.
Higher education is in a transitional state right now. The big changes that are happening often seem unguided, chaotic, even misguided. Outsiders may see "progress"; insiders—especially the well-educated—see cluelessness and folly.
Here are three recent pieces related to our benighted transition.THREE WISE WOMEN AND A FISH. Stanley Fish’s piece in yesterday’s New York Times (A Classical Education: Back to the Future) discusses three new books about higher education and what it should be. The impressive authors of these books each recommend a classical or traditional education—and seem inclined to dismiss or ignore the new technologies and recent education reform philosophies (stressing endless testing, maximizing idiotically defined “outcomes,” etc.).
Martha Nussbaum, philosopher, classicist, ethicist and law professor, starts from the same place. She critiques the current emphasis on “science and technology” and the “applied skills suited to profit making” and she argues that the “humanistic aspects of science and social science — the imaginative and creative aspect, and the aspect of rigorous critical thought — are . . . losing ground” as the humanities and the arts “are being cut away” and dismissed as “useless frills” in the context of an overriding imperative “to stay competitive in the global market.” The result, she complains, is that “abilities crucial to the health of any democracy” are being lost, especially the ability to “think critically,” the ability, that is, “to probe, to evaluate evidence, to write papers with well-structured arguments, and to analyze the arguments presented to them in other texts.”
. . .
For Nussbaum, human development means the development of the capacity to transcend the local prejudices of one’s immediate (even national) context and become a responsible citizen of the world. Students should be brought “to see themselves as members of a heterogeneous nation . . . and a still more heterogeneous world, and to understand something of this history of the diverse groups that inhabit it.” Developing intelligent world citizenship is an enormous task that can not even begin to be accomplished without the humanities and arts that “cultivate capacities for play and empathy,” encourage thinking that is “flexible, open and creative” and work against the provincialism that too often leads us to see those who are different as demonized others.
. . .
[Diane Ravitch’s] conclusions, backed up by exhaustive research and an encyclopedic knowledge both of the literature and of situations on the ground, are devastating. The mantra of choice produced a “do your own thing” proliferation of educational schemes, “each with its own curriculum, and methods, each with its own private management, all competing for . . . public dollars” rather than laboring to discover “better ways of educating hard-to-educate students.” The emphasis on testing produced students who could “master test taking methods, but not the subject itself,” with the consequence that the progress claimed on the basis of test scores was an “illusion”: “The scores had gone up, but the students were not better educated.” A faith in markets produced gamesmanship, entrepreneurial maneuvering and outright cheating, very little reflection on “what children should know” and very little thought about the nature of the curriculum. [The third author is Leigh A. Bortins.]DEFENDING THE HUMANITIES: ACCOUNTING FOR THE "BIG SHAGGY." Be sure to check out David Brooks’ brief and eccentric defense of the Humanities (History for Dollars) also in yesterday’s New York Times. Excerpt:
But over the centuries, there have been rare and strange people who possessed the skill of taking the upheavals of thought that emanate from The Big Shaggy and representing them in the form of story, music, myth, painting, liturgy, architecture, sculpture, landscape and speech. These men and women developed languages that help us understand these yearnings and also educate and mold them. They left rich veins of emotional knowledge that are the subjects of the humanities.
The Big Shaggy? Well, read Brooks.
…E-textbooks might be the most-talked about and least-used learning tools in traditional higher education. Campus libraries and e-reader manufacturers are betting on electronic learning materials to overtake traditional textbooks in the foreseeable future, but very few students at traditional institutions are currently using e-textbooks, according to recent surveys.
Not so in the world of for-profit online education. Online for-profits such as American Public University System and the University of Phoenix have for years strategically steered students toward e-textbooks in an attempt to shave costs and ensure a more reliable delivery method that, in the context of online education, might seem to make more sense. At Kaplan University's law school, digital texts account for around 80 percent of assigned reading. At Capella University, e-textbooks are an available and accepted option in nearly all 1,250 courses. In for-profit higher education, more than any other sector, the traditional book is becoming obsolete….
