto a lingusitic formalism as a defense of your point instead of arguing the point head-on. Sorry humanities people. The science and technology people are way more useful than you and most of them are smarter than you too. There is no intellectual equivalency between the domains despite the perennial protestations of the humanities faculty.
      - alberte 11y ago
        It's not grammatical nitpicking it's teleological nitpicking. You've made some incredibly broad statements without a shred of evidence, this I grant you is the norm for an internet forum, however it is not something that an arts graduate should be involved in. That was one of the points of an arts degree - critical thinking. Thats one of the reasons they called it an ivory tower imho, because instead of indulging in tabloid rants academics argued in logical progression to make their point. If we lose this, then it will be a sad day imho. Edit: PG even wrote a post on this http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - superuser2 11y ago
    And yet at this moment you are engaged in philosophy. People should grapple with these questions in a sustained, deliberate way, with reference to what's already been said and where arguments are evaluated critically by many eyes. That's what academia is for.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >I blame the MBA's - the cultureless hoards of middle management that suck the life out of everything that's not quantifiable and can be entered on a spread sheet. Oh please. You were doing fine up to that point. There's always been a tension between theory and practice.
  - alberte 11y ago
    I'm not sure how this relates to MBA's? Please expand if you would
    - ghaff 11y ago
      The rest of the comment: "What we do need is critical thinking, and traditionally this was what was taught in an arts degree. In many ways the academics have done this to themselves, by dumbing down degrees and focusing more on 'business' outcomes they've eliminated what was the defining characteristic of a degree and it is now just a set of check boxes, which of course you don't need a uni for." What I took away was an assertion that degrees are now about checking off practical checkboxes and that this is the fault of MBAs. My take is that there has always been a tradeoff between broader education and teaching critical thinking with learning specific skills.
      - alberte 11y ago
        yes I see your point. Mine was degrees have been dumbed down and in many was are glorified vocational courses now, the courses have more people, a greater student to teacher ratio, and stray from theoretical considerations to the more immediate. The driver for this is cost and what can be readily identified as a useful function by the bean counters (said MBA's). Some thing's are easy to quantify and this is what the focus is on. How do you quantify something like critical thinking, what quantifiable value is there in a knowledge of history - how do these things help little Johnny get a job. Well they don't really. I think of the results of learning these things as emergent properties, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Wouldn't it be more interesting to have a population educated in the humanities? wouldn't a democratic society be better served by a population educated with at least a base in the humanities? A society of people that can make rational arguments and evaluate the political arguments of the day would be a lot different from the one we live in now. These sort of arguments are for a qualitative change - and I don't see how you can quantify them in a spread sheet. The thinking that drives MBA’s currently drives education from what I can see - keep costs down, standard courses, pack as many into a class as you can, and so on.
Chinjut 11y ago
> I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them. Whereas the knowledge, technology, wealth, and all-around good stuff gained from electrical engineering, astrophysics, materials science, etc. is as limitless as the universe. What a fatuous statement. One could just as well say the humanities are as limitless as human thought and experience.
- jackcosgrove 11y ago
  The humanities will not extend human lifespan, bring us to new planets, or end suffering caused by disease. It's not fatuous at all. It boils down to replicability and universality, and the sciences produce techniques that are replicable and knowledge that is universal.
  - Fomite 11y ago
    The humanities may help stop things that shorten human lifespans, like war, or health disparities. The sanitation movement that did so much for ending suffering caused by disease was as much a product of the humanities as it was science, and this is from an epidemiologist.
    - tmptmp 11y ago
      I disagree. Far many times it has been seen that the humanities have just sided with the rulers (especially true in case of communists) so that they be spared. It is a fashion amongst many humanities people in the western world to criticize the western systems and to please their ideological masters and glean any benefits out of it. Do we see any humanities criticizing the communism and Marxism based on the flaws in these corrupt ideologies? No. We see them criticizing only the western system. I am not to say that western market based capitalist system is a panacia but it orders of magnitude better than the communism and Marxism based hell.
      - Fomite 11y ago
        "Far many times it has been seen that the humanities have just sided with the rulers (especially true in case of communists) so that they be spared." Because lord knows scientists have never worked with horrific regimes, right? "Do we see any humanities criticizing the communism and Marxism based on the flaws in these corrupt ideologies?" Umm...I see these all the time. Indeed, my first encounter with both Marx and the flaws of that system were from the humanities.
norswap 11y ago
I don't think he complained about professors having to work. Of course you need both science and liberal arts. "Science without conscience is the soul's perdition." and on the other hand "I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do."

alberte 11y ago

>I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them. I believe someone from the humanities would have trouble with this statement. Of what use is all the techno gadgets if we lose what makes us human? I'm a techie, but I've also studied some humanities, and delve into some in my spare time, things like communication, psychology, arts these all make life a lot richer, even if they do have less flashing lights. Humanities professors on the other hand have had it pretty easy, and that seems to be coming to an end, the same for universities in general. It's something I'm torn about, I always loved my time at university, but the reason I went there was for the knowledge, because that was where it was stored. Now universities are in many ways obsolete - all the knowledge is in the cloud. If you need to ask an expert then just ask online, so we still need experts, just the renumeration model is being disrupted - like everyone elses pretty well. What we do need is critical thinking, and traditionally this was what was taught in an arts degree. In many ways the academics have done this to themselves, by dumbing down degrees and focusing more on 'business' outcomes they've eliminated what was the defining characteristic of a degree and it is now just a set of check boxes, which of course you don't need a uni for. I blame the MBA's - the cultureless hoards of middle management that suck the life out of everything that's not quantifiable and can be entered on a spread sheet.

