Majoring in Bullshit

[DGS49]

On a segment on higher education yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of a new Obama program that would attempt to evaluate the nation's colleges and universities with quantitative information about things like comparative cost, graduation rates, earnings of graduates - the sorts of things that a rational, middle-class student and her parents might like to consider in deciding which college to pursue.

Actually, I like the idea.

And then they had a spokesperson from Sarah Lawrence College in New York (my apologies if Sara Larrence is spelled wrong).

At SLC, it seems that there are no MAJORS, no GRADES, and the students pursue whatever course of study they find amusing. In place of grades, the professors provide a "detailed, extensive" written evaluation of the student and her progress through the term.

The spokesperson was permitted to say - astoundingly, in my view - that AFTER FINANCIAL AID, the average cost per student-year was "about $44 thousand"! One can only speculate what the actual tuition is. Breathtaking, I suspect.

SLC is concerned that the mundane evaluation envisioned by the Obama program might give the impression of a school that is overpriced and generally worthless (my words, not hers).

I have the impression, based on nothing more than rumors, that SLC is mainly a haven for rich kids whose parents are sufficiently grounded that they will either be successful in the family business, or alternatively to live out their lives as beneficiaries of trust funds.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[oldfart]

On a segment on higher education yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of a new Obama program that would attempt to evaluate the nation's colleges and universities with quantitative information about things like comparative cost, graduation rates, earnings of graduates - the sorts of things that a rational, middle-class student and her parents might like to consider in deciding which college to pursue.

Actually, I like the idea.

And then they had a spokesperson from Sarah Lawrence College in New York (my apologies if Sara Larrence is spelled wrong).

At SLC, it seems that there are no MAJORS, no GRADES, and the students pursue whatever course of study they find amusing. In place of grades, the professors provide a "detailed, extensive" written evaluation of the student and her progress through the term.

The spokesperson was permitted to say - astoundingly, in my view - that AFTER FINANCIAL AID, the average cost per student-year was "about $44 thousand"! One can only speculate what the actual tuition is. Breathtaking, I suspect.

SLC is concerned that the mundane evaluation envisioned by the Obama program might give the impression of a school that is overpriced and generally worthless (my words, not hers).

I have the impression, based on nothing more than rumors, that SLC is mainly a haven for rich kids whose parents are sufficiently grounded that they will either be successful in the family business, or alternatively to live out their lives as beneficiaries of trust funds.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top, but you are essentially correct. I'm not a fan of attempts to measure educational effectiveness like Common Core, and I think there is a place for innovative and experimental programs that think outside the box. That said, there is a collection of liberal arts colleges in America that cater to the sons and daughters of the wealthy who will have little financial pressure to be useful in life. It is education as conspicuous consumption; more attractive by the lavish uselessness of it. Of course a person could go to such an institution, choose wisely, and receive an excellent education in almost anything. I suspect a good number of very bright people with interests in the humanities do so. But if Little Missy has the brains and gonads to make it at Caltech, and wants a world class education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM curriculum), why go to one of the Seven Sisters where that would be a stretch to make the resources available?

 

[HenryBHough]

In Blue State Universities the only graduation requirement is that one demonstrate the ability to vote a straight Democrat party line in any election. Now it IS challenging as expertise has to be demonstrated with filling in boxes, making X or check marks, and the effective use of several models of voting machine. In fairness, however, casting multiple ballots is not taught in undergraduate programs. That's reserved for extra-cost PG courses.

 

[Moonglow]

I attended NEO A&M in 1980-82, they did not use an alphabetic grade system either..
When I took CLEP tests in the military(1985-86) they gave you and "S" for satisfactory or a "US" for unsatisfactory..

 

[HenryBHough]

They were advanced for their time! The U.S. did not become unsatisfactory until January, 2009.


(cue the spew....)

 

[Zander]

Education is just another business.

If people are willing to pay for Ginsu Knives, Flex-Seal, and Thigh Masters, why not sell them "the history of film" and "women's studies"?

 

[Moonglow]

For people that want to learn about filmmaking it's relevant...

 

[OnePercenter]

On a segment on higher education yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of a new Obama program that would attempt to evaluate the nation's colleges and universities with quantitative information about things like comparative cost, graduation rates, earnings of graduates - the sorts of things that a rational, middle-class student and her parents might like to consider in deciding which college to pursue.

