Send As SMS
Shots In The Dark
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
  Are Yale and Harvard Useless?
That appears to be the opinion of some of the posters below, who write....

It is not just Harvard that is bankrupt as a spring of political ideas. Have you seen the latest political diatribe between Bush and Kerry, two Yale graduates, over who said about the war in Iraq what and should apologize.... It is not apparent that there is more lux et veritas in New Haven than in Cantabrigia. Both seem to be pretty dark places these days.

9:50 PM

Delete
Anonymous said...

No, Harvard lefties aren't socialists, they're much more disingenuous.

And thank God that Yale and Harvard's influence on the world has been marginalized over the years. So things can be dark there and it means little or nothing to the rest of the country. Keep the lights on at HMS please, but perhaps the rest could use a nap for, say, twenty years.

11:05 PM

Delete
Anonymous said...

You raise an interesting point 11.05pm. What faculty do at Yale or Harvard is inconsequential to life in America or in the World.

Harvard has many more professional schools than Yale, so it stands to reason that it's global influence in Law, Business, Medicine, Public Health or Education is not trivial. The world would surely be a darker place if Harvard closed shop one of these days.

What's going on here? Do people really believe that professors of the humanities at Harvard and Yale—which seems to be the group in question—are so unimportant, irrelevant, and useless? Is this why Harvard's new curricular reform plan is so practical-minded? Are Harvard lefties really "much more disingenuous" than socialists? And just what the heck does that mean, anyway?
 
Comments:
The question of relevancy of higher education is an important one, but goes well beyond Harvard and Yale.

Many social sciences in America have evolved in ways in which there are stronger incentives to use sophisticated methods than to pursue interesting questions. As a result Departments spend more time now teaching 'fancy' methods than helping students discern what is consequential from what's trivial. This is one reason many social science departments at Harvard and Yale these days are ignored by the areas of practice they should be linked to.

It's possible that Harvard or Yale could be playing a greater leadership role than they are in helping place questions of purpose more centrally on their curriculum. But it's not clear that the faculty is equiped to do this or that the leadership has been selected on the skills to do this effectively. Perhaps the new undergraduate curriculum at Harvard is trying to do this.

As for the humanities they are central to help students develop wisdom over questions that have lasting value and to discern important substantive issues from intellectual inconsequential fads.
 
Useless for whom? for the people who manage them? for the staff? for faculty? for students? for donors? for the wealthy in american society? for the poor in american society? for humankind? for the fields of knowledge in which people work?

The answers to these variations of your question may differ. Perhaps your question should be whether Universities are asking these questions and who decides how they are to be useful and for whom.
 
It means that I believe socialists, however wrong, are motivated by a true humanitarian desire to help the less fortunate. Whereas Harvard lefties seem motivated more by some misguided guilt surrounding their perceived intellectual superiority (ie who will help these poor bastards if I don't show them the light of my wisdom and learning?). That, to me, is more disingenous than simply giving flawed advice. In short, elitism is despicable.
 
Fair enough. But some examples would help. It's easy to rail against an abstraction...and abstractions are easily transformed into straw men.
 
The Democratic wave is the phantom. I call 13 seats. That's it, and that, in turn, will spell the destruction of the party.
 
Which of Harvard's professional schools rank at the top of their peer institutionss? And which have been sliding down in recent years?
How do Harvard schools compare to their peer institutions in the number of students who apply? in the percentage admitted? in the quality of the applicants? in the impact of their graduates?

Shouldn't the members of the Corporation be asking these questions? and shouldn't they be asking candidates for President for their views on how to deal with these questions?
 
The following link implies that Harvard is not useless but rather one-sided on matters of some consequence in America:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=11307
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name:richard
Location:New York, New York
ARCHIVES
02/01/2005 - 02/28/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 03/31/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 04/30/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 05/31/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 06/30/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 07/31/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 08/31/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 09/30/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 10/31/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 11/30/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 01/31/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 02/28/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 03/31/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 04/30/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 05/31/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 06/30/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 07/31/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 08/31/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 09/30/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 10/31/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 11/30/2006 /


Powered by Blogger