fecklessyouth

Nelson's remarks exemplify a disturbing trend amongst technologists, and especially those trying to reform education: Misidentifying sub-par educational experiences and areas of studies as "the liberal arts," and then attributing insufficient outcomes to the liberal arts themselves.

If he went to Wharton Business school for undergrad, he does not have a liberal-arts education. History and literature are liberal arts, business is not. Yet he blames his lack of growth during undergrad years on the very same:

>My first six months, what did the consulting firm teach me? They didn't teach me the basics of how they do business. They taught me how to think. I didn't know how to check my work. I didn't think about order of magnitude. I didn't have habits of mind that a liberal arts education was supposed to have given me.

Perhaps he thinks he studied the liberal arts because he majored in Economics. But majoring in Economics within a business school is, as Wharton's website proclaims, a specialized, business-focused approach, which the site's copy actually contrasts with "a liberal arts setting." [1]

Such programs can't be grudged for failing to cultivate the mind, as their sole aim is "appl[ying] business methods and economic theory to real-world problems." Business programs will always fall-short of real-world experience in teaching business skills, since one is actually real.

If he had studied an actual "liberal art" like philosophy or history or French, he might have gotten the mental development that his program apparently lacked. I think those of us who truly delved into liberal arts programs, with the accompanying rigor, breadth of study, and dedication to teaching, found them a great boon to our mental capacities.

Edit: Another trend that's been irking me lately: the idea that you can "teach" someone to think through "critical thinking" classes:

>In the Nelson dream curriculum, all incoming students take the same four yearlong courses. His common core won't make students read the Great Books. "We want to teach you how to think," Mr. Nelson says. A course on "multimodal communications" works on practical writing and debating skills. A "formal systems class" goes over "everything from logic to advanced stats, Big Data, to formal reasoning, to behavioral econ."

There's a reason that "Communications" programs have a reputation for being full of fluff. If you want to learn how to communicate, communicate. Trying to "study" it isn't get to help you personally. If you want to learn how to write, write about any subject, and have your teacher tear your work apart. Communications skills are taught through experience. You can't sit down and "learn" writing skills.

[1] http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/undergrad/academic-excellence/B...

I go to a small school that still grants all-campus email access to everyone. It develops a culture of communication all its own, and often hosts vigorous and even nasty arguments. And while the role it plays could be filled much better by other technologies, email is a common enough technology that everyone can take part.

>However, for the first dish we had a goodly porker, with a garland upon him, and puddings, goose giblets, lamb-stones, sweetbreads, and gizzards round him; there were also beets and houshold-bread of his own baking, for himself, which I would rather have than white; it makes a man strong, and I never complain of what I like. The next was a cold tart, with excellent warm honey, and that Spanish, running upon it. I eat little of the tart, but more of the honey; I tasted also the red pulse, and lupines, by the advice of Calvus, and several apples, of which I took away two in my handkerchief: for if I bring home nothing to my little she slave, I shall have snubs enough: this dame of mine puts me often in mind of her.

--from the Satyricon of Petronius, a Roman satirist of the 1st century AD.

People have been talking about food for a long time...only the medium changes.

I've stopped going Reddit, for a similar effect.

If you want to commit something to memory, read it, try reciting it in your head, try writing out, and as long as you can't, refer back to the original thing.

If you want to record a passing thing to later commit to memory, write it in a notebook.

It's not the suits are back...it's that they never really left.

Ironically, "circumlocution" is borrowed nearly exactly from its Romantic roots in Latin: circa (around) locum (place)

>“Forget everything you know about telepresence robots.”

Done.

It sounds like the author simply took a few trends in the last 50 years of higher ed and designated them casual "steps."

Somewhat related anecdote in light of 10.8: I never properly upgraded from OS 10.5. I pirated 10.6 and skipped 10.7, partially because I'm a cheap college student and partially because the changes between versions never seemed that dramatic to me.

I had to re-install my OS and thus downgraded from 10.6 to 10.5. All of a sudden, none of my iLife apps are working, plus a host of others, and I can't download Apple ones designed for 10.5. I lose momentum scrolling, and realize that, hey, an upgrade once every three years is a good idea. I wait for 10.8 to come out, so I can buy it like a good, normal consumer, and soon discover I need 10.6 to install it.