Actually, I like the idea.

And then they had a spokesperson from Sarah Lawrence College in New York (my apologies if Sara Larrence is spelled wrong).

At SLC, it seems that there are no MAJORS, no GRADES, and the students pursue whatever course of study they find amusing. In place of grades, the professors provide a "detailed, extensive" written evaluation of the student and her progress through the term.

The spokesperson was permitted to say - astoundingly, in my view - that AFTER FINANCIAL AID, the average cost per student-year was "about $44 thousand"! One can only speculate what the actual tuition is. Breathtaking, I suspect.

SLC is concerned that the mundane evaluation envisioned by the Obama program might give the impression of a school that is overpriced and generally worthless (my words, not hers).

I have the impression, based on nothing more than rumors, that SLC is mainly a haven for rich kids whose parents are sufficiently grounded that they will either be successful in the family business, or alternatively to live out their lives as beneficiaries of trust funds.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top, but you are essentially correct. I'm not a fan of attempts to measure educational effectiveness like Common Core, and I think there is a place for innovative and experimental programs that think outside the box. That said, there is a collection of liberal arts colleges in America that cater to the sons and daughters of the wealthy who will have little financial pressure to be useful in life. It is education as conspicuous consumption; more attractive by the lavish uselessness of it. Of course a person could go to such an institution, choose wisely, and receive an excellent education in almost anything. I suspect a good number of very bright people with interests in the humanities do so. But if Little Missy has the brains and gonads to make it at Caltech, and wants a world class education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM curriculum), why go to one of the Seven Sisters where that would be a stretch to make the resources available?

'Little Missy'.....What rock do you live under?

 

[OnePercenter]

The real story

Sarah Lawrence College - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

I enjoyed very much studying the Humanities....Still do..

 

[oldfart]

But if Little Missy has the brains and gonads to make it at Caltech, and wants a world class education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM curriculum), why go to one of the Seven Sisters where that would be a stretch to make the resources available?

'Little Missy'.....What rock do you live under?

I'm just well traveled around the country and have observed universities for a few decades. I borrowed the phrase from an Oberlin debater who demolished Harvard's team in the Wayne State finals in '67. The next year our two graduate assistants became the head coaches at University of Texas and University of Minnesota and our head coach Stan Rives was Director for the National Tournament. I got an obscenely large meal allowance and a plush hotel room I shared with only two other students at Nationals for the really easy job of dispatching timers. As long as everyone showed up where they were supposed to, I could see any round I wanted.

It was my introduction to observing America's best and brightest. How could a society led by such people ever go wrong?

 

[DGS49]

Thanks for the link, 1%-er, I was basically right. It is a haven for rich kids who don't care if they learn anything "useful" in college.

And having dropped the SAT requirement (they don't even ask for your score), admission is largely determined by whether you check the box labelled, "Will you be applying for financial aid?" If you don't check it, you are IN!

I enjoy studying the arts and humanities as well, but I didn't waste my college tuition money on it. It's free.

 

[wallflower]

Oh. Wow. You did not just diss the seven sisters while also implying stem is the only worthwhile field, right?

First off, Sarah Lawrence is not a seven sister. Second, smith college (the seven sister school I currently attend) has a very well funded engineering program, as well as providing a great amount of funding to the hard sciences. Third, seven sisters schools are not only for rich kids who want to major in bullshit. Seven sisters schools produce heads of state, brilliant scientists, and overall talented employees. Smith College has a 50% Fulbright fellowship success rate. Last year, we sent I believe around 20 people on fulbrights- more than the ivies. Definitely more than cal tech.

I'm a double major in anthropology and government. In completing my sophomore year, I've already done independent research. I'll be spending a year in the Netherlands doing research there, that will inform a thesis project. I'll then be applying for a Fulbright, while attending the school with the highest Fulbright success rate in the country. When I graduate, I can count myself among First Ladies,political officials, groundbreaking scientists, and other women of distinction. So please, tell me my education is bullshit again. I'd love to use it to rip your argument to shreds.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[jillian]

On a segment on higher education yesterday on NPR, there was a discussion of a new Obama program that would attempt to evaluate the nation's colleges and universities with quantitative information about things like comparative cost, graduation rates, earnings of graduates - the sorts of things that a rational, middle-class student and her parents might like to consider in deciding which college to pursue.

