4 ms·

I'm not a fan of this view of the liberal arts. To your concern of being "politically indoctrinated", part of the value of a liberal arts education is being ex

I'm not a fan of this view of the liberal arts. To your concern of being "politically indoctrinated", part of the value of a liberal arts education is being exposed to ideas you might not agree with. If you don't agree with the opinions expressed in a class -- political or otherwise -- there is real value in being challenged to think critically about why you don't agree, and then justifying yourself logically via argument. Honestly, I often found this type of work more intellectually satisfying than in the cases where I agreed with an author/classmate/professor. And this skill set is not purely academic; every one of us here likely utilizes it daily at our jobs. This kind of reasoning is necessary in software development all the time: - Why should I choose X language over Y for this project Z? - Why is my colleague wrong about the source of this bug? - How can I convince his boss that I'm right? (and so on..)

tropo 8y ago
If "being exposed to ideas you might not agree with" is good, then why does that only get applied to students on one side of the political spectrum? Don't the leftist students also deserve the "real value in being challenged to think critically about why you don't agree"? I could count on one hand the places where it goes the other way. Let's see, Bob Jones University...
burfog 8y ago
There is some value in learning how to make a convincing lie. This is what you do if you are sane. You write up a paper about how communism is better, or about how white males are the cause of all badness, or whatever it is that the instructor desires. You don't have to believe a word of it. Practicing this skill isn't worth giving up 2.5% of your life and the cost of a 3-bedroom house. It has absolutely nothing to do with the STEM education that one needs for many jobs in the modern workplace.
- mattkrause 8y ago
  No. You’re not supposed to be advocating for Communism; you’re supposed to be analyzing something as if you were a Marxist. In other words, suppose that relationships between capital and labor (or social classes more generally) are a major determinant of human events. When viewed through this lens, what actions are especially salient? How would they change if the participants’ social standings were different? You can think about things this way even if, in your daily life, you are actually a member of the John Birch Society. Taking different perspectives on the same “data” is a pivotal part of science and engineering. You need to do it to interpret your results in light of different theories, and, more practically, you need to do it to present your ideas and results to different audiences. For example, pitching a project to the NIH is very different than pitching a project addressing the same fundamental questions to DARPA, which is in turn very different from the NSF or private foundations. Likewise, I present the same results differently when talking to other scientists vs. clinicians vs. the general public.
  - burfog 8y ago
    This is the claim. In reality, if they can figure out that you are a member of the John Birch Society or otherwise rejecting things (even outside of the written assignment) you'll be lucky to get a D. For example, if they happen to spot you outside of class trying to raise support for the "wrong" political cause, then that might affect the grade. If presenting to NIH and DARPA is what matters, surely there are far more efficient and effective ways to teach this. It doesn't have to suck up 2.5% of a human lifetime and the cost of a 3-bedroom house.
    - mattkrause 8y ago
      I'm sorry you had bad professors, but this has absolutely not been my experience and I don't think yours--if it ever happened outside of a conservative talking point--is very typical. I also have no idea where you're taking a gen-ed class that costs $100,000-$1,000,000 or takes 25.% of your life. A typical course is 15 weeks @ <3 hrs/week, which is not even 1/100th of a percent of a typical lifespan, and you maybe take 3-6 gen-ed classes at most universities. As for efficiency....I'll admit that part of the rationale behind these requirements is the idea that everyone should be exposed to a wide range of ideas. However, I think it's not totally bonkers pedagogically either. A random collection of 18 year olds won't have much expertise--and even less in common. Literature (and, to some extent, history) gives everyone a "data set" to work from, and it's one where there are lots of possible interpretations. No one is going to have a hot take on the contents in Bio/Chem/Math/Physics 101 or 102; that stuff has been settled for decades.
      - burfog 8y ago
        It's not one class. It's two years of these classes. For example, in a 4-year Computer Science BS degree you get 2 years of indoctrination, 1 year of CS, and 1 year of semi-related stuff like physics. I don't think it is proper to only count time spent in the classroom. Depending on the school schedule (4 or 5 at once? summers?), the required 16 to 30 classes of this stuff will occupy 2 years. If a person lives 80 years and spends 2 years on this stuff, it is 2.5% of their life. Houses in much of the USA can be had for $100,000. Two years of college can easily exceed that even without including dorms and the opportunity cost of foregone salary. I think you could break $200,000 for two years at the expensive schools, and make that $600,000 if we include trimming a career short by a couple years. I somehow managed to dodge the worst of this stuff with very careful class selection and a fortunately-timed transfer to a different college. My kids have been hit by unfair grading however, as was my father. For my father: even half a century ago, an assignment to write about nuclear weapons would get you a D- if you argued in favor of getting more of them. (and in case you wonder, he is an excellent writer) This exposure to a wide range of ideas is not just unidirectional for political outlook. It's also that way by field of study, with the non-STEM majors able to graduate without much science or math. Typically they can get away with something like College Algebra (a repeat of 8th grade), Astronomy, and Nutrition. One shouldn't be able to graduate without Statistics (a calculus-based one), 3 semesters of Physics (again with calculus) with labs, 2 semesters of Chemistry with labs, 2 semesters of Biology with labs, microeconomics, and macroeconomics.

