Reading this article is surreal, like living in an alternate world: "...and because there’s so much federal funding for science".
Reminds me of the joke:
Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. "Herr Altmann," said his secretary, "I notice you're reading Der Stürmer! I can't understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?"
"On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we're on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!"
One way to make the humanities more attractive might be to dissolve the link between learning to express oneself in words and studying literature. To quote pg, "students are writing not about how a baseball team with a small budget might compete with the Yankees, or the role of color in fashion, or what constitutes a good dessert, but about symbolism in Dickens." [1]
While in high school I gutted it out in English so I could make it to my next math class, as I grow older I've found myself increasingly drawn to reading and writing. The power and precision of the right word at the right moment can be intoxicating.
Perhaps if college and high school students were given the chance to peek into the whole world of opportunity in written expression, the humanities would see a resurgence.
1 - http://paulgraham.com/essay.html. "Moneyball" is one of my favorites and I've read an awful lot of thoughtful food-focused essays in the last few years, but does anyone have a good one on the role of color in fashion? The cerulean rant in "Devil Wears Prada?"
"The power and precision of the right word at the right moment can be intoxicating"
Not only intoxicating but immensely powerful - we live in an age where politics is dominated by form rather than content, "spin" and being "on message" are more important that policies. Orwell, Koestler and others who were directly familiar with the totalitarian regimes understood the power of language and idea to shape and control people.
Think of how important Goebbels was to the Nazis or how important the arts (or at least his control of the arts) were to Stalin - those are direct indicators of important these topics are.
I'm rather amused that Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language is features on HN's front page at the same time as this discussion.
Edit: From 1984
'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'
Who would teach such a class? It's unlikely that English professors would. Maybe a few philosophy profs would, but there aren't a lot of people in humanities departments capable of teaching this.
And for that reason, it doesn't address the fundamental problem (as perceived by university administrators): "We have 11 humanities departments that are quite extraordinary, and we want to provide for that faculty..."
(The principal/agent problem is a common problem in non-profits, which are often merely schemes for funneling money to assorted insiders.)
"does anyone have a good one on the role of color in fashion?"
"Blue is in fashion this year" from The Language of Fashion[0] might fit the bill. It has been several years since I read the book, but I remember it being quite difficult to get through.
The rant in "The Devil Wears Prada" is fairly correct from a more practical standpoint. We're talking about things like trend development[1] and trickle-down theory[2] (in the fashion sense). If you only read one book on fashion it should probably be Fashion-ology[3].
"Perhaps if college and high school students were given the chance to peek into the whole world of opportunity in written expression, the humanities would see a resurgence."
To be fair I'm not sure these fairly traditional elite universities are representative for all schools.
Interest in humanities is fading because humanities have failed the world. Instead of understanding the society and bringing about some positive change, they have become a tool for cultural domination. Some even say that the role of humanities, and history teaching, has always been about cultural domination.
But the idea of cultural domination is anathema to most of the 'new generation' which relies, rather, depends on cultural assimilation and tolerance in this global economy for their bread and butter. And this change hasn't come due to humanities... it has come due to technological revolution. So, of course, the interest in humanities is fading.
That's a rather extreme viewpoint. Don't forget that it's things like culture that make life worth living. I love technology, but I also recognize that the end goal of technological progress is to allow us to experience more culture by augmenting and facilitating our lives.
I honestly don't see how studying Ancient Greek for example is supposed to encourage cultural domination. The term "humanities" denotes a vast array of subjects.
If there is cultural domination going on, it's mostly with the mass media output of whichever country happens to be in a position of power at the time. For instance, the US have been flooding the market for a long while with their audio, video and written content thanks to their dominant economic position. Local production simply cannot compete with billion-dollar budgets. This leads to cultural intoxication in millions of minds around the world as they are exposed every day to the American way of viewing the world and American cultural norms. A humanities course, no matter how active in its propaganda, cannot possibly rival this kind of utter cultural domination.
Can you offer any more concrete specifics? I studied humanities in college (primarily music, some English lit and creative writing, some French lit, ancient Eastern philosophy, etc. -- also compsci, but mostly humanities), and it was something of a mixed bag as educations go, but I did build some very valuable communication and thinking skills along the way.
I'm not at all clear how especially something like studying ancient Chinese philosophers could fit into your generalizations, but regardless -- mastering communication and clear thinking on complex, diverse topics is hugely valuable in almost any endeavor, and I've encountered some shamefully poor communicators (and unclear thinkers) in the tech world.