jackcosgrove 11y ago
I got a degree in the social sciences and most of the stuff they talk about is just made up. As in, psychology studies cannot be replicated, literature criticism is all just opinion, political science insights are just common sense with weasel words. It's fine as a dalliance or avocation, but there's no there there, intellectually. Science and engineering are so much more honest about the truth and what constitutes knowledge than the humanities and social sciences. The latter two nowadays are mostly rhetoric with a political slant, anyways.
- alberte 11y ago
  You do make my point well. What used to be taught in an arts degree is how to structure an argument, e.g. 'psychology studies cannot be replicated' should really be 'some psychology studies cannot be replicated' use of the existential quantifier changes the statement totally. This used to be taught in a first year philosophy subject, but do they even teach philosophy any more?
  - jackcosgrove 11y ago
    You're trying to change the topic based on grammatical nitpicking, while being haughty in the process and ignoring the larger point. I spy an academic! And for anyone who actually cares about this point, there was a well known study of psychological experiment replicability I was alluding to which should be part of the assumed context for anyone discussing such topics. It is also painfully formalistic to attach qualifiers to every statement when that is not the cant of a forum like this. You should know this, but instead you're latching onto a lingusitic formalism as a defense of your point instead of arguing the point head-on. Sorry humanities people. The science and technology people are way more useful than you and most of them are smarter than you too. There is no intellectual equivalency between the domains despite the perennial protestations of the humanities faculty.
    - alberte 11y ago
      It's not grammatical nitpicking it's teleological nitpicking. You've made some incredibly broad statements without a shred of evidence, this I grant you is the norm for an internet forum, however it is not something that an arts graduate should be involved in. That was one of the points of an arts degree - critical thinking. Thats one of the reasons they called it an ivory tower imho, because instead of indulging in tabloid rants academics argued in logical progression to make their point. If we lose this, then it will be a sad day imho. Edit: PG even wrote a post on this http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- superuser2 11y ago
  And yet at this moment you are engaged in philosophy. People should grapple with these questions in a sustained, deliberate way, with reference to what's already been said and where arguments are evaluated critically by many eyes. That's what academia is for.
ghaff 11y ago
>I blame the MBA's - the cultureless hoards of middle management that suck the life out of everything that's not quantifiable and can be entered on a spread sheet. Oh please. You were doing fine up to that point. There's always been a tension between theory and practice.
- alberte 11y ago
  I'm not sure how this relates to MBA's? Please expand if you would
  - ghaff 11y ago
    The rest of the comment: "What we do need is critical thinking, and traditionally this was what was taught in an arts degree. In many ways the academics have done this to themselves, by dumbing down degrees and focusing more on 'business' outcomes they've eliminated what was the defining characteristic of a degree and it is now just a set of check boxes, which of course you don't need a uni for." What I took away was an assertion that degrees are now about checking off practical checkboxes and that this is the fault of MBAs. My take is that there has always been a tradeoff between broader education and teaching critical thinking with learning specific skills.
    - alberte 11y ago
      yes I see your point. Mine was degrees have been dumbed down and in many was are glorified vocational courses now, the courses have more people, a greater student to teacher ratio, and stray from theoretical considerations to the more immediate. The driver for this is cost and what can be readily identified as a useful function by the bean counters (said MBA's). Some thing's are easy to quantify and this is what the focus is on. How do you quantify something like critical thinking, what quantifiable value is there in a knowledge of history - how do these things help little Johnny get a job. Well they don't really. I think of the results of learning these things as emergent properties, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Wouldn't it be more interesting to have a population educated in the humanities? wouldn't a democratic society be better served by a population educated with at least a base in the humanities? A society of people that can make rational arguments and evaluate the political arguments of the day would be a lot different from the one we live in now. These sort of arguments are for a qualitative change - and I don't see how you can quantify them in a spread sheet. The thinking that drives MBA’s currently drives education from what I can see - keep costs down, standard courses, pack as many into a class as you can, and so on.

Chinjut 11y ago

> I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them. Whereas the knowledge, technology, wealth, and all-around good stuff gained from electrical engineering, astrophysics, materials science, etc. is as limitless as the universe. What a fatuous statement. One could just as well say the humanities are as limitless as human thought and experience.

jackcosgrove 11y ago
The humanities will not extend human lifespan, bring us to new planets, or end suffering caused by disease. It's not fatuous at all. It boils down to replicability and universality, and the sciences produce techniques that are replicable and knowledge that is universal.
- Fomite 11y ago
  The humanities may help stop things that shorten human lifespans, like war, or health disparities. The sanitation movement that did so much for ending suffering caused by disease was as much a product of the humanities as it was science, and this is from an epidemiologist.
  - tmptmp 11y ago
    I disagree. Far many times it has been seen that the humanities have just sided with the rulers (especially true in case of communists) so that they be spared. It is a fashion amongst many humanities people in the western world to criticize the western systems and to please their ideological masters and glean any benefits out of it. Do we see any humanities criticizing the communism and Marxism based on the flaws in these corrupt ideologies? No. We see them criticizing only the western system. I am not to say that western market based capitalist system is a panacia but it orders of magnitude better than the communism and Marxism based hell.
    - Fomite 11y ago
      "Far many times it has been seen that the humanities have just sided with the rulers (especially true in case of communists) so that they be spared." Because lord knows scientists have never worked with horrific regimes, right? "Do we see any humanities criticizing the communism and Marxism based on the flaws in these corrupt ideologies?" Umm...I see these all the time. Indeed, my first encounter with both Marx and the flaws of that system were from the humanities.

norswap 11y ago

I don't think he complained about professors having to work. Of course you need both science and liberal arts. "Science without conscience is the soul's perdition." and on the other hand "I have been impressed with the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Being willing is not enough; we must do."