On the types of intelligence ignored by the elite university...
"I also never learned that there are smart people who aren’t “smart.” The existence of multiple forms of intelligence has become a commonplace, but however much elite universities like to sprinkle their incoming classes with a few actors or violinists, they select for and develop one form of intelligence: the analytic. While this is broadly true of all universities, elite schools, precisely because their students (and faculty, and administrators) possess this one form of intelligence to such a high degree, are more apt to ignore the value of others. One naturally prizes what one most possesses and what most makes for one’s advantages. But social intelligence and emotional intelligence and creative ability, to name just three other forms, are not distributed preferentially among the educational elite. The “best” are the brightest only in one narrow sense. One needs to wander away from the educational elite to begin to discover this."
On the limiting nature of university educations...
"When parents explain why they work so hard to give their children the best possible education, they invariably say it is because of the opportunities it opens up. But what of the opportunities it shuts down? An elite education gives you the chance to be rich—which is, after all, what we’re talking about—but it takes away the chance not to be. Yet the opportunity not to be rich is one of the greatest opportunities with which young Americans have been blessed. We live in a society that is itself so wealthy that it can afford to provide a decent living to whole classes of people who in other countries exist (or in earlier times existed) on the brink of poverty or, at least, of indignity. You can live comfortably in the United States as a schoolteacher, or a community organizer, or a civil rights lawyer, or an artist—that is, by any reasonable definition of comfort. You have to live in an ordinary house instead of an apartment in Manhattan or a mansion in L.A.; you have to drive a Honda instead of a BMW or a Hummer; you have to vacation in Florida instead of Barbados or Paris, but what are such losses when set against the opportunity to do work you believe in, work you’re suited for, work you love, every day of your life?"
And finally, on the inability of the elite university to foster truly free thinking...
"Being an intellectual means, first of all, being passionate about ideas—and not just for the duration of a semester, for the sake of pleasing the teacher, or for getting a good grade. A friend who teaches at the University of Connecticut once complained to me that his students don’t think for themselves. Well, I said, Yale students think for themselves, but only because they know we want them to. I’ve had many wonderful students at Yale and Columbia, bright, thoughtful, creative kids whom it’s been a pleasure to talk with and learn from. But most of them have seemed content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them. Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul. These few have tended to feel like freaks, not least because they get so little support from the university itself. Places like Yale, as one of them put it to me, are not conducive to searchers."
(link courtesy of kottke.org)
3 comments:
I don't really agree with the first two, but I certainly agree with the third paragraph.
In the first paragraph, he basically points out the propensity for hard-working analytic minds to be nerds, or dorks, if you will. Any type of intelligence in isolation is rather unfortunate, for example, a remarkable artist who detests math and science. So, I don't think it makes sense to talk about "different types" of intelligence. A truly intelligent person will try to be well rounded.
The second paragraph I also disagree with. I guess that's just because I've spent my post-secondary education trying to become an academic, and I don't expect to make very much money down that path. It sounds like he's talking about business students, which we all know, aren't really interested in learning in the first place.
But, the third paragraph makes a lot of sense to me. It is an unfortunate outcome of misunderstanding the purpose of university education, as well as a system in which universities, above all, are interested in collecting tuition money, not in seeking out, or creating the best and brightest. If someone does not sincerely care about learning about history (for example) but will go to class and pay for tuition, why would the university care? In fact, they wouldn't (and don't) care if they go to class. They just care about the money.
Good points, but I think I still side with the author. I disagree with your first criticism, in that I don't think he's highlighting the connection between analytical minds and dorks. Rather, I think he's trying to say that university administrations are far more concerned with promoting the "major" disciplines of science, engineering, medicine, commerce, law, and to a lesser extent the humanities like history and sociology. All you have to do is look at the size and funding of music, drama and fine art departments to confirm this. Certainly this is because the major disciplines are more likely to be profitable, but I think that's the point he's trying to make.
Second, academia is kind of an anomaly in terms of careers, in that it doesn't pay HUGE money (though it does still provide a very comfortable lifestyle), but it does still have the prestige that university students are almost assumed to seek. I think he's referring more to jobs such as skilled trades, etc. Still, I think you're probably right that this one applies more to professional programs (i.e. engineering, law, etc.) than the arts, where there tends to be some more latitude in terms of what your expected career should be.
All very good points. I see what you are saying about the first paragraph, but still, I generally don't like when people talk about "different kinds of intelligence" as if some are elusive and others are not. Or rather, that people are predisposed to only being able to employ one form of intelligence.
Post a Comment