One reason, of course, that the for-profits can manage to embrace e-textbooks is their top-down philosophy and reliance on vulnerable adjuncts. They can simply command that instructors use a particular book, an e-book.And that is that.
Observe our benighted future. Another unpromising, confused unintended experiment.
32 comments:
I firmly believe that those at the top of the class are just self taught individuals. They may show up to class, but the teacher in the front of the room is little more than an audio book, reading, and dancing about. Naturally, I can confirm my theory single handedly with my everyday experiences! Okay, that's meaningless, I know.
But I will continue to vent, even if I can't generalize them to the whole of the populous: Just this quarter I took an upper division course on Quantum Mechanics. My professor is a nice guy, very nervous all the time; sweats profusely even. Never understands a damn word I say. I'm forgiving of him since I turned in a homework assignment really late one time and he gave me full credit. Anyways, at the beginning of the quarter I try to read ahead a little bit since it is inevitable I will grow tired and fall behind, and this lessens the damage by the end of the quarter. Anyways, I read the first chapter of my QM book, and found that I really enjoyed the author because of his quirky sense of humor, he often would refer to equations or methods as "cute," and he would joke here and there (lots of puns). First day to class, I walk in about five minutes late and Nervous McGee is copying the text book on the board, lecturing about the material, word for word reciting jokes the author uses.
This persists to this day (Final exam Thursday!). I talk to other people in the class about this, they don't notice. As one girl told me, "I don't actually listen, I just show up and copy the board."
"Really? For an hour and twenty minutes you just sit there copying? Not listening?"
"No, I just start daydreaming; I'm off in my head."
Blegh. It frustrates me. I don't go to class since I can't stand to sit there hearing something I've read already. Also, I feel terrible sitting there, reading ahead in the book in front of the guy. Like I'm mocking him or something.
Gosh, BS, did you think that I was that kind of instructor?
I suppose there is some "material" (as they say) that resists being taught: it's more a matter of the student forcing him or herself to work through it. If they try, they typically get it. If not, there is nothing that can be done.
But, for some material, it helps to have a human being up there, connecting with other human beings, adjusting to their looks of bewilderment or excitement, etc. Often, it seems to me as I teach that I am much like a comic attempting to make people laugh. It is virtually impossible to be good at it unless you are monitoring the audience, and amazing subtly is possible in that regard.
Also, you can f*ck with students, which adds a special texture, available for adjustment. "I guess you'll sit there and scribble down anything I say, eh? 'Cause what I just said is obvious crap."
I used to tell them "I'm going to teach you wrong today," a grammatically incorrect statement that no one ever got, and there was a mild titter or so. I couldn't get up the nerve to do it, though.
Sometimes, I'll notice that a significant number of students are not listening (let alone thinking); they are instead furiously writing down everything I say.
I'll stop. I'll say, "What is the point of writing notes?"
They look up at me, uncomprehending (unless they're writing that down too).
You see (I say) I've already provided you with notes for these lectures. Have you ever noticed how the notes I give you are so close to what I say in class? That's 'cause I wrote the notes.
Still, they stare.
Do me a favor (I finally say) and put down your pens. Just listen. And think. Try to understand.
Somehow, this tends to work.
For about three minutes.
I recall you said, the first time I took your class (I'm obviously the model student since I need to specify that it was the course that I failed in), "Don't take notes, sit there and listen and think about what I am saying."
Or it was something of that like.
I put away the pencil and the pad and just listened. You made it worth it. Your class was a pleasure! Even NOW, to this day, I would happily retake (and sometimes think about it) Philosophy 1, and 2 just to sit and listen for awhile. I remember when class ended I'd always think "Damn." And the drive home was always thoughtful, "I'll figure it all out, damnit!"
I LEARNED something in your class. Actually, because of you, I sometimes think I already know all of philosophy. Sloppy thinking.