Actually, I like the idea.

And then they had a spokesperson from Sarah Lawrence College in New York (my apologies if Sara Larrence is spelled wrong).

At SLC, it seems that there are no MAJORS, no GRADES, and the students pursue whatever course of study they find amusing. In place of grades, the professors provide a "detailed, extensive" written evaluation of the student and her progress through the term.

The spokesperson was permitted to say - astoundingly, in my view - that AFTER FINANCIAL AID, the average cost per student-year was "about $44 thousand"! One can only speculate what the actual tuition is. Breathtaking, I suspect.

SLC is concerned that the mundane evaluation envisioned by the Obama program might give the impression of a school that is overpriced and generally worthless (my words, not hers).

I have the impression, based on nothing more than rumors, that SLC is mainly a haven for rich kids whose parents are sufficiently grounded that they will either be successful in the family business, or alternatively to live out their lives as beneficiaries of trust funds.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top, but you are essentially correct. I'm not a fan of attempts to measure educational effectiveness like Common Core, and I think there is a place for innovative and experimental programs that think outside the box. That said, there is a collection of liberal arts colleges in America that cater to the sons and daughters of the wealthy who will have little financial pressure to be useful in life. It is education as conspicuous consumption; more attractive by the lavish uselessness of it. Of course a person could go to such an institution, choose wisely, and receive an excellent education in almost anything. I suspect a good number of very bright people with interests in the humanities do so. But if Little Missy has the brains and gonads to make it at Caltech, and wants a world class education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM curriculum), why go to one of the Seven Sisters where that would be a stretch to make the resources available?

there is a value to education for the sake of education. it doesn't seem to me the evaluation sought by the administration is aimed at curtailing liberal arts colleges or a liberal arts education. it does, however, seem to be aimed at the value being provided to the student. and i'm ok with that.

 

[wallflower]

Oh, by the way, I receive a grant from my school that covers about three quarters of my tuition. Because I am as working class as a person can get. I also work two jobs, along with studying at one of the most intellectually rigorous schools in the country, heading an organization, and volunteering. You know what pays for that grant? The huge endowment my school has, thanks to the thousands of alums who donate their money every year. The alums who head companies, run research labs, organize classrooms and teach children, perform surgeries, and build bridges.

And arts, humanities, social sciences? You can't study those for free. Well, you can. But chances are you're doing it wrong. Because picking up a book isn't studying. Studying is engaging with material. Really learning it - what it means in larger contexts, how it applies to the world at large.STEM fields are excellent, and I'm proud to attend a college with such strong support of those fields. But without us humanities, arts, and social sciences majors, this world would be lacking in many, many things. Hell, STEM fields are nothing without a liberal arts education. Doctors who only learn science never learn how to relate to patients - never learn the human aspect of medicine. Engineers who don't learn humanities or social sciences forget that whatever project they're working on has a human effect. They design and build for science, but forget that people need to use what their creating. Great inventions never happen, because would be inventors forget how to critically engage with their surroundings and figure out what people need.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[wallflower]

Any attempt to put a numerical value to how effective and education is will fail by definition. Why? Because it is math devoid of the human element. Scientific research isn't the only kind of research. There's more to research than quantitative data. If the studying of universities is based on both quantitative and qualitative data, it's effective. If it's just "which school produces the richest students" then no one is going to benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Esmeralda]

Oh, by the way, I receive a grant from my school that covers about three quarters of my tuition. Because I am as working class as a person can get. I also work two jobs, along with studying at one of the most intellectually rigorous schools in the country, heading an organization, and volunteering. You know what pays for that grant? The huge endowment my school has, thanks to the thousands of alums who donate their money every year. The alums who head companies, run research labs, organize classrooms and teach children, perform surgeries, and build bridges.