tropo 8y ago

If "being exposed to ideas you might not agree with" is good, then why does that only get applied to students on one side of the political spectrum? Don't the leftist students also deserve the "real value in being challenged to think critically about why you don't agree"? I could count on one hand the places where it goes the other way. Let's see, Bob Jones University...

burfog 8y ago

There is some value in learning how to make a convincing lie. This is what you do if you are sane. You write up a paper about how communism is better, or about how white males are the cause of all badness, or whatever it is that the instructor desires. You don't have to believe a word of it. Practicing this skill isn't worth giving up 2.5% of your life and the cost of a 3-bedroom house. It has absolutely nothing to do with the STEM education that one needs for many jobs in the modern workplace.

mattkrause 8y ago
No. You’re not supposed to be advocating for Communism; you’re supposed to be analyzing something as if you were a Marxist. In other words, suppose that relationships between capital and labor (or social classes more generally) are a major determinant of human events. When viewed through this lens, what actions are especially salient? How would they change if the participants’ social standings were different? You can think about things this way even if, in your daily life, you are actually a member of the John Birch Society. Taking different perspectives on the same “data” is a pivotal part of science and engineering. You need to do it to interpret your results in light of different theories, and, more practically, you need to do it to present your ideas and results to different audiences. For example, pitching a project to the NIH is very different than pitching a project addressing the same fundamental questions to DARPA, which is in turn very different from the NSF or private foundations. Likewise, I present the same results differently when talking to other scientists vs. clinicians vs. the general public.
- burfog 8y ago
  This is the claim. In reality, if they can figure out that you are a member of the John Birch Society or otherwise rejecting things (even outside of the written assignment) you'll be lucky to get a D. For example, if they happen to spot you outside of class trying to raise support for the "wrong" political cause, then that might affect the grade. If presenting to NIH and DARPA is what matters, surely there are far more efficient and effective ways to teach this. It doesn't have to suck up 2.5% of a human lifetime and the cost of a 3-bedroom house.
  - mattkrause 8y ago
    I'm sorry you had bad professors, but this has absolutely not been my experience and I don't think yours--if it ever happened outside of a conservative talking point--is very typical. I also have no idea where you're taking a gen-ed class that costs $100,000-$1,000,000 or takes 25.% of your life. A typical course is 15 weeks @ <3 hrs/week, which is not even 1/100th of a percent of a typical lifespan, and you maybe take 3-6 gen-ed classes at most universities. As for efficiency....I'll admit that part of the rationale behind these requirements is the idea that everyone should be exposed to a wide range of ideas. However, I think it's not totally bonkers pedagogically either. A random collection of 18 year olds won't have much expertise--and even less in common. Literature (and, to some extent, history) gives everyone a "data set" to work from, and it's one where there are lots of possible interpretations. No one is going to have a hot take on the contents in Bio/Chem/Math/Physics 101 or 102; that stuff has been settled for decades.
    - burfog 8y ago
      It's not one class. It's two years of these classes. For example, in a 4-year Computer Science BS degree you get 2 years of indoctrination, 1 year of CS, and 1 year of semi-related stuff like physics. I don't think it is proper to only count time spent in the classroom. Depending on the school schedule (4 or 5 at once? summers?), the required 16 to 30 classes of this stuff will occupy 2 years. If a person lives 80 years and spends 2 years on this stuff, it is 2.5% of their life. Houses in much of the USA can be had for $100,000. Two years of college can easily exceed that even without including dorms and the opportunity cost of foregone salary. I think you could break $200,000 for two years at the expensive schools, and make that $600,000 if we include trimming a career short by a couple years. I somehow managed to dodge the worst of this stuff with very careful class selection and a fortunately-timed transfer to a different college. My kids have been hit by unfair grading however, as was my father. For my father: even half a century ago, an assignment to write about nuclear weapons would get you a D- if you argued in favor of getting more of them. (and in case you wonder, he is an excellent writer) This exposure to a wide range of ideas is not just unidirectional for political outlook. It's also that way by field of study, with the non-STEM majors able to graduate without much science or math. Typically they can get away with something like College Algebra (a repeat of 8th grade), Astronomy, and Nutrition. One shouldn't be able to graduate without Statistics (a calculus-based one), 3 semesters of Physics (again with calculus) with labs, 2 semesters of Chemistry with labs, 2 semesters of Biology with labs, microeconomics, and macroeconomics.