USA Politics

[BasilValentine]

Way too many people go to school to get worthless degrees or flunk out. We need to focus on vocational training and careers for people instead that will help them earn a good living. Just offering free college tuition without any conditions for what you should have to study in order to go to school for free won't make society any better.

Of course it would make society better. Millions of young people who wouldn't begin their adult lives with crippling student loan debt could escape years of rent slavery and instead gain equity in housing, invest their money, or use it to start business ventures. It would remove a massive block to economic progress. 

[krummholz]

I try to hear all sides:

EDUCATION
Why Does the Left Hate the Humanities?

Tell-tale signs of decadence reveal that it's time for the Humanities (again).

I'm neither on the Left nor the Right, but I'm not sure the premise of that article is even correct. The Left hates the humanities? What is the evidence for that? And at least one of the statements in that piece I would strenuously disagree with: "For science, the end justifies the means." Wholly untrue. It might be that for certain scientists, the end justifies the means. For others, it does not. Science is neutral on the question: it is, first and foremost, an approach to investigating phenomena occurring in the world.

I'm afraid I don't feel the tension between Science and the Humanities that some feel. In particular, the explosion in both realms that characterised the Western Renaissance and Enlightenment, in some cases by the same individuals (e.g. Da Vinci) is evidence IMO that this tension is not necessary. I hesitate to say that it is a product of modern thinking, but it has certainly taken root in modern times and IMO is one of the main causes of our current dislocation and dissociation from ourselves and each other.

In this time of COVID, we need both science and the humanities more than ever. We do NOT need to choose, or to emphasize one over the other.

[Jo498]

The point is that for "free college" the whole system would have to change. It cannot be the solution that the government simply pays outrageous tuitions. In the countries with free college, access is usually more limited (until fairly recently in a country like Germany it was de facto limited to about one third of a cohort, the rest entering vocational training or some other kind of training less academic than college/university) and almost all universities and colleges are run by the government so the costs are not as outrageous as in some American Elite universities.

I think one problem in the development of the "left" in the last 100 years that also connects to what milk wrote above is roughly the following: Back then the idea was to give equal dignity and pride to the persons who do manual or even menial work and give them fair wages and enough spare time chances to enjoy arts, music etc., so they would get closer to the bourgeoisie and elite of that time and eventually these societal differences would disappear. (The East German flag had hammer and compass to represent the workers with brawn and those with brains). But instead of this since the 60s/70s they a) kept lowering the standards to make prep schools and university access easier, so many more people got some kind of degree but its value, especially in social sciences, humanities etc. was doubtful and b) instead of "elevating" the lower/middle classes to appreciate and enjoy elite culture they denigrated it and let the culture industry cover everything with popular culture. So we have poorly (except for some technical/scientific skills in the narow sense) educated people who are similar in their lowbrow tastes and kept stimulated by video games, Netflix etc. And the dignity and appreciation of manual/menial work is probably worse than ever.
(Of course there are many hard economic factors that also contributed to this. But I think the way a good idea was perverted in the development of the educational system is overlooked.)

[Herman]

But instead of this since the 60s/70s they a) kept lowering the standards to make prep schools and university access easier, so many more people got some kind of degree but its value, especially in social sciences, humanities etc. was doubtful and b) instead of "elevating" the lower/middle classes to appreciate and enjoy elite culture they denigrated it and let the culture industry cover everything with popular culture.

Question. Who are "they" in these sentences?

I'm asking because virtually everybody seems to take for granted there is some sinister plot regarding higher education.

[Henk]

Have a look at these books:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1324001879/?coliid=I37AX98JYWIOXV&colid=3RRQEIC2651D2&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


https://www.amazon.com/dp/1523091584/?coliid=I25SC16W30LE47&colid=3RRQEIC2651D2&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HYMBW44/?coliid=I3ESCYHA35HGEF&colid=3RRQEIC2651D2&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it


Also check Hartman's other books in his series.

The oligarchs are in power. Just like with Putin in Russia.

Only the guys on the top of the pyramid know how things run, ordinary people just live the lies of these men. Fortunately some authors  investigate.

[Todd]

almost all universities and colleges are run by the government so the costs are not as outrageous as in some American Elite universities.

Elite schools are almost all private.  I do not recall anyone stating that taxpayers should fully subsidize tuition at universities like Harvard or Princeton.  Many of them have large endowments that help cover student tuition in many cases, anyway.  Taxpayer subsidized tuition would apply to state schools. 

Individual states already subsidize schools to some extent, as do the Feds, and coming up with a formula that would more equitably distribute federal funds to the states would be the trick if anyone were serious about federally funded tuition.  That's one of the critical, more difficult political problems.  This would be another case where differences in state behavior would act as a block to federal action.  States that more generously subsidize post-secondary education may very well (meaning definitely) balk at the notion that less generous states get more federal money.  Fully taxpayer subsidized tuition dies in the Senate.

I'm asking because virtually everybody seems to take for granted there is some sinister plot regarding higher education.

You are the only person who mentioned a "sinister plot".  That's silly.

[Herman]

American public and private schools have virtually the same kind of financing, consisting of a mix of private and state funding. Private schools like Harvards and MITs get large amounts of federal money to conduct long term research projects, often for defense purposes. So even education and defense are not two different money streams; the converge often.

This I was my understanding in the nineties, when I worked at a US university, people told me this.

Chances are things have shifted a little since inequality has increased and donors have even more money to offload on their alma mater in exchange for tax benefits. But the gist was and is that private universities use a lot of tax payer money, too.

[Todd]

This I was my understanding in the nineties, when I worked at a US university, people told me this.

You obviously misunderstood what you were told.

[71 dB]

The oligarchs are in power. Just like with Putin in Russia.