And arts, humanities, social sciences? You can't study those for free. Well, you can. But chances are you're doing it wrong. Because picking up a book isn't studying. Studying is engaging with material. Really learning it - what it means in larger contexts, how it applies to the world at large.STEM fields are excellent, and I'm proud to attend a college with such strong support of those fields. But without us humanities, arts, and social sciences majors, this world would be lacking in many, many things. Hell, STEM fields are nothing without a liberal arts education. Doctors who only learn science never learn how to relate to patients - never learn the human aspect of medicine. Engineers who don't learn humanities or social sciences forget that whatever project they're working on has a human effect. They design and build for science, but forget that people need to use what their creating. Great inventions never happen, because would be inventors forget how to critically engage with their surroundings and figure out what people need.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Excellent post.

What a world it would be without music, philosophy, art, literature, theatre, dance, history, anthropology, and other arts and humanities. Studying in the humanities does mean more than just looking at pictures or reading a book; it means understanding the human condition and seeing ourselves in a larger context. The above post says it very well. Look at the Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. They had students and when their students became masters, they had students. The humanities are not BS. Without studying about ourselves as beings with soul and spirit, we would just be something like drones.

 

[oldfart]

Oh. Wow. You did not just diss the seven sisters while also implying stem is the only worthwhile field, right?

Actually I did the first but not the second. Read the post again.

First off, Sarah Lawrence is not a seven sister.

I am aware of that, which is why I did not mention SL in my post.

Second, smith college (the seven sister school I currently attend) has a very well funded engineering program, as well as providing a great amount of funding to the hard sciences. Third, seven sisters schools are not only for rich kids who want to major in bullshit. Seven sisters schools produce heads of state, brilliant scientists, and overall talented employees. Smith College has a 50% Fulbright fellowship success rate. Last year, we sent I believe around 20 people on fulbrights- more than the ivies. Definitely more than cal tech.

You obviously read the flak put out by your college's PR department. Most "elite" schools have two types of students: rich and legacy who are not required to exhibit any exceptional level of ability and a population of students of more modest financial means but exceptional academic ability. So I suggest you consider the ramifications of this development strategy before you throw out anymore garbage statistics.

And if you think Fulbrights are a good measure of educational quality, you are delusional.

I'm a double major in anthropology and government. In completing my sophomore year, I've already done independent research. I'll be spending a year in the Netherlands doing research there, that will inform a thesis project. I'll then be applying for a Fulbright, while attending the school with the highest Fulbright success rate in the country. When I graduate, I can count myself among First Ladies,political officials, groundbreaking scientists, and other women of distinction.

Congratulations on your success. You are familiar with the origins of the word "sophomore"? Get back with me when you have defended your dissertation. You don't have the union card to lecture about research or academic accomplishment yet.

So please, tell me my education is bullshit again. I'd love to use it to rip your argument to shreds.

I'm going to be nice and let it go from here except for the comment that if you don't loose the attitude there is no way you will make it in graduate school. That's not a put-down, it's a good piece of career advice.

 

[oldfart]

there is a value to education for the sake of education. it doesn't seem to me the evaluation sought by the administration is aimed at curtailing liberal arts colleges or a liberal arts education. it does, however, seem to be aimed at the value being provided to the student. and i'm ok with that.

Actually there is a lot of opinion in professional education circles that the Obama Dept of Education agenda is immensely destructive to educational quality at all levels, an opinion I share. Just as with Common Core, the initiatives seem more concerned with privatizing public education for corporate profit than any concern over the quality of education. The Administration proposes throwing out peer review procedures developed over three quarters of a century and ignoring international standards for openness and involvement by all parties in establishing educational standards and metrics. Instead they have chosen a secretive process of self-appointed experts and the use of financial sanctions to force all other parties to accept the fait accompli.

This is just a raw naked power play to turn education over to corporate for profit interests and abandon all values that have undergird public education for a hundred and fifty years. Of course parents, educators, and students have no voice in this process. But Big Money does. If you like privatized prisons, you will love privatized public education.

 

[oldfart]

Any attempt to put a numerical value to how effective and education is will fail by definition. Why? Because it is math devoid of the human element. Scientific research isn't the only kind of research. There's more to research than quantitative data. If the studying of universities is based on both quantitative and qualitative data, it's effective. If it's just "which school produces the richest students" then no one is going to benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Are you the same person who a few posts upthread was extolling the statistics demonstating the superiority of her institution? And now measurements such as you use "will fail by definition"? REALLY?