

What should colleges teach? - yummyfajitas
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/

======
fnid
There is something seriously wrong with our society. I think it is a much
deeper problem than what we are acknowledging with the decline of newspapers,
education, politics, and currency.

It is our vision of the future. Our vision of the future is wrong. At one
point, we believed if you worked hard and produced something of value that you
would be rewarded. This was true in a world where life could be substantially
_improved_.

However, in our world -- the western world, life is sufficiently good. There
are no consumer pains to speak of. We are sedated by television. We are fed by
grocery stores. We are medicated with little pills, to cure our ills, our
wills, and operate our mills.

Our problem is: We have no purpose.

We have no purpose on earth. We have no problems to solve. We have no problems
we care about. We have no problems. Life is _too_ good. There is no struggle.
There is no ill.

There is only desire left. Desire for power. Desire for monetary gain. Desire
for resource control. Those who do not desire this power, this control, this
money are being squashed by an increasingly relative few who do.

And there is ever less and less for them to take. Ever less and less for them
to control and gain and everyone is just kind of fed up with it.

~~~
brianto2010
So, you are saying that because 'life is sufficiently good', we have no
problems, and thus, no purpose. I would agree with what you are saying,
assuming the absence of one major variable: interaction with the minds and
hearts around us.

My belief is that we do not have purpose _a priori_ , and that life is void,
but through living - interacting with others, expressing emotions, and seeing
a larger scope of the world around us - _we can create our own purpose_.

We are curious by nature; we tinker, play, and slave away at discovering
connections between the entitites around us. As we grow, this fundamental
desire does not wane; it grows. It grows as we grow. One day, we will find one
such connection that will bring us joy, happiness. This is our _true calling_.
It is because of this true calling that we find our purpose. Our true calling
is our purpose.

Of course, not _everyone_ can find it... So, let me try a second argument:

Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear
friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We
feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our
purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we
find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us
(this argument).

If a person does not fall into either category, then that person truly
_doesn't_ have a purpose. <sarcasm>That is what depression and
absurdism/nihilism is for.</sarcasm>

Also, I agree that people _do_ have a intrinsic avarice. :-)

~~~
astine
"My belief is that we do not have purpose _a priori_ , and that life is void,"

You mean _intrinsically_ , maybe _before knowledge_. _A priori_ doesn't make
sense in this context.

"Why are we happy when a spouse gives birth? Why are we worried if a dear
friend or companion is ill? Why do we shed tears at a loved one's wake? We
feel because we developed a connection with the people around us. That is our
purpose. If we cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we
find purpose in preserving the life and happiness of the ones most dear to us
(this argument)."

Why are we happy when an enemy is killed? Why are we worried if a dear follows
us in the dark? Why do we shed tears at a foe's triumph? We feel because we
developed a hatred toward the people around us. That is our purpose. If we
cannot find a purpose within ourselves (above argument), we find purpose in
hating those whom we most hate (this argument).

~~~
brianto2010
Regarding the 'a priori' thing, you're right. Oops. I was trying to sound
cool.

Your version of the argument works too, though pessimistic. Some people live
their lives to hate other people.

------
timwiseman
Interesting piece. I am inclined to ask, should we have a core curriculum?

This is anecodotal only, but when I was an undergrad I felt like many of the
classes I took where of no benefit, but they were required. Now that I am
working on my masters degree, I am tightly focused on my field (and a tiny
handful of electives in one other very tightly connected field) and every
class is relevant.

There may be a value in maintaining a broad based core curriculum, but then it
seems there is also value in a tighter focus and it may at least in some cases
make sense to permit students to narrow in on that tigther focus earlier.

Of course, that tight focus should never be too confining. I changed majors
twice before finding one I was happy with, and even while working on my
masters the idea of switching has come up.

~~~
gaius
In the UK, you might get to do one or two courses outside your field if you
really want to and they're basically relevant, but what you "major" in is all
you study. No-one makes engineers take classes in creative writing
f'rinstance.

------
wsprague
It baffles me that supporting a rigorous traditional curriculum would be
associated with a capitalist political and economic outlook. The only thing
that I can think of is that the connotations of "traditional" or "rigorous"
are unappealing to the left because of their deployments in class struggle,
generally on the side of the powerful. Unfortunately, we may have thrown the
baby out with the bathwater...

------
dylanz
I think curriculum's are too segregated. Let's get brains from mathematical
sciences, engineering, biochemistry and biology (etc) together, and have them
come up with their own interesting project.

------
balding_n_tired
Ye have sown the wind, Mr. Fish...