Anyways, In my venting, I should specify that these are physics professors teaching physics they don't care or use. They can't be bothered to even learn the material to provide a new and insightful point of view. That is, MY physics professors can't be bothered to learn the material so that they can teach me. We operate from the same source of information, they offer no new insightful twists, no advice, nothing. They just get up there, vomit on the board and walk out. Talking to them is always very difficult to. Too many words makes the flustered I think.
You did great though.
BS
Yes, that was the key word understand.
Putting the pencil away and processing the words from the stranger in front of the room was the best idea ever. Every philosophy class since then I am the guy in the front of the room, sans pencil and paper.
I do this in Physics too, but the strangers are dull. Also, I read the fuckin' book.
Ah, that is your downfall. You actually read the f*ckin book. Weirdo.
Oh yeah, me too. I have days where I just long for one of BvT's philosophy lectures. Sigh. I wish he taught a few more so I could keep taking them... ES
I remember being really disappointed that Roy wasn't teaching Logic. I think I asked him about that when I was in his class, but I don't recall the answer.
Hey BvT, why don't you teach logic?
Also to anyone reading, didn't IVC used to have a Philosophy of Sex class? Or was that all in my sick mind?
Philosophy of sex? Sheesh. What would that be?
Nope, we've never offered it. I woulda remembered.
Off the top of my head:
What counts as "sex" (the activity, I mean)? (Young people evidently tend to exclude oral sex from "having sex.")
What is the relationship between sex and love?
What are the assumptions behind such popular notions as that rape is, or is not, a form of sex?
I can see that making these lists is a bit dangerous.
I think Richard Prystowsky and I did a "99" course (seminar) on the "politics of sexuality" many years ago. It was a Humanities course. Richard was very interested in feminism and sexual equality.
It is entirely possible that, in future, I will be developing a logic course, since it appears that we will experience increasing pressure to offer "online" courses. And, prima facie, it would seem that logic courses are more suited to that. In fact, adjuncts have offered an online logic course at IVC for two or three years. But, eventually, I'll have to go into it, and I'll need to try to make logic interesting.
What are usually presented as beginning logic courses nowadays are not true logic courses. Rather, the typical course presents some basic concepts of logic and adds a set of "good thinking" categories such as informal fallacies (mistakes to avoid) and basic probability, definitions, etc. "Real' logic focuses on validity and delves into the various ways one may go about mapping the logical structure of reasoning and determining validity or invalidity. A true logic course would begin with sentential/propositional logic and then move to predicate logic and so on--deeper and deeper into structure. To me, this is fun up to a point, but then it becomes tedious. Mostly, teaching logic for a philosopher is something like the teaching of grammar for a writing instructor. It's all very basic, and it is generally far removed from what one usually does. Some take to it; some don't.
Oddly, given what I just said, I have probably moved my "intro to philosophy" course closer to logic/critical thinking than is typical. So I suppose I love logic in the sense of "critical thinking" concepts, which I emphasize so much in class. But that's not true logic. True logic is pretty much the same as mathematics.
Wikipedia seems to have a decent article on The philosophy of sex, which is presented as, essentially, the kinds of questions I listed earlier plus the feminist-related issues that Richard and I discussed 17 or so years ago. This strikes me as a topic about apples and oranges. A bit.
True, there was a marked difference in what I learned at IVC and what I learned at UCI. I found the UCI version much more interesting. For example, UCI eventually introduced set theory (yes and Predicate logic preceded the set theory, there was also a way of doing proofs we learned called "Natural Deduction").
Roy I recall you using real world examples that made an impression as well. For example I think I have a memory for a lot of the fallacies you covered. Rush Limbaugh often conquers Straw Men feminists. Republicans or Democrats is a false dichotomy/dilemma. Oh, and when you brought of False Authorities/Appealing to an Authority, I remember asking "Like when people go to Stephen Hawking for global warming information?" and you said something like "Well, at least he knows more about the scientific method," and I thought "weak answer."
