The Big Lie About the 'Life of the Mind'
chronicle.com
chronicle.com
I'm always fascinated by why people seem to think that studying the humanities is living the 'life of the mind', as opposed to hard sciences or engineering; fields which provide more robust means of testing the conclusions one has arrived at through mental effort.
So I think your comment is somewhat misleading in connecting this article (or "these articles") to your own criticism. (Which criticism may of course be valid on its own terms.)
I don't see where philk "connected" his own comment with any of the arguments made in the OP. It's just something he added.
"The time and study, the genius, knowledge, and application requisite to qualify an eminent teacher of the sciences, are at least equal to what is necessary for the greatest practitioners in law and physic. But the usual reward of the eminent teacher bears no proportion to that of the lawyer or physician; because the trade of the one is crowded with indigent people who have been brought up to it at the public expence; whereas those of the other two are incumbered with very few who have not been educated at their own." - http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN4.html#I.10.94
And maybe it wasn't like this is Adam Smith's time, but today a large majority of working law school grads aren't working as lawyers.
I think you're right - high tuition bills do make people think long and hard about going back to school. It's just that 22 year olds aren't so easily deterred from disastrous choices.
Oh, and here's some more granular data on the science enrollment side of things: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08306/
anybody know how some open source datasets to start pulling the information apart?
Deleted comment
Having said that, nothing compares to a seminar room full of really smart people and led by a very smart and painfully well-informed professor. I can honestly say that the five years I spent in grad school were more intellectually invigorating than any other time in my life. It's hard to ignite that kind of spark just reading a book on your own.
no it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
in this case you have, on one side, "smart people who value the life of the mind", and on the other side, "go to graduate school to hang around with smart people who value the life of the mind". the two are not equivalent: on one side the people are isolated; on the other they are in a supportive environment.
Deleted comment
Here's what I think you're missing. Although I am a pretty intellectually curious person, on my own and when working a separate full-time job, I can only do so much. When I was in graduate school, my job was to read, write and argue with other smart people who also spent all their time reading, writing and arguing (about a somewhat limited range of topics). I had very little else to do - often nothing else, if I wasn't a ta or lecturer. Graduate school isn't perfect (it's a mess in many ways, I think), and you can certainly lead one kind of life of the mind alone, but graduate school is an amazing way to immerse yourself in something. You can't replicate that experience easily, just because you have a library card.
however, it's certainly not clear to me that someone who "values the inner life of the mind" is also the practical-minded kind of person who's going to sit down and organise the equivalent of a university class.
in more general terms, this is "why cities matter". see, for example, http://www.tnr.com/book/review/why-cities-matter - "the magic of urban density means that agglomerations of people come together for simple reasons and often achieve amazing things". for that kind of thing to happen you need to collect people together - at a large scale into cities, and at smaller scales into institutions. your average book club in podunk isn't going to be as academically stimulating as a class at yale.