BF2S Forums Design a new college system

Dilbert_X wrote:

and so if we only fund sciences and maths and masculine, useful, build-shit degrees now... what happens in 20 years time? we have a generation of engineers and scientists, fully funded. okay great. we've had no study of the arts or culture or history or philosophy or anything for 20 years. the academy has ground to a halt. academic discourse has dried up. there is no debate anymore and no new research

So what? Society will evolve just fine without people studying it. Darwins finches didn't need Darwins help. Art and culture will continue just the same, so will intellectualism.

the supply-demand model kicks up and starts giving funding to philosophy majors?

There needs to be a demand side for that to happen.

What I think you fail to appreciate is academic communities are often closed communities, especially so for the humanities side. The world will progress just fine despite not being studied or having theses written about it.

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 07:26:06)

Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-06 07:45:01)

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

and so if we only fund sciences and maths and masculine, useful, build-shit degrees now... what happens in 20 years time? we have a generation of engineers and scientists, fully funded. okay great. we've had no study of the arts or culture or history or philosophy or anything for 20 years. the academy has ground to a halt. academic discourse has dried up. there is no debate anymore and no new research

So what? Society will evolve just fine without people studying it. Darwins finches didn't need Darwins help. Art and culture will continue just the same, so will intellectualism.

the supply-demand model kicks up and starts giving funding to philosophy majors?

There needs to be a demand side for that to happen.

What I think you fail to appreciate is academic communities are often closed communities, especially so for the humanities side. The world will progress just fine despite not being studied or having theses written about it.

I think, broadly speaking, you fail to miss the point that there are two forms of 'progress' and knowledge: let's just call them 'vertical' and 'lateral'. Maths and sciences, where new ideas spring from old ones and are synthesized based on prior knowledge, kinda scale vertically, based on everything that has come before. humanities research and philosophy, on the other hand, are often lateral: they don't logically progress in a way you can trace on a chart, they sort of evolve out of a protean mass of ideas and discourse - dialogue between disciplines, departments, countries. in that way a more whole picture of 'knowledge' as it stands today is developed. i think you're expecting literal jerks and ruptures and leaps forward in understanding like you get with a science/math 'breakthrough'. there are no breakthroughs in humanities or philosophy. things slowly accrete and gain definition. this is done through the work of many many research papers and, again, dialogue and debate between them. you're looking exclusively for one form of knowledge and advancement whilst entirely discrediting the other. it's like you only think with one half of your brain or something. it's only half of the picture of human understanding. the post made earlier by carnifex (?) made this point rather eloquently.

Jay wrote:

I always enjoyed my English and History courses and was usually the one the teacher called on when he or she wanted the correct answer They were a nice change of pace, and much less of a mindfuck than engineering courses. I actually had two professors tell me that I was wasting my time as an engineer and that I should study the humanities full time instead

Ilocano wrote:

Jay wrote:

I always enjoyed my English and History courses and was usually the one the teacher called on when he or she wanted the correct answer They were a nice change of pace, and much less of a mindfuck than engineering courses. I actually had two professors tell me that I was wasting my time as an engineer and that I should study the humanities full time instead

Same here.  Here I was, Computer Engineer, teachers pet for these pre-current century history and literature courses.

Uzique wrote:

of course progress comes that way. the academy constructs high-culture - this is just a commonly accepted fact. as a social and cultural institution, academia is like the high arbiter of taste and 'official' culture (whether or not you agree with it). thus the history of culture, art, philosophy, music etc. often just reflects the history of academia. modernism, for example, one of the biggest focuses of academic thought in the 20th century, came into real vogue in universities in the 1950's. it was about art made at the turn of the century. now what are considered the greatest books of western literature, up to this point? core high-modernist texts. ulysses, the waste land, a la recherche du temps perdu, etc. these are all canonical because academia chooses to single them out, exalt them, study them; to write papers on them and monographs, books, studies. the process of research and study of texts/authors basically subjects them and integrates them into the philosophy and cultural criticism of the day - it's a literal process, through the output of academic material and knowledge transmission (i.e. pedagogy: teaching and learning) of the history of art/culture being constructed. academia's sole business is in the progress of knowledge and history. well, 'official' knowledge anyway, if you will. there will always be counter-culture and underground culture and alternate histories - this is nothing new.

these are all canonical because academia chooses to single them out

Ilocano wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

I have to agree with Uzique on this one. I know students at less intensive universities here in the province who score 90s and are 'teacher's pet' who wouldn't manage a C average here. Totally not even comparable.

90's?  Pfft.  Try perfect scores and even extra credit.  I wasn't even trying.  I just had an interest in the subjects.  My focus was my Engineering classes.  Point is, for someone with a technical background, the humanities subjects were cakewalk.  And just because it wasn't at a "challenging" universities, doesn't mean I couldn't accomplish just as well at the "challenging" university if that was my focus.

Pubic wrote:

In answer to the OP, I would say that what to do to improve your college system depends on what your long term goals are.

If your goals are to improve access and help people out of poverty, sort that Pell Grant shit out, get it in line with costs.  20 years from now you'll see more wealth, and less crime.  Rich people can afford to send their kids to private college.

Concerning whether uni/college is necesary, unless there are specific legal requirements (eg. medicine or law), or unless you want to work in a snobby region/field, it isn't.

It is suitable for some people, others may find polytech/community college more suitable even for the same subjects, due to the difference in teaching methods.  Hell, tertiary education isn't necessary.  The world needs a mixture of all professions to work, if everyone was a professor/electrician/labourer, nothing would get done.