So I'm buying two upgrades? Alright...wait, I can't buy 10.6 anymore. 10.8 is the only OS available, and I don't have 10.6 on a disc. So it looks like I'm pirating again.

Not really. Confucianism is ingrained into Chinese society in ways the West can't comprehend. UU is a 19th century offshoot of NE Congregationalism.

And I think that problem will continue for some time, since a replacement for church would require frequent socializing in a comfortable environment not aimed explicitly at socializing.

Correct.

I don't know much about religion in the UK; here, it revolves very much around what sort of circles you move in. Plus what region of the country, and whether you're in the suburbs, inner city, or country.

But hey, that's what you guys have pubs for, right?

CHURCH, CHURCH, CHURCH.

There's none of the financial worries, pecking orders, or time constraints of workplace friendships, plus more of the freedom. You do it, supposedly, once a week, or more. There's no pressure to make small talk because you're there for another purpose as well, so if you get uncomfortable, you can just leave. As you get more involved, you start joining committees, planning events, coaching teams, going on retreats, leading the local Boy Scout troop, participating in Bible studies, etc and are able to bond with adults there. As long as you're set on your denomination, there's no reason to leave while you're still in the geographical area. Your kids can encourage interaction with other parents, and if they stop being friends, they'll probably still be forced together through sports/school/service events. And you're operating on the same general life philosophy as all of them--supposedly.

When my parents moved, their "friends list" literally became a subsection of the church directory.

Church literally fills every requirement in the article, since it's a very social event with a purpose besides being social for its own sake. I'm amazed the author didn't mention it. Well, not too amazed, since there's nothing more socially unsexier than church groups. I know most people here aren't too warm on religion but it sure knows how to built community.

That's a pretty high percentage. Link?

I'm definitely no expert, but it seems to me that the two pieces of evidence he uses to date the creation of "whiteness" aren't very reliable. As one commenter on his blog pointed out, cave painting may be dark simply because that was the color they had available. And in terms of the Egyptians, the woman may simply have been portrayed as wearing make-up...not as being white. And even if his hypothesis is correct, I don't see how a white person in the Baltic would end up marrying the Pharaoh.

Ah yes, the old "the suit is dying" clarion call that everyone hears once every few years.

But suits will never die, and neither will ties. They, frankly, make men look better. A suit that fits well makes a man look slimmer, taller and more broader-shouldered. It accentuates his chest. It hides fat and bad composure in ways that T-shirts and polos never can. Ties also make you look taller, and add fantastic unity to the collar.

The main reason hats are dead, still, is because there's no gray area for them to come back. Fashion cycles: you have wider ties, then skinnier ties, then wider ties again. But if you stop wearing an accessory completely, it's harder to bring it back. Say, for a second, that no one wore two-piece suits. But people would still wear oxford cloth shirts, khakis, and blazers, which is only a few hops away from a suit. You can wear varying degrees of formal wear, but there are two options for hats: wearing one, or not wearing one. Which means that the man who wears one suddenly finds himself in a start minority...unlike someone who wears a suit in a room full of khakis and oxfords, which is slightly different, but not THAT different.

Thoreau came to the same conclusion. "I don't support war, so I'm not going to pay taxes." This, however, isn't a tenable practice for society as a whole.

What you major in isn't that important. This community needs to break out of the "choose a major for the job you want" shell. That same line of thinking is partly to blame for this whole mess anyway, since college departments can't possibly keep up with changing job markets. College students should learn skills, and their major is simply one way to do that.

Yes, get skills. But you don't necessarily need to get "hard skills" from a college major. Often, education that stresses the "hard skills" tends to undervalue the "soft skills" like reading and writing which, in my opinion, are more important.

"Hard skills" can often only be developed through experience, or, as the article notes, through alternate education paths, or, as this community stresses, through independent online learning. Since this is so, why major in a "hard skill?"

