Anti-intellectualism in American Culture
Does it exist? Should it exist? How does it compare to the situation in other countries?
We've been outsourcing not just blue-collar work, but more and more white-collar work as well. While this is essentially inevitable, it will, in the end, demote America to a second-world country, divided into starkly wealthy areas and dirt poor areas.
However, in 1945, Europe and Japan figured out how to build non-exploding factories. The trade barriers were also removed. We retained our competitive advantage for some time after that, since it took them time to build up an industrial base.
But it is silly to expect us to be world leaders to the extent we were back then. That epidemic of factory explosions was a one time occurrence.
There is a healthy distrust of elites claiming authority on the basis of intellect and education. "We are in charge because we're smarter than you and know how to take care of you" really does fly in a lot of other countries. Call it "Mandarinism"; its hallmark is examinations and elite institutions. In America, opposition to this sort of thing goes back to the defeat of the Hamiltonians.
As for a general disdain for intellectual pursuits in the culture at large, that's just a bunch of bullshit. It's no different from any other country once you take demographics into account.
Trust me, there really is a strange element of anti-intellectualism in America.
I've lived in various countries over 8 years and am otherwise well travelled. I say there's no difference. The popular media is a bit more dumbed down in the US, but that's no reflection of the intellectual pursuits of people in general.
That doesn't mean it's the prevalent thought. But intellectualism is hard, anti-intellectualism, as in hiding behind a doctrine that has been "thought out" for you (say by a church or a political party) is far easier. If you adopt what others say, you immediately belong to a social network and have all the "answers" to the hard questions. If you have to think for yourself, the road is much more lonely and difficult.
Most people in the world live in cultures that have an uneasy or hostile relationship with their educated classes -- namely, traditional and authoritarian cultures.
I think it would be fair to say that Americans don't have a sort of automatic, institutional relationship with their elites. Let me put it this way. If Canadians heard that all of their scientists said that X was bad and we should stop it, they'd nod their collective heads and get about to implementing the changes. The scientists are considered to be on the side of our general interest and enlightenment. This is the way it goes in most Western democracies.
In the USA, there's no such automatic acceptance. The urbanized half of the country is similar to the other Western democracies, but there's another half that has no such allegiance. They look to their churches for such leadership, and in their estimation, urban elites have caused nothing but trouble.
Also, it's not a formal argument, but look at the moderation on the posts: everything that dares to defend higher education is voted down, and everything that bashes it is voted up, regardless of content. The same will happen to this post, despite the fact that I've done nothing more than express my (entirely reasonable) opinion in as rational and thoughtful manner as I know how. That's anti-intellectualism.
(Finally, I think I need to add the following disclaimer: I'm not talking about the people who have minor gripes with college, or who look back in retrospect, and make critical judgments about the experience. You're right -- that's "healthy self-criticism". I'm referring to the people who insist that college is a waste of time, and who insinuate that formal education is some kind of trap. You may think that's a cartoonish generalization, but I see it all the time, here and elsewhere.)
But also, one can make very serious criticisms of schools, including colleges, based on the irrationalities they cause in students, and their lack of understanding of how learning works.
For example, schools have heavy components of forcing students to do things "for their own good". That's the point of graded assignments and tests -- they help teachers monitor which students are doing as they were told, and help to exert pressure on those that don't.
No offense, but your comment doesn't pass my smell test: you're quick to launch into an attack on grades, tests and authority, but you're slow to acknowledge that those grades, tests and authority are actually helpful to most students. I'm as curious and hard-working as anyone you'll meet, but there are still tons of things that I never would have learned, had I not had exams and grades to prod me along (and for the record, no, I didn't have the smoothest possible educational experience).
Bottom line: it doesn't take super-human effort to get through an undergraduate degree in a subject that you enjoy. If one can't summon the basic discipline to put up with the (minor) bullshit associated with a undergraduate education, then they're very likely going to be disappointed by the world outside of the ivory tower. The "real world" isn't exactly known for a lack of bullshit; dealing with it (i.e. having discipline and tenacity) is as marketable a skill as knowing how to code.
The "real world" isn't exactly known for a lack of bullshit; dealing with it (i.e. having discipline and tenacity) is as marketable a skill as knowing how to code.
A number of us here are young, ambitious, and have grand visions for "changing the world." Our only reasons for obedience to the university system is to achieve our goals. I call bullshit on the world. I want to change the world, not adapt to it. But cheers to you mate.
The anecdote about your personal experience is, of course, irrelevant. It seemed to help you, but we don't know if it did or not compared to alternatives you did not experience.
I agree that being able to deal with bullshit is a marketable skill. But surely it is not a path everyone should take. And it is a way of life we should wish to become less common and less useful.
My reason for opposing colleges (and recruiters) is simple: colleges/recruiters are middlemen sitting between you and the job you want. They may add some value, although in my view it is minimal (and certainly not worth the cost). But the main reason most people go to college/recruiters is simply because it is difficult to get a job without them. And if you can bypass them, you are probably better off.
Colleges (unlike recruiters) also suck vast amounts of money from the countries scientific infrastructure, but that's a different issue.
In Australia, we used to have this - as an engineering cadet, you worked for a company while going to uni as well. Not only can you directly apply what you learn at work, but there is also a motivational factor for learning (seeing as you have a practical context for the theory).
A personal anecdote - I remember learning about generators and power transformers and thinking what the hell do these things even look like? It wasn't until I graduated that I actually saw them in action. I still feel that if I was actually working on them then, I'd certainly have had more incentive / motivation to learn. As it was, I had to go back and re-learn everything on the job. I've spoken to many other engineers and graduates since, and most have agreed and had similar experiences.
Universities were traditionally a feeder system for research and academia (and learning for the sake of learning), but these days it has become a prerequisite for industry. Clearly there is some misalignment between the needs of industry and academia.
More accurately: exists with the intent to advance education. And this is where your argument falls apart.