Academentia
The problem with idiots* in Academia has caught the attention of a number of bloggers recently.
One of Steven Den Beste's readers comments on how Nazi Germany was all America's fault - according to the idiots.
Sparkey of Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing remembers how Russia saved the American bacon in WWII - according to the idiots.
Critical Mass has a series of posts about how idiots stick together to defend themselves against the competent. (I'll note at this point that my two-thirds of a degree was in Computer Science at an engineering university. Even then, we knew what liberal arts degrees were good for.)
Porphyrogenitus has an excellent post on the issue, noting that turning on the light may make cockroaches scurry for cover, but it doesn't actually deal with the problem. Por' is so dismayed with the ongoing Rise of Incompetence that he is considering closing up shop and moving to Mexico.
Flit, meanwhile, points us to Accuracy in Academia, a group devoted to exposing the idiot wherever** and however he may manifest himself.
Victor Davis Hanson leads a review of the blight of idiocy in American universities at NRO; unfortunately, not only is the web version of this a scanned copy of the print version, but the web designer has set the wrong dimensions for the scanned image, rendering it almost illegible.
What is to be done about this? I have one suggestion. There seems to be far less of a problem in those areas of study that are actually useful for something, science and engineering, mathematics, accounting, and so on. It's the worthwhile-but-not-immediately-applicable fields that have suffered the worst of the infection.
When I was studying at Kenso Kindy*** science and engineering students - the majority of the student body - were required to pass a certain number of liberal arts subjects in order to graduate. The aim, it seems, was to produce a more well rounded engineer, one who could make polite conversation at the dinner table. There was much grumbling among the students over this, because the opposite was not true; that is, liberal arts students (we in Australia simply refer to these as "arts" students) were not required to pass any practical subjects.
I think it would make a huge difference to the value of a liberal arts education if this were to become a requirement. Every history or English major, every student of political science or "women's studies", should be required to take and pass a certain minimum number of courses in mathematics, science and engineering.
Of course, we know now - as we knew then - why this isn't done: They'd all fail. But I don't see this as a bad thing.
* Said bloggers mostly refer to these individuals as Leftists, but what they really are is idiots. The problem is not so much one of political leaning - though that is often how it expressed - but of incompetence.
** Within academia, anyway.
*** That is, Kensington Kindergarten, a.k.a. the University of New South Wales, located in Kensington, Sydney.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:05 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 511 words, total size 4 kb.
1
When I got my degree in "arts" I only had to take ONE science
or math class. I believe the college later changed it to one science
and one math class.
Posted by: Susie at Tuesday, October 07 2003 10:38 AM (0+cMc)
2
Sounds like one of the better schools, then :)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, October 07 2003 10:43 AM (jtW2s)
3
There are schools that have fairly high math/sci/engineering requirements, but they tend to be engineering schools. I went to a rather well known engineering school and the "core" curriculum included 1 year Calc, 1 year Physics, 1 term chem, 1 term bio, 1 year of "Restricted Electives in Science and Technology" (whcih tended to be filled by courses in your major), and 1 term of lab work (1 or 2 classes that, again, tends to filled by major classes). Then there's an 8 term set of humanities requirements, included 3 writing intensive courses and spread over multiple fields.
Granted, I don't think my school gives generalized "arts" degrees and there are few straight humanities majors, but the economics dept is big and I do know at least one english and one music major.
Posted by: Chris C. at Tuesday, October 07 2003 12:39 PM (bH5MG)
4
Yes, I doubt that many PoMos could get through that lot with their blinkers still attached.
I think chemistry and engineering are probably the best anti-idiotarian subjects. Chemistry has the advantage that if you get it wrong, it's
you that suffers the consequences.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, October 07 2003 01:09 PM (jtW2s)
5
I'm sure some do. You can pass out of most of them with 5's on AP exams. Still, I get the feeling that my school is in the minority with heavy math/sci core requirements. There certainly are other schools (basically all the large engineering schools would probably be similar), but most state schools have less requriements.
Posted by: Chris C. at Tuesday, October 07 2003 02:18 PM (bH5MG)
6
I was a liberal arts major at Penn State. They require a certain number of science courses of varying hardness. Not much in the way of math, though. Some folks got away with Geology 101, aka "Rocks for Jocks" and the like; I took Chemistry 012 just for the bloodyminded hell of it. The only time I ran into a theory-addled professor at Penn State was in a film class; I guess Penn State is pretty conservative as such things go.
BTW, that link to the Sergeant makes it look like he might have been arguing about whether the existence of the Russian Front saved the rest of the Allies; that wasn't the substance of the argument. His professor was peddling shopworn Comintern propaganda specifically about the Battle of the Bulge, which is utter bollocks, of course.
Posted by: Mitch H. at Tuesday, October 07 2003 02:27 PM (tVSJJ)
7
Heh, for some perspective, the core for UH-Manoa (Univ. of Hawaii-Manoa, the main campus) is
here
The entire Sci/math portion is...
Natural Sciences (3 credits biological science, 3 credits physical science, 1 credit science lab)
Now, there may be more math/sci requirements from the individual college (College of Arts & sciences, et al.), but the general is kinda...thin.
Incidentally, I chose UHM because I took classes there and it was the first state school off the top of my head.
Posted by: Chris C. at Tuesday, October 07 2003 02:50 PM (bH5MG)
8
My experience is that where there are such requirements for non-science majors, they can be fulfilled by "Life Science" and such. Heavy on the "wonders of the universe", color pictures of impressive astronomical sights, and discussion of biological oddities like the platypus, light to nonexistent on such matters as statistics and experimental design.
Which of course means that such students usually think they've taken a couple of science courses, but in fact have not. Students who go beyond this and take, say, the Intro Physics course required for physics majors get more of a balanced education, but it's usually not required and I don't think most do.
(I also notice that there are special watered-down science and math courses for humanities, but usually no watered-down history or English courses for science majors - "Physics for Poets" but no "Literature for Geeks".)
Posted by: jaed at Wednesday, October 08 2003 12:15 AM (1RG3V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
54kb generated in CPU 0.054, elapsed 0.1571 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.1445 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