I still do sir, I still do.
B ta tha S.
I wipe my hands of gender treatment debates. I'm effin' lost on the topic. I guess if I had to bend in any way, I'd think that women are not men, and no, not all treatment can be reasonably equal.
Were I to try and view women as equals to men, I'd have to erase my notions of men and women, and this would mean a lot of my inductive information (even the cogent (I wrote 'valid' the first time) stuff) would have to go out the window. I'd then need to validate/ratonalize seemingly obvious things like, why I want a male doctor, or why I want to constantly mate with women. Guess if I had to just say it bluntly, I'd fall apart as a human!
Not in all seriousness of course (I put this here as protective cover from MAH).
Also, Philosophy of Sex does not sound anywhere near as interesting as I thought it would be.
Maybe it was a "Psychology of Sex" class.
B
Gosh, BS, you're a closet redneck!
There are obvious physical differences between the sexes (with exceptions in extreme cases). But how would they impinge on the quality of a doctor?
On the other hand, I'd rather have a guy, um, checking me out than a gal. But that's only because of the, uh, obvious. Got nothing to do with ability.
As for mating, first of all, you ain't mating if'n you're taking steps to prevent conception. --I'm just being picky.
What's your attraction to females (sexwise) got to do with anything?
He just means that while he's all for equality of the sexes, some things will never be equal, such as his level of comfort with female vs male Dr.s giving him a physical, or his attraction to a potential sex partner. His point being that there just really are some major differences between the sexes, no matter how much we want all things to be equal. He was just using those examples to make his point. At least, that's what I got when I read his comment. ES
I wouldn't say I'm a full redneck, but I'm definitely working in that direction (Well, not lately, in fact education is uprooting me quite a bit as the last family BBQ illustrated).
Picky Roy is my favorite.
How I feel is irrelevant to the quality of the doctor, I didn't mean to imply that "I have sex with women, ergo women shouldn't be doctors." I'm just not like that, I had strep throat a few years back, female doctor checked me out, I didn't care at all (Good argument, I know). I don't think women are intellectually inferior, their place isn't in the kitchen, cleaning my house, or doing my laundry (really, I'm not picky, if anyone wants to do these things for me, please just e-mail or Facebook me).
I guess one would need to clarify the word "treatment," before I could say specifically how I feel or what I think about any one thing.
I also would like to note that the differences are not necessarily out of question either. The differences in sex is a discussion worth having, and worth examining on a per-topic basis. As I understand it, one does not raise a daughter and a son in the exact same manner, as emotionally, they differ from one another in a significant manner. Though as I write and ponder this, it is actually more the case that each child is unique in its emotional needs. If one finds they have a "feminine male" (maybe, even, an Eddie Izzard of some type, "Running, jumping, climbing trees, and then putting on makeup when you get up there!"), as an example.
I guess you'd need to pick specific instances before I could say anything concrete. I just want to note, I assume differences are abound, but what they are specifically I'm not sure.
Look briefly in to it, I even see that there is a distinction in the words "gender" and "sex." Something I'm almost certain I use synonymously in this post even. Like I said, I'm terribly confused on the topic.
BS
Oh, and ES note is correct. I was being descriptive in my examination of how I interact with women on a daily basis. Sort of my knee-jerk description really.
For example, someone says "Hey, the distinction between men and women is blurry!"
I ponder a brief moment, "Nope."
But okay, upon further examination I might be able to mix myself up. Just so long as no one makes me logically justify why I prefer sex with a female (because really, what reason would there to be sexist on this level? Other then aesthetic/sexual preference).