Only the guys on the top of the pyramid know how things run, ordinary people just live the lies of these men. Fortunately some authors  investigate.

Pretty much all it does is to realize the whole mainstream media in the US is primarily serving the top 1 % meaning you better not believe almost anything they say. Sure, sometimes they might tell something truthful (they do after all sometimes hire good people), but the majority of the time they are about manufacturing consent in order to maintain the status quo. MSNBC is not your friend if you are a left-leaning regular person. The Fox News is not your friend if you are right-learning regular person. MSM is not your friend unless you belong to the "ruling class." Your friends are found in the non-mainstream media. Thom Hartmann is your friend just to mention one.

[Todd]

manufacturing consent

Fresh from 1988.

[71 dB]

American public and private schools have virtually the same kind of financing, consisting of a mix of private and state funding. Private schools like Harvards and MITs get large amounts of federal money to conduct long term research projects, often for defense purposes. So even education and defense are not two different money streams; the converge often.

This I was my understanding in the nineties, when I worked at a US university, people told me this.

Chances are things have shifted a little since inequality has increased and donors have even more money to offload on their alma mater in exchange for tax benefits. But the gist was and is that private universities use a lot of tax payer money, too.

Medical research to create new drugs is also done in universities with tax payer money and then comes Big Pharma and takes the know how and starts price gouging Americans selling them those drugs asking insane prices. That's corporate socialism at it's finest and Americans have been brainwashed to think it's just how "capitalism" works. No, in real capitalism Big Pharma would have needed to use it's OWN money to develop the drugs without one penny of tax payer money.

[71 dB]

Fresh from 1988.

It has stayed fresh because Americans have been too ignorant to do almost anything about it for decades!

[Todd]

It has stayed fresh because Americans have been too ignorant to do almost anything about it.

There is also the possibility that the thesis is not entirely correct.  Among other things.

Out of curiosity, do you also subscribe to Chomsky's idea that Europe is more racist than the US?

[Herman]

You obviously misunderstood what you were told.

No I did not, because obviously I talked about this with other people in university administration and they confirmed this.

I always check things.

Not everybody is as dumb, negative and passive as you, who only lives to snipe at people online.

[Todd]

Not everybody is as dumb, negative and passive as you, who only lives to snipe at people online.

There we go!

[milk]

I'm neither on the Left nor the Right, but I'm not sure the premise of that article is even correct. The Left hates the humanities? What is the evidence for that? And at least one of the statements in that piece I would strenuously disagree with: "For science, the end justifies the means." Wholly untrue. It might be that for certain scientists, the end justifies the means. For others, it does not. Science is neutral on the question: it is, first and foremost, an approach to investigating phenomena occurring in the world.

I'm afraid I don't feel the tension between Science and the Humanities that some feel. In particular, the explosion in both realms that characterised the Western Renaissance and Enlightenment, in some cases by the same individuals (e.g. Da Vinci) is evidence IMO that this tension is not necessary. I hesitate to say that it is a product of modern thinking, but it has certainly taken root in modern times and IMO is one of the main causes of our current dislocation and dissociation from ourselves and each other.

In this time of COVID, we need both science and the humanities more than ever. We do NOT need to choose, or to emphasize one over the other.

I think it's a common refrain from conservatives that science equates with the way it can be used in the worse cases. I also find it suspect because I think they're trying to smuggle in the necessity for Christian morality. But, I do think they're onto something about humanities - it means the classics generally, including the study of history by various "objective" methods. When I was out the door of university, the "cultural studies" graduate program was coming in. I was young and knew nothing and those graduate students were into Foucault and proclaiming their Marxism in a calculated but nonchalant manner. I had a history professor named Kopf that I really liked and I remember that he really complained about it like it was replacing history. I thought, "it's all heading in the same direction, isn't it?" But critical theory, and the like, is really a different world view than liberal humanism, which is the foundation of the humanities I think.

[71 dB]

Out of curiosity, do you also subscribe to Chomsky's idea that Europe is more racist than the US?

I am not familiar with those ideas of Chomsky, but it's totally possible Europe is more racist than the US. Racism is in fact one of the only things I am ashamed of about my own country. Finland is not the most racist country in the World (South Africa is), but even here it is a problem and we do have our own xenophobic populistic party, the True Finns. Yuck! 

[Todd]

Finland is not the most racist country in the World (South Africa is)

I was unaware racism could be ranked in such a manner.  I learned something new today.

Anyway, here's Chomsky in a Q&A on the subject.  It's on YouTube, so it's legit:

https://www.youtube.com/v/KftHGpJjPBo

[greg]

I agree. There won't be composers or performers. Wonderful nation.

In this era, what is even the point of going to school for music? Everything you need to know is available online.

I'm glad I never went to school for music. I can make more than enough money at 40 hours/week by not choosing music as my major to afford my expensive music hobby. And have time left over for that. If I went to school for music, I'd be working 80 hours a week at soul-crushing low tier jobs to pay off my debt, and ironically, not have time to write music, defeating the entire point.

I really don't think anyone should get in debt for a degree that has a low, or nonexistent ROI. Loans shouldn't even be an option. You can do it if you're rich and want to. Otherwise, online education is just as good.

Also, one thing that music school doesn't teach is how to have good creative instinct. You can learn all about every single aspect of music theory, but if you don't have good creative instinct, it's not going to turn out well.

[drogulus]

I think it's a common refrain from conservatives that science equates with the way it can be used in the worse cases.

     It's common on the left, and not just the illiberal left.

But critical theory, and the like, is really a different world view than liberal humanism, which is the foundation of the humanities I think.

     The assault on liberal humanism comes from both the left and right. Both sides are hostile to science, where liberal humanism still flourishes.