Yes, I read weird stuff. But it keeps me balanced. This evening I happened onto this and it got me thinking:
"Yesterday, the Belfast Telegraph published an interview with the Vice-Chancellor of QueenÛªs University Belfast, Patrick Johnston. Most of the interview was about the things one expects VCs to talk about these days ÛÒ global competitiveness, knowledge transfer, government funding, a defense of a large salary ÛÒ but buried among the anodyne was this astonishing comment:
Society doesn't need a 21-year-old who is a sixth century historian.
Why? Because, explains Johnston, what Û÷societyÛª needs is Û÷a 21-year-old who really understands how to analyze things, understands the tenets of leadership and contributing to society, who is a thinker and someone who has the potential to help society drive forward."
Of course not being from the "Isles" keeps my anger far below what the writer experienced. But it made me realize there are probably a number of folks in the world that believe higher education should be more for societal benefit that for a personal quest for knowledge....with a side order of "get a degree that pays good" I'm sure.
That doesn't sit well with me. History, Humanities and the Arts to me are some of the ageless disciplines that I believe had guided some of our leaders through some dark times. During some of the most vicious saturation bombing of WWII Churchill kept the population of England steadfast with quotes more from Plato than from any financial textbook. And there is always the old saying, "Those that don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it"...or something like that.
So I'm wondering if I am an outlier here. Should young people seeking higher education pay more attention to their heart and interests...or to what they believe will provide them a premium living...and therefor...somehow...( and I still can't make this connection ) enhance society?
paden cash, post: 374901, member: 20 wrote: So I'm wondering if I am an outlier here. Should young people seeking higher education pay more attention to their heart and interests...or to what they believe will provide them a premium living...and therefor...somehow...( and I still can't make this connection ) enhance society?
Keep in mind that Patrick Johnston is a medical researcher, specifically an oncologist. Basically, his point of view reduces to something along the lines of "only oncologists should lead universities". It reminds me why I tend not to want doctors as clients. Society changes and there is no way to predict what society actually needs other than a citizenry capable of independent thought and inquiry - in other words: land surveyors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Johnston_(vice-chancellor)
From the Wiki bio:
"Johnston's tenure at Queen's has been controversial. He is seen by many to be interested only in financial gain and establishing corporate strategies that endanger the nature of the university as a seat of culture, learning, open-mindedness and free speech."
I find it strange that an educated person would say something like that.
I do agree that the young people's interests may not benefit the future or society in general but that is their problem which will present it's self in career opportunities.
On a side note, what is the problem with this tablet and it's insertion of wrong apostrophes?
People need to be taught to think. That can be done during study of whatever subjects they study, or they can just memorize what their book or professor tells them. What they study has little bearing on whether thinking is involved.
The wealth of society lies in its variety. While I often joke about those with English or history degrees (or sociology..... Or architecture..... Ok, maybe not architecture) I realize that they have an incredible value to society as a whole. Along similar lines with politics, even if I disagree with your party, I realize the value in having differing opinions on political matters.
My practical side, which is by far my largest side, says that a wise person will pursue a career that will provide the things they need to live. They will be able to provide for themselves, and in the process they will enhance society. Often it will mean a more comfortable life.
My other side, however, says that History, Arts and the Humanities are important to a cultured society. If a student wants to pursue these fields, I say more power to them, as long as they understand that they may not be able to make a living from them, and it is totally their choice. They should be fully aware from the time they begin their studies that they may end up having to pursue a different career to make ends meet. If they can't make a living in their chosen field of study, it is no one else's responsibility to provide for them.
I would say that society doesn't need anyone who is a sixth century historian, but I'm glad to know there are a few of them out there. History, Arts, and Entertainment are all part of what makes life fun. I think ideally, a the best choice is a mixture of practical studies and personal interests.
The "liberal" in Liberal Arts derives from the Latin liberalis, "that which is worth of a free person." It is the knowledge set that, in antiquity, was considered essential for a free man to have in order to retain his freedom. Anyone in a position of authority that steers the young away from the liberal arts, and into a course of study more "practical", more essential for the operation of society (read that as a cog supporting the system), is a potential tyrant and an enemy of liberty.
Other than that, I'm cool with it :whistle:
I believe the arts and humanities play a vital role in us being who we are as people and a society. One of my Surveying instructors in college had a degree in Philosophy. Among other classes, he taught the Professional Ethics class, and made it very interesting. I learned quite a bit in that class that helps me look at an issue from more than one point of view. I feel like I can more often come up with an educated, defensible answer to most issues.
lso, it I s clear to me that a working knowledge of History, at least gives us a chance to avoid repeating some of society's past mistakes.
My 2 cents.
We got the internet these days. If my kid wants to study 6th century history, go for it (just get your engineering degree first and move out of my basement). 😉
I got nieces and nephews and kids of friends with apparently jobless degrees now serving food to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in debt from degrees they've gotten more than 10 years ago. A shame if you ask me.
Also, many of the classic books are available for free electronically.
Plywood is everywhere these days. It keeps the world going. Plywood is made up of strong, powerful solid material and the weird gooey stuff that holds it together. The solid material would get the job done but not nearly so well or efficiently as it does when mixed with the weird gooey stuff.
The hard skills that are taught today in our schools is like the wood. The soft skills taught today in our schools is like the glue. A student needs some of both in order to survive and thrive.
