An old but very interesting article by Macintyre:
1. Academic specialization means that undergraduate teachers typically do not have the depth or breadth of learning to make connections across disciplines or areas of study. All they learn at the graduate level militates against generalizations and, instead, focuses their attention on what are very often minute questions. Which may explain why someone can be spectacularly clever in one discipline (or, more likely, subdiscipline) and a complete oaf in other regards. Related to this: someone can be extremely sharp in one field but lacking in any emotional depth or any understanding of (or concern for) the society he or she is living in.
2. Academics are often unaware of the history of their discipline or what might constitute the fundamental questions-assuming such a thing exists. How did we get here, who are we? These are the type of questions that are dismissed out of hand as either being either too large or "existential" to warrant attention.
3. Students over the four years will do a whole array of courses without really being told how things are or might be connected. A smattering of philosophy here, a bit of physics or math there, some sociology, maybe some anthropology but these are usually survey courses and no attempt is made to relate the inquiries within each of them to either other disciplines or the real world.
4. Students, as consumers, must be given what they want, which is not necessarily the same thing as what they need. Now, what does any student (or anyone, for that matter) really need? That's a tough question. what, exactly, are the ends of a university education? Is it anything beyond a passport to a higher paying job, or a way of distinguishing yourself from the plebs?
~~
It is estimated that around 82% of peer-reviewed articles in the humanities are not even cited. How many of the remaining are actually read is anybody's guess. According to some studies an average journal article is read by about ten people. Period. If that is true you have to wonder why there's so much focus on becoming a "world class" (the usual bullshit hyperbole) research university. you suspect that it's really just another game...so many nowadays are on the game and we are constantly told that life is just a game: meaningless, futile, incomprehensible and subject to arbitrary power or random chance.
1. Academic specialization means that undergraduate teachers typically do not have the depth or breadth of learning to make connections across disciplines or areas of study. All they learn at the graduate level militates against generalizations and, instead, focuses their attention on what are very often minute questions. Which may explain why someone can be spectacularly clever in one discipline (or, more likely, subdiscipline) and a complete oaf in other regards. Related to this: someone can be extremely sharp in one field but lacking in any emotional depth or any understanding of (or concern for) the society he or she is living in.
2. Academics are often unaware of the history of their discipline or what might constitute the fundamental questions-assuming such a thing exists. How did we get here, who are we? These are the type of questions that are dismissed out of hand as either being either too large or "existential" to warrant attention.
3. Students over the four years will do a whole array of courses without really being told how things are or might be connected. A smattering of philosophy here, a bit of physics or math there, some sociology, maybe some anthropology but these are usually survey courses and no attempt is made to relate the inquiries within each of them to either other disciplines or the real world.
4. Students, as consumers, must be given what they want, which is not necessarily the same thing as what they need. Now, what does any student (or anyone, for that matter) really need? That's a tough question. what, exactly, are the ends of a university education? Is it anything beyond a passport to a higher paying job, or a way of distinguishing yourself from the plebs?
~~
It is estimated that around 82% of peer-reviewed articles in the humanities are not even cited. How many of the remaining are actually read is anybody's guess. According to some studies an average journal article is read by about ten people. Period. If that is true you have to wonder why there's so much focus on becoming a "world class" (the usual bullshit hyperbole) research university. you suspect that it's really just another game...so many nowadays are on the game and we are constantly told that life is just a game: meaningless, futile, incomprehensible and subject to arbitrary power or random chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment