Colleges Consider 3-Year Degrees To Save Undergrads Time, Money

Of course they are opinion articles. Saying the university is a pillar of civilization and promoter of the truth is an opinion. Saying the university is a schelertoric priesthood is an opinion. Nonetheless, one of these opinions more closely reflects reality.

Yes, half the articles I cited come from one source. That author is particularly good at pulling together and linking to a wide variety of other sources, so I usually cite him as a one stop reference. Everything talked about in the sources I provided I have both seen myself and read about elsewhere.

You're not even remotely qualified to make such as assessment; few people actually are.

Perhaps I should get a PHD in University Criticism?

The first university field I came to believe was intellecually bankrupt was political science. I interned in Congress, the State House, City Hall, and on political campaigns. I read books that people working in politics told me to read. Then I witnessed how political science was done in the university. To call the field divorced from reality is an understatement.

Over time, I've come to similar conclusions about the other fields. For example, during the recent financial crisis, I've spent a lot of time reading up on economics and trying to understand how the system works. I read Keynes, Friedman, Rothbard, and Krugman, among others. I read blogs and articles by traders and bankers. I got in online debates with bankers, professors, and amateurs. Again, I've found that the economics they teach in the university is nonsense. Most of my classmates had thought the same thing when we took macro back in freshman year. But most people never spend the effort to figure out what good macro actually looks like.

One of America's greatest modern novelists (as demonstrated by the awards he's won) works at a university

1) Awards won is not an objective measure of the greatness of a novelist. Most of these awards are based on social networks and status posturing. And that's not even counting the awards that are outright corrupt. You really should read this article: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-... There is no objective way to determine how good a novel is. The only way for me to judge a book I haven't read is by the recommendations of people I respect. I have received a number of recommendations about tech books, many of which turned out to be excellent. But no one has ever recommended Powers to me. Now he may be great, but I would need more evidence than awards.

2) The Wikipedia page for Powers says: "He decided not to pursue a PhD in the field because of ... b) the apparent absence of pleasure in the reading and writing that graduate students and their professors do (see his novel Galatea 2.2)." That's a pretty damning statement!

3) But I'm beating around the bush. The most important point is that the presence of a few decent novelists residing in university English departments says nothing about the experience of the average student.

Let's look at the faculty list for Swarthmore: http://www.swarthmore.edu/x10024.xml

Not a single member of the full-time faculty actually produces writing that people outside the university will voluntarily read for enjoyment or interest. Not a single one! The poetry and short stories will only be read in a small circle of mutually back scratching academics. The journal articles will only be read by journal referees and other academics who need to keep up with the literature in order to write their own articles. Think anyone will ever read, "Women, Nationalism, and the romantic Stage: Theatre and Politics in Britain, 1780-1800"? How about "a study of New Criticism's theory of history in relation to later twentieth-century forms of historical and cultural criticism and university pedagogical practices."?

It is possible to write interesting essays on historical literature. But these professors are not doing it. I've tried to read these kinds of journals before. They are filled with tedious drivel. If you want to read how writing about art or literature should be done, subscribe to a good culture blog, like www.2blowhards.com or anything on his blog roll.

PHD's do not produce interesting, relevant and engaging material, because it is not their job to do so. In fact, it is usually better for their career to write as obtusely as possible.

Here is a story from a grad student in the classics:

"And here's the other lesson - doctoral work is professional training...The most successful doctoral students in my experience are the ones that are thorough and careful and take on relatively unambitious projects which don't stretch the assumptions or structures of the discipline too much. They're the ones that finish their doctoral work and go on to useful teaching positions (and then may or may not start exploring more widely). It's definitely not the best and the brightest, the most imaginative thinkers or the people with the great ideas that get through. If they get through it's because they're thorough and they're careful and they're professional and treat it as it should be treated - as a job of work rather than a calling or an exploration." (source: http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2004/07/what_you_should_k... )

And while I'm on a roll, here is another first hand account:

"But once I was inside, I found a department that prided itself not on its wealth of choices, but on its lockstep approach to the reading of "texts," by which they could mean anything from the Code of Hammorabi to a Taco Bell commercial (the latter was actually taught there while I was a student). Rather than search for the truth in the texts they taught us, we were told how to discover that there is no truth in everything we read. Rather than finding beauty in a John Donne sonnet, we were told how beauty is a bourgeois invention designed to keep the underclass, or the "other," down .... To put it simply: thanks to the concentrated study of literature, I nearly lost my love of books ... I wasn't alone in this, either. Informal discussions among my classmates showed a general weariness with the entire project. Many of us felt trapped by a system that insisted that we shed our bourgeois biases and childhood love of all that drew us to the department and embrace the radical politics that the study of literature, at least at the home of the Banana Slugs, had become."(source: http://www.declineandfall.net/2006_07_01_declineandfall_arch... )

Further, actual literary criticism doesn't exist as an activity outside of university.