BS - You are so right about each child having different needs that do not fit neatly into ideas of male/female categories. My oldest son (18) is gay, and his needs over the years were remarkably different than those of his younger brother, though they were only two years apart in age. He is even more sensitive than his sister, but in a different way. (For anyone who thinks that gay is a "choice", I can say from personal experience that it seems to be there from the start - I never assumed my son was gay, nor did I ever treat him as though he was, but I could not have been less surprised when he finally "came out" to me. I guess by then I was pretty sure, but knowing for certain gave a new perspective looking back over his years growing up.) ES
Here's what confuses me in this exchange. I don't think that anyone holds the thesis that men and women are "equal" in the sense that they are physically the same. Obviously, having a penis is different from not having one, etc. So that isn't an issue.
There has been, of course, a controversy concerning whether men and women have different intellectual capabilities (that issue has seriously faded in the last century) or whether they have different brains (emotionally and what not). Is that what we're talking about? But just what turns on that? Since a given individual might be emotionally, etc. suited to a task despite environment and/or genetics tending to make them less suited as a sex (if such is the case). So, really, what is the issue here?
Why not proceed with the principle that one must not discriminate (based on sex) unless there is a difference that makes a difference (a relevant diff). This will mean that, in hiring, say, a logician, sex would be irrelevant. On the other hand, in casting for the movie, "Lesbians in Space," one will not bother alerting male actors to show up for tests.
That's equality. So what, exactly, is the issue again?
And what is the point of noting that you (or I) are attracted to females, sexually? What does that have to do with equality?
As usual, I am lost in space, atuned to no one, not even myself.
Yeah but - there is always the chance these days that some male actor will sue for not being allowed to audition for "Lesbians in Space". Just kidding! Sort of...Es
Perhaps at some point the phenomenon of men passing for women will be sufficiently common that it would be objectionable to exclude men from cattle calls for "Lesbians in Space." But we're not there yet. Except for that dude in the "Crying Game." I could really go for that guy.
Here's what confuses me in this exchange. I don't think that anyone holds the thesis that men and women are "equal" in the sense that they are physically the same. Obviously, having a penis is different from not having one, etc. So that isn't an issue.
True.
There has been, of course, a controversy concerning whether men and women have different intellectual capabilities (that issue has seriously faded in the last century) or whether they have different brains (emotionally and what not). Is that what we're talking about?
Well, No. I'll get to it in a second.
Why not proceed with the principle that one must not discriminate (based on sex) unless there is a difference that makes a difference (a relevant diff). This will mean that, in hiring, say, a logician, sex would be irrelevant. On the other hand, in casting for the movie, "Lesbians in Space," one will not bother alerting male actors to show up for tests.
This sounds super dandy.
Don't get rattled, the confusion is a result of my confusion (sometimes you give me too much credit, I think).
I'll elaborate, if it will help. The issue of gender roles ignited a thought in my mind linking how the sexes should treat each other, that caused me to impulsively remark, "I treat women differently!" How do I treat women differently? I often flirt with them, and well, have sex with them. Okay, great. Still, that's not what we meant by "treat" in this case. My bad. It would seem that so long as we don't go to some crazy extreme I tend to agree with what you said above: treat them as equals except for those rare occasions where we have "Lesbian in Space" (good movie), or if I am looking for a prom date (I'll look to those hot looking Hanson girls if that's the case).
Does this lack of sense make any sense?
BS
P.S.
Fun personal story about the Hanson thing: When I was 11-13 or something and the family would go grocery shopping I'd ditch the family unit to privately enjoy the magazines with the girls on the covers. Also I was really in to video game magazines at the time. One time I saw what I thought was the cutest girl in the world on the cover, my heart skipped the world was aflutter. My sister walks up behind me, and points and laughs at the cover, "Haha, they do look like girls."
Oh man. Instant repulsion at that point.
Yeah, I really hate when that happens.
I have to hold myself back here - I could go on and on (and do, in Humanities 10A) about medieval education. But I'll limit myself to this: Go trivium! Go quadrivium! Rah! Rah! Rah!
Okay; I am WAY late to this party--catching up on DtB after a week away (at a wonderful sanctuary for retired research animals, in rural Wyoming). Not sure if anyone will care to read this contribution. Wait: I'm only 3 days late! But that can seem like an awfully long time, in the virtual world.