I suspect if the humanities could successfully focus on good outcomes in these categories, and demonstrate the value, they'd benefit from it... somehow blending in applied rationality with the standard paths would be awesome, and if that were available I'd go that route again, if I had the choice again.
I'm a grad student in the humanities so I have a vested interest but I would say that your comment may apply to some humanities but it is also the humanities that is where people are exploring the negatives of cultural domination and the value of diversity.
I'm in media studies and use cultural studies, gender studies, and anthropology (which likes to claim it is a "science" but I don't really consider it one). Those fields along with things like post-colonial studies are all about examining and tearing down the systems of cultural domination.
As someone who got my BA in English, I find it difficult to understand why some humanities departments are as large as they are at large research universities. Literacy and literature are very important but I don't know that we should be churning out very many people with phds in English.
I'm not against humanities per se, but at what's being charged by the top Universities, well...
"I'm going to get another loan for a Masters in English" jeez
The younger me would have answered that with "but you already speak English" (yes, there are several sub-branches, and things to be researched, etc)
But get this, people are probably not going to be less interested in humanities, but they're not going for a formal education in it. You can study languages, literature, history, without needing to pay an arm and a leg for it.
And guess what, Computer Science started that trend.
One of the comments at the bottom of the NYT article points to the real issue at stake: "If you want more humanities majors, ask colleges to charge less tuition that doesn't require going into debt."
Although, another way of looking at the situation is that the difficult economic situation combined with large expected debt load post-graduation acts winnows out humanities students who just aren't serious about their studies. Hopefully this translates into more passionate and eager students for professors to teach amongst the diminished ranks.
Actually it is more "If you want more humanities majors, find some way a humanities education can be turned into money in the real world after graduation."
This was this nice previous generation dream that productivity would create a Star Trek society where people can spend their time in non-profit occupations.
Did not turn out that way. Every minute you study must have a ROI in dollar because the world is a harsh place if you do not have the right set of skills.
It is disingenuous for a school to charge 50k per year and wonder why folks are concerned about getting jobs. Humanities should join STEM, not fight it. Don't convince someone to study philosophy instead of CS, convince them to study it in addition to CS. Teach the math majors world languages so they can read German and French papers. But don't stand as an island, because at current prices humanities are a terrible buy.
If they are blind enough to not recognize games as a most modern and innovative art form, well then they should go down together with their departments and take the world where art is judged based on it's investment potential with them. Why isn't Another World the game celebrated same way as Mona Lisa the painting? Because you cannot re-sell it for millions. Programming is nothing less than practical philosophy (I deal with "objects", "classes" and other abstractions all day every day). Programming language is still a language, I know multiple and I can compare them which makes me a linguist. They should not try so hard to separate from science. They should acknowledge that art is evolving as well.
Games are pretty new, I'd cut them slack on that one. Also, I've been a gamer all my life, and many games are bad, and are getting worse in terms of "artistic expression" as the production values go up and up. I'm sure we can look up a few indie games on Steam, and point to the great visuals, but a lot of those games are just boring. The game developer must always sacrifice whatever message, or aesthetic, or meaning they hope to convey for improved gameplay - the game must be fun. There's just not much art in games for that reason, the same way there isn't much art in web apps. If you want to point at the visuals, or music, we can do that obviously.
Games like Half Life 2 and Call of Duty try to mimic films in
a very theme-park ride way, something many gamers have pointed out. The gaming community hasn't exactly figured this one out yet, so I'll let college humanities departments get a pass on this one.
Films are pretty new too, and academia has more or less embraced it.
Well since I just defended my dissertation on videogame players I would say they are already doing that. There is a small but growing body of work on videogames by humanities scholars. As far as the whole videogame "art" perspective, I would suggest looking up "ludology vs. narratology" for some of the literature on the "right" way to study videogames themselves.
Biggest problem facing youth looking at college is high school.
A large group of kids learn to pass the test and move on. There's very little unstructured exploration or debate, on the whole. I had some excellent teachers and classes in high school, and I had some awful ones, but I damn sure never had freedom to mentally explore interesting topics in-class. High school was a means to an end; just a way to leave home and go to college. Personally I didn't take that approach but I know a lot of people who did.
At that point, a student's approach is "do academia to get to next stage". It doesn't make you care at all about Shakespeare.
And for families that are monetarily burdened by college (read: every family, save a handful), you're not going to go waste $40k/year for something with no prospects.