People get together and talk about books outside of a university. Ever heard of a book club? But a book club doesn't cost $40k a year so obviously it cannot be as good. The internet has no shortage of fascinating blogs that criticize literature.

But you are right, the peculiar activity known as "actual literary criticism" remains the special domain of university English departments. But why on earth should it exist at all? I agree with Paul Graham that the entire field was a silly mistake. It was simply trying to translate the idea of "research" from history and science to literature, which was absurd: http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html

All of our poets and novelists that we praise? College educated.

Umm. Hemingway? Dickens? Jane Austin? It's not surprising that most modern authors are college educated. College is four years of subsidized fun. Plus, it is a legal requirement for many high paying credentialed professions. Thus most high IQ people go to college. But this does not prove that college should be subsidized, or that it is value-add.

One of the most famous American novels about diversity and racism? Written by a college professor [2]. One of the most revolutionary scholars on colonialism and African literature? A college professor at an American university [3]. And let's not even get into Native American literature, which is basically studied and read only at university.

Morrison is famous because her social networks connected with a lot of influential people, she wrote something they wanted to hear, and her books are now mandatory reading in every university in the country. I read one Morrison book, but I cannot remember anything from it. The people who I go to for book recommendations mostly say that Beloved was tedious.

Also, this goes back to my point about intellectual diversity. If you really want to get a full picture of what life was like under slavery you need to read books like "Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made" or "A South Side view of slavery" http://books.google.com/books?id=L1USAAAAIAAJ&printsec=f... Needless to say, neither of these books is popular in the university. In fact, a professor would almost certainly get fired for teaching the latter book.

I did enjoy Things fall apart. Note that Achebe wrote it and it became popular before he was a professor. Was there value-add on the part of the university? And again the point about intellectual diversity. If you actually want a "full and balanced" view of colonialism and post-colonialism, you need to read accounts like "Wanderings in West Africa" ( http://books.google.com/books?id=9a7tVFIa0VYC ) or Ian Smith's memoirs or watch Africa Adio ( in addition to reading Achebe). But students do not read this stuff. These books could be considered "dangerous" by some. Professors would probably get fired for teaching it. But I prefer the truth. Instead, students only get a partial view of reality. These students then graduate and go work for NGO's or the State Department, and then continue to make a mess of the entire continent because they do not understand it.

The two forms of literature that are popular within university English departments are 1) Race opera and 2) contemporary literary fiction. I suppose race opera can be worthwhile the first one or two times you read it. But it gets pretty tiresome after that. By now I could probably write one. I'd have to ghost write it though, since I'm not of the proper minority group. Han Chinese, Tuetons, Franks, etc need not apply. Nor can you write it if you are a reactionary. Race opera must fit the narrow confines of the genre. The funniest thing about Race Opera is that is not actually indigenous to any of these ethnic cultures. It's completely the product of the university system itself.

If you want to read something by a black person about race that is actually interesting, thought provoking, honest, and not written to impress anyone or win awards, here is one small example: http://therawness.com/why-black-american-chicks-like-thugs/c... Needless to say, nothing like this gets taught in the university. But if you actually want to understand racial issues, you are much better off reading TheRawness than Toni Morrison.

And as for literary fiction in general, read these articles, including the comments:

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/04/michael_blowhar_3...

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/01/the_nytbr_secti_1...

And let's not even get into Native American literature, which is basically studied and read only at university.

Tony Hillerman doesn't count? When writing is good and worthwhile, people read it. It's the tedious, stereotypical, generic race opera that no one outside the university reads. And for good reason.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but your words are quite dangerous and need to be debunked.

The modern university plays essentially the same role in America as the Catholic Church played in 16th century France. It serves as the ideological arm of the state, and justifies state power.

So yes, I agree, my views are very dangerous. But maybe one day you'll stop being a naive shill, and come join the rebellion ;-)