Sarah Lawrence with Guns | Hacker News Reader

Sarah Lawrence with Guns

jacobinmag.com

57 pointsrfreytag16 comments

Worth reading all the way through.

    > “No disrespect, sir, but I think this poetry crap is pretty useless.” 
    > This was Troy, another very vocal cadet. Troy often sounded off about 
    > the worthlessness of “English.” English was his catch-all term for the 
    > humanities, social sciences, and any mode of intellectual inquiry 
    > without one “right” answer and some solid practical application, like 
    > building a bridge or blowing one up.

It's funny how often I run into people in the tech/science/math scene who have similar opinions. Maybe they phrase it differently -- "Why go to college for something like English, or Art, when it's not going to be cost effective" comes up a lot -- but the sentiment is the same. I'll leave the argument that they are worth studying to commenters more intelligent and more eloquent than I am, but I thought it was interesting how similar West Point and the Bay Area were in this respect.

I like reading W. Patrick Lang's blog sometimes. Lang is a military man who retired as a colonel and now writes novels. He made an interesting comment about how, traditionally, it was through the arts and letters that soldiers got to know what their values were - values such as honor. In his view, with the decline of humanities education, the military has become increasingly purely technocratic and these values are being lost, with considerable implications for society as a whole. This is a defense of the humanities I had never heard before, and it really stuck with me. I think there is something profound to it.

The article stated that in some academies, at least, they were surpassing the 20% civilian faculty goal, so it seems that they are trying to make it less 'technocratic'.

Technocratic vs. humanities is orthogonal to military vs. civilian, so it depends entirely on what they're teaching.

In any case, these changes in military education are simply mirroring society as a whole, as peter_l_downs pointed out. Lang observed that it has consequences for the military, and for the relationship of the military to society, that are not obvious at first.

>It's funny how often I run into people in the tech/science/math scene who have similar opinions.

Likewise lots of people in other fields wonder why they are subjected to "maths I will never use".

It's easier for people to justify something they prefer than that which they have less interest in.

Agreed, this is an excruciatingly common viewpoint in my experience with other CS/tech geeks. It's often justified by some variant of "tech makes money, ergo, tech is good". Or alternatively, "tech is objective, ergo, tech is good".

A personal anecdote:

As a mostly self-educated programmer/overall geek that married a girl who's now unemployed after studying 'social science' (Is that a word? A subject? That's what Google translates the German term to, which seems a little to literal to be 'right') for a while and then finishing 'History of European arts' / 'German literature' I confess that I sometimes have these thoughts myself.

Worse, SHE has the same thoughts by now. She recently (and slowly) started to learn Python, because she thinks this stuff is so much more applicable/useful, where applicable/useful is measured via 'in demand'.

We're the textbook example of having books covering programming or sci/fi, fantasy stuff (mine) and Real Literature (tm) (hers). But _she_ is feeling useless and probably would love to change history to change career.

So next time you see these rude people I'd like you to think of a totally non-representing story you read on HN and consider that these people might've adopted that opinion (at least in parts) from the demographic they judge in your view. From a wife, a friend or a dozen professors-turned-taxi-drivers that complain about their own field and the lack of jobs, of demand and the feeling of being useful with their education. It's a broader problem than people being judgmental about fields other than their own.

It's a really thoughtful article, worth reading all the way through. But while I trust the author is right, I wonder how much is a "grass is greener" phenomenon.

Cadets hooahing in raucous agreement, in what amounted to a collective high-five between current and future Army leaders. The faculty briefings weren’t much different, as we were informed that West Point is the “best liberal arts school in the country” ad nauseam, according to a methodologically dubious 2009 Forbes college rankings report.

...

These cadets all report the same thing: their intellectual curiosity was stifled at USMA in myriad ways. Even while the Dean brags that “we’re better than Harvard, better than Princeton,” most cadets learn to “beat the Dean,” or do just enough to get by academically, with a wink and a nod.

I went to one of the schools that trades off with a few others the top slot as "Top Liberal Arts College", and I felt much the same. It was a wonderful school, with bright students and talented professors, but I too felt that it stifled intellectual curiosity in myriad ways and that the "wink and nod" were the real values instilled. Eventually I left, disappointed with it and with myself.

Did anyone manage to find a place where this was not the case?

Someone close to me went to the "honors college" inside a large state university. From her accounts, it was the real thing.

I went to liberal arts school and I thought it was great. I took a lot of philosophy, psychology and lit classes that honed my analytical thinking. And a computer science course I took to satisfy a math requirement got me started learning to program (that and a digital art class that focused on Processing). I also found my classmates to be some of the most interesting and intellectually curious people I've ever met. But I know this varies school to school. I've also met plenty of people who were disappointed with their liberal arts experience. For what it's worth I went to Reed.

It sounds like you may have read it, but you would probably enjoy this essay by William Deresiewicz:

http://theamericanscholar.org/the-disadvantages-of-an-elite-...

The Author set me up big time; I was expecting his 'Orientalism' to presage some kind of reconciliation of his anti-war preconceptions with an understanding of war informed by his time spent teaching cadets.

Anyone else frustrated that he didn't use Che Guevara as an object lesson?

1. We don't want people to kill us. But some do.

2. We want to disarm those people.

3. One way is to kill them, another is to kill their will to fight.

4. Read Che Guevara, why does he fight?

5. Read between the lines, find his weaknesses. What can you use against him?

Warning to cadets: you all have similarities to Che, but you are all similar to him in different ways. Be careful discussing this work with others because the vulnerabilities you see in Che probably also exist in you, and so can also be used to destroy your will to fight.

I have mixed feelings about this essay.

I found it honest and from the heart. I also found it a bit naive and subtly petulant. The author seems convinced that being a political liberal is the essence of being a true dissident. Students are judged by whether they are actually rebellious and morally brave (promoting liberal thoughts), or simply cardboard-cutout kids (admirers of Patton, Lee, and such).

Okay fine. I don't mind the author expressing an opinion. But then we hear about other professors who are libertarians, and they are condemned. I'm left with the feeling that the conservative atmosphere of the college is bad, the libertarian professors are bad, but the liberal professors are encouraging true free thought.

I think we lost our way here.

But most of the essay, where we observe the kids interacting and the author makes observations on the culture? Outstanding. I enjoyed reading it.

I was amused about the rather clear inflexibility of thought in an essay about the inflexibility of thought in others.

It's not exactly surprising that someone sees their own way to be the correct way. The political liberal has been taught to live inside the "true dissident" box, and by and large, they've clung to it like a life raft.

Eisenhower finished last? The same guy that finished first in his class at the Command and Staff College, and was too good an organizer stateside to be sent overseas in WW I? Wikipedia, for what it's worth, says he was in the middle of his class at West Point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com