You have your entire life to learn hard skills. You can do it in the summer. You can do it in your spare time. You can do it while working at Starbucks. You can do it one class a semester at a time. But you don't have your whole life to sit around a table and discuss Vergil. I say, major in something "useless."

Biggest surprise among supporters: Al "Net Neutrality is the 1st Amendment issue of our time" Franken.

Among opponents: Bachmann.

I had a mixed experience with FIRST, but it probably had more to do with my individual team than the program itself. I spent my freshman year on my high school's team, which was one of the top in the country. It was very professionalized and well-funded.

It was also easy to get overlooked. I got into the website niche and ended up spending the entire build season mostly working on Photoshop. I knew next to nothing about our actual robot. Unsurprisingly, I was bored at competitions.

I had originally joined because I thought I wanted to be an engineer, but I got sidetracked by web design. I realized this after my freshman year, but was kicked off the team, since we had to conduct interviews every year. The advisors saw that I didn't enjoy the competitions and figured my spot would be better used by someone else. So I never actually learned anything about engineering in a year of FIRST. No one ever pulled me into it and I lost my first and only chance to do it myself.

I often look back at that event as a pivotal one, since the absence of FIRST led to my interest in the arts, politics, etc. Had I spent the whole fours years working on the actual robot, I might have go onto engineering schools, or programming, or all sorts of things completely removed from the liberal arts environment I'm in now.

But that's all speculation. I still wish I would have learned more programming while I was in it.

But how often does someone have to click through an add to get to Facebook?

Honestly, HN? I clicked "comments" expecting to see a bunch of insight and analysis on the physics involved, and instead it's just a bunch of rage against local news stations because the station committed the unforgivable sin of making the beloved Mythbusters look bad.

I really dislike posts like this that attempt to pigeonhole every college experience into "college." There are such a huge gamut of academic experiences, but whenever "college" is is addressed, its usually boiled down to "humanities majors at large, expensive 4 year colleges."

This, of course, is one of many options. The kind of institution you attend is just as important as whether you're a STEM or Humanities major. Size, core curriculum, intellectual environment, difficulty, class style, and all the other factors that separate colleges are huge factors on what you get out of college.

What should you get out of college? Often, a posited counter-experience is four years in the business world. Which would be useful in the short term, but when are you going to radically improve your reading and writing? You're never going to get the chance to devote yourself, 100%, to reading, writing, and learning.

Of course, the reason liberal arts gets a bad rap is majors have lost sight of reading and writing, and have turned into a pseudo-technical fields in larger institutions. A proper liberal arts degree gives you the same skills regardless of what you major, which is why liberal arts students like myself at liberal arts colleges scoff at this categorization by major...I don't care about majors.

Conclusion: Liberal arts degrees are worth the money...if they're done properly.

"Trust me, if he has an inquisitive mind, he'll explore all the weird and strange subjects on his own time. With the internet, he can even be challenged by greater minds. The best argument for college is the social environment, which can't be replicated outside of it. Not education. The kids get that. That's why they don't go to class."

No. When it comes to non-technical degrees, it's the classroom environment. It's the academic and intellectual environment. Which the internet isn't close to replicating. Someday it might come close, but certainly not in the near future. If you think the internet is approaching a college education in value, you haven't experienced a proper college education.

Spotify is alright, but I use iTunes far more and wish it could integrate.

Moms were scrapbooking before nerds. This profile could do a lot for Facebook's growing older population.

Isn't the idea that the human race is progressing intellectually a remnant of Enlightenment philosophy? Espousing that is hardly bashing orthodoxy.

Reddit could become an email replacement. My college campus has all-campus email that anyone can send to. Discussions in email simply don't turn out well, there's no good way to respond to just one person while letting everyone view it, there's no good way to voice agreement or disagreement, and it's mixed in with much more important information.

Reddit would be perfect for it, and for campuses with less generous email policies. It doesn't interfere with work communication and its better suited for the sort of discussions and arguments that email often plays host to.

As a student, I can't speak much for companies. And I'm aware of Reddit's recent College promotion and how easy it is to make, moderate, etc a new Reddit. But a dedicated Reddit integrated with college websites or email could be a profit stream.