3 ms·

This: "I have little patience for critics who don’t see the value in a liberal arts education. We don’t mock people who have children -- and there’s no practica

by szx 13y ago

This: "I have little patience for critics who don’t see the value in a liberal arts education. We don’t mock people who have children -- and there’s no practical value to having children."

300bps 13y ago
In many cultures children take care of the parents in their old age. Is that not practical value? In farming cultures, the more children you have the more workers you have. That seems practical as well. I think his analogy is flawed.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I agree the analogy is flawed, but that doesn't invalidate his argument. People have all kinds of hobbies that add no real practical value to their lives, other than that they enjoy doing it, and we don't typically make fun of people for those.
  - lern_too_spel 13y ago
    We make fun of anybody who goes into debt for those hobbies.
  - Crake 13y ago
    "I have little patience for critics who don’t see the value in a liberal arts education. We don’t mock people who have children -- and there’s no practical value to having children." The fact that after spending so much money on his libarts degree, he'd use the skills from his "education" to make such a terribly stupid and obviously factually wrong analogy just proves his critics right, invalidating his argument. (Many people have kids because they want to be taken care of. Duh.) No matter how many of one's fellow liberal arts peers might preen about their fancy, overpriced sheepskins, the fact is that these would be emperors in reality have no clothes. (God forbid you point that out to them, though.) "We don’t mock people who play the guitar, or go on walks in the woods. Why should we mock people who want to learn about their world and learn about themselves?" Yes, perhaps, but if someone spent $200,000 on a beginner's guitar, or paid $30,000 for the a membership to a private property to go walk in your everyday typical (and accessible for free at a metro park) woods, we'd definitely be side eying them for it.

by szx 13y ago

This: "I have little patience for critics who don’t see the value in a liberal arts education. We don’t mock people who have children -- and there’s no practical value to having children."

300bps 13y ago

In many cultures children take care of the parents in their old age. Is that not practical value? In farming cultures, the more children you have the more workers you have. That seems practical as well. I think his analogy is flawed.

mpyne 13y ago
I agree the analogy is flawed, but that doesn't invalidate his argument. People have all kinds of hobbies that add no real practical value to their lives, other than that they enjoy doing it, and we don't typically make fun of people for those.
- lern_too_spel 13y ago
  We make fun of anybody who goes into debt for those hobbies.
- Crake 13y ago
  "I have little patience for critics who don’t see the value in a liberal arts education. We don’t mock people who have children -- and there’s no practical value to having children." The fact that after spending so much money on his libarts degree, he'd use the skills from his "education" to make such a terribly stupid and obviously factually wrong analogy just proves his critics right, invalidating his argument. (Many people have kids because they want to be taken care of. Duh.) No matter how many of one's fellow liberal arts peers might preen about their fancy, overpriced sheepskins, the fact is that these would be emperors in reality have no clothes. (God forbid you point that out to them, though.) "We don’t mock people who play the guitar, or go on walks in the woods. Why should we mock people who want to learn about their world and learn about themselves?" Yes, perhaps, but if someone spent $200,000 on a beginner's guitar, or paid $30,000 for the a membership to a private property to go walk in your everyday typical (and accessible for free at a metro park) woods, we'd definitely be side eying them for it.