I was flattered and pleased, as I inhaled this discussion, that BS made reference to me (he had hedged some point to protect himself from some kind of rejoinder from me, I think.)
Anyway, I just want to refer BS and others to Peter Singer's excellent discussion of equality in his *Animal Liberation* or the many excerpts from it titled things like "All Animals Are Equal." It's reprinted in a hundred Intro and Ethics texts--easy to find.
Singer approaches animal equality (animals' moral status) by saying: let's look at what *human* equality means. It doesn't mean (1) that all humans are factually identical (as BvT points out), since that is manifestly false. It doesn't mean (2) that we must treat men and women, children and adults, etc. *exactly the same*: that would be foolish--idiotic--and wrong. Nor does it even mean that (3) we must give men and women, etc. the exact same legal/moral rights. Men do not need (and won't, for the foreseeable future) a right to abortion, though many would argue that women still do need and have that right (at least in some stages of pregnancy).
No: what equality means to Singer is "equality of consideration": that each individual deserves that their interests be given equal consideration when we try (individually or collectively) to decide what to do. So a man's interests do not count any more heavily than a woman's; a person of color's interests do not count more lightly than a caucasian's, etc. (Singer adds that since the only thing that all humans really have in common is sentience--the ability to feel pleasure and pain, in his usage--then sentient nonhuman animals should get equal consideration, too.)
As Singer says: equality is not a claim about the facts. It's a *moral imperative*. Doesn't matter what someone's capacities or abilities are: they should be treated with basic moral consideration of their interests, whatever those interests are.
Not that I accept everything that Singer believes; I abhor his Utilitarianism. But the guy has some fabulous, clarifying discussions on the topic of moral equality.
MAH
MAH, my phone hasn't been working all day--and the internet is intermittent.
Re your 7:36 comment of 3 days or so ago, BS: if Stephen Hawking is conversant with the sciences relevant to global climate change, then it's not really an appeal to authority (in the sense of a fallacy) to take his views on the subject seriously. Taking the scientific consensus about an issue as what one will go with--say, natural selection or biological evolution, or global climate change--is not an appeal to authority, but good sense.
It's tricky, of course; for the scientific consensus *can* be wrong, and it changes (as you well know). But usually, that's the best that an ordinary citizen can do. Right?
p.s. Your and ES's tributes to BvT's teaching are wonderful and just. But how odd, BvT: most of *my* students NEVER take notes EXCEPT when I am writing something on the board, as if only those words that appear in chalk are important. I wish they would take MORE notes! But I love the stories about how you make them stop compulsive note-taking and listen. Excellent.
MAH
Not to worry, BvT. Thanks for letting me know about your phone! All is well.
MAH
It's been a while, but I too have found some of Singer's discussions about moral standing/equality valuable. To the extent that I am a consequentialist (i.e., one who views rightness as a function of the consequences of our actions), I am more of a negative utilitarian--i.e., it is very important to me to end/prevent/reduce suffering. Promoting "happiness"?--not so much. And it seems plain that animals (with possible exceptions) are fully capable of suffering. It just won't do to cause them especially intense suffering for trivial purposes. I am inclined at times to go further than that. I am amazed that it is difficult for some people to consider the suffering of, say, a chicken or a pig, as a real and regrettable occurrence. To me, it is so terribly easy.
Thank the cosmos for people like you in that respect, BvT. I do think that more people than ever (in our own culture) DO see animal suffering as real and as a problem. That's an impression, but seems to be borne out by many surveys and the passage of humane farming laws by an increasing number of states. Still, most are remarkably unaware and thoughtless about it.
I do think that if humanity survives long enough, at some point "we" will see our current treatment of animals as an unparalleled moral catastrophe. How could we not?
And I'm with you on negative Utilitarianism--or at least negative consequentialism. Absolutely.
MAH
Post a Comment