First comes the ability to stand on one's own two feet. Second comes the pleasures.
In a university setting, the widest possible range of experiences is encouraged. In a trade school setting, the focus is on becoming employable. The man above lives in a university setting so some are shocked that he would stress the importance of being employable over knowing things simply for the joy of knowing them.
paden cash, post: 374901, member: 20 wrote: Yes, I read weird stuff. But it keeps me balanced. This evening I happened onto this and it got me thinking:
"Yesterday, the Belfast Telegraph published an interview with the Vice-Chancellor of QueenÛªs University Belfast, Patrick Johnston. Most of the interview was about the things one expects VCs to talk about these days ÛÒ global competitiveness, knowledge transfer, government funding, a defense of a large salary ÛÒ but buried among the anodyne was this astonishing comment:
Society doesn't need a 21-year-old who is a sixth century historian.
Why? Because, explains Johnston, what Û÷societyÛª needs is Û÷a 21-year-old who really understands how to analyze things, understands the tenets of leadership and contributing to society, who is a thinker and someone who has the potential to help society drive forward."
Of course not being from the "Isles" keeps my anger far below what the writer experienced. But it made me realize there are probably a number of folks in the world that believe higher education should be more for societal benefit that for a personal quest for knowledge....with a side order of "get a degree that pays good" I'm sure.
That doesn't sit well with me. History, Humanities and the Arts to me are some of the ageless disciplines that I believe had guided some of our leaders through some dark times. During some of the most vicious saturation bombing of WWII Churchill kept the population of England steadfast with quotes more from Plato than from any financial textbook. And there is always the old saying, "Those that don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it"...or something like that.
So I'm wondering if I am an outlier here. Should young people seeking higher education pay more attention to their heart and interests...or to what they believe will provide them a premium living...and therefor...somehow...( and I still can't make this connection ) enhance society?
I guess he's a "lantern on the stern" guy when it comes to history. We are doomed to repeat it even if we study it. But seems to me the study of history is the study of the human condition and can only help develop a thinker who has the potential to help society drive forward. The problem is these CEO's of universities have developed code words to replace what they really mean. They must couch the dumbing down of critical intellectual tutoring and interaction with visions of grandeur tied to technical competence. Success for students is defined as completing a task, and funding tied to the numbers of automaton task completers you can place in any given temporary niche in the market in a given year. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it lacks honest assessment of the long term affects of profit driven higher education, wherein there is simply not enough time or money to develop anything but a technical competence.
vern, post: 374913, member: 3436 wrote: I find it strange that an educated person would say something like that.
I do agree that the young people's interests may not benefit the future or society in general but that is their problem which will present it's self in career opportunities.On a side note, what is the problem with this tablet and it's insertion of wrong apostrophes?
My iPad does that, annoying.
It puts them where they don't belong and doesn't put them where they do belong.
All Professions are just practical application of historical knowledge and experiences.
The Library is full of information about what happened or was decided in the past.
Combine that with some sort of reasoning or process of logic to arrive at the best solution for today.
Concrete bridges fall down if you don't put sufficient rebar in them; we know that from experience.
I like Ernest May's essays in his "Lessons of the Past: the Use and Misuse of History." See: http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/2/443.extract
Santayana assumes we understand what happened and why and that analogies from the past events are appropriate. As the extract highlights, history is too often used ex post facto to justify decisions already made. The reason historians keep revisiting the same events is that we have incomplete knowledge of facts and context. Too often we rely on the certitudes of our early ELHI education.
I agree with the Queen's University - Belfast VC's point about the importance of learning how things fit together and to think.
A person choosing to specialize in an obscure, not in demand field of study, should be able to do so. That person should be aware of the consequences. The discipline developed during rigorous study is often applicable elsewhere. One of the most useful skills one can develop is the ability to communicate.
A person needs to make a living and a life. One without the other is mere existence.
I have no problem with someone wanting to pursue a degree for their own 6th century pursuits as long as a taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill.
I think it's worth pointing out that if one is to measure "value to society" in terms of skills and knowledge that a corporate employer is willing to pay lavishly for, then most likely he should recognize that he has agreed to allow someone else to determine his value and goals. In the case of oncology, the coporate pharmaceutical and hospital companies are willing to pay lavishly for cancer *treatment*, but not cure. If a cancer researcher were, in fact, to discover a cheap, highly effective cure for a variety of cancers, almost certainly those same corporate interests would want to pay lavishly ... to keep it off the market.
So, where does that leave a person? I'd say that it leaves a person to pursue his or her own interests, mindful of the practical necessities of life.
Money and finance isn't the only value attainable.
This is why business people make terrible political leaders, of any stripe. All they see is the bottom line which is a numerical value. Money is a poor indicator of value because it is influenced by market forces that only concern themselves with numbers, not real value.
thebionicman, post: 374955, member: 8136 wrote: A person needs to make a living and a life. One without the other is mere existence.
There it is. Exactly.
paden cash, post: 374901, member: 20 wrote: Society doesn't need a 21-year-old who is a sixth century historian.
Society doesn't need a Vice-Chancellor of QueenÛªs University Belfast deciding what society needs or what a 21 year old person should or shouldn't study. But perhaps society needs certain vice-chancellors to study what happens to societies when the tenets of communism/socialism are liberally applied to the countries of the world.