“College is increasingly being defined narrowly as job preparation, not as something designed to educate the whole person,”
The author keeps making this point over and over again, so sure, I'll bite.
First, I'm a huge fan of a classic liberal education. It truly enriches life, and so much of that kind of an education is literally priceless.
Having said that, colleges are only ending up exactly where they wanted to go: at the bank. If colleges keep charging more and more money, it's perfectly reasonable for the people paying for and loaning the money (not to mention the poor saps going into debt for most of their life) to ask themselves "Am I getting something for this money where I know the money will be replaced one day?" Because money, you know, doesn't grow on trees.
It's one thing to be independently wealthy or a trust fund kid and take ten years of ancient Greek pottery. It's another to have mom and dad mortgage the house for it. And while a classic liberal education can't be replaced and is priceless to have, lots of things in life can't be replaced and are priceless to have. Life is full of things that we don't put price tags on. But that doesn't mean they don't cost anything.
Colleges are pricing themselves out of the market. Humanities are the first to go. Our system of higher education needs rethinking and refactoring. There's a huge pivot coming, whether these institutions are ready for it or not. And while that might not be such a good thing for overstaffed humanities departments, that's a great thing for people wanting to make their lives better.
an answer to many of you :)
There is no single discipline that is better or more needed than another. The debate Science+Technology vs Arts+Humanities is useless: just like your body needs all nutrients, your brain needs all types of inputs and stimuli. We have areas dedicated to math and others dedicated to language, both require the connection to logical reasoning. You should work them all out.
Moreover there is large evidence that Art (and humanities) can set you in the mindset of hacking.
PG himself says that painting can teach many things about hacking [1]
and I am living proof that Art can definitively teach you how to hack (and also be an entrepreneur): I received my first computer only when I was 19, but I had been hacking since I was 3 years old, through the art of Berrocal whose sculptures can be taken apart, transformed and combined, they are like 3d puzzles, tactile problems that need to be solved [2]. It has taught me practical tools, methodologies and ways of creatively find solutions that can be applied to both programming and to the day to day challenges of entrepreneurship.
There is actually a necessity and a current trend to connect Arts+Design+Humanities in the STEM education.
it's called "from STEM to STEAM" [3]
and it's backed by great figures in both art and computer science such as John Maeda
Don't despise arts+humanities, you'll be only limiting yourself.
A good old poem can hack your brain! give it root! ;)
I love anything related to art and humanities, I play beginner's go, read all the science fiction I can find, but coding is the thing that gives me food and always has.
It was an obvious decision to study computer science, and I guess I am not the only one.
Perhaps the diminishing interest in humanities is linked to the poor job market for humanities degrees?
From the article:
>But with the recession having helped turn college, in the popular view, into largely a tool for job preparation, administrators are concerned.
And I am concerned for the administrators. Who has the money to go to Stanford to get a degree that offers very limited career opportunities at pay levels that will never recoup your college costs? Only the most foolhardy or the richest will do this. I am concerned that the administrators apparently do not realize this.
Just for fun, here's a link to the tuition and fees page of Stanford:
Now, who wants to pay upwards of 20k a semester after housing, books, tuition and expenses to get a degree in "Renaissance French literature and the philosophy of language", "German", "philosophy", or "world languages and culture"? How long will it take to pay back your student loans? 40+ years on a philosopher's salary. Will your crippling debt hinder any other aspects of your life, like getting married or buying a house? Hopefully, not.
College tuition is so high, that the decision to pursue a degree that does not virtually guarantee a decent paying job is financially and almost morally untenable, unless you already have substantial liquidity.
But the academics, as smart as they are, just don't seem to make the connection:
>“Both inside the humanities and outside, people feel that the intellectual firepower in the universities is in the sciences, that the important issues that people of all sorts care about, like inequality and climate change, are being addressed not in the English departments,” said Andrew Delbanco, a Columbia University professor who writes about higher education.
Only a very small subset of people go to college to 'change the world' or 'tackle pressing issues', most go to make a better life for themselves somewhere down the line. It's really hard to correlate study in Renaissance French literature and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt with a better life.
This article really paints the picture that people who handle administration for colleges, and professors who study college trends, really don't see the cost benefit analysis aspect of it at all. Or maybe they just value degrees far more than they are actually worth.
---
Sorry, that was too long and I think I've got to cut myself off there.
> Who has the money to go to Stanford to get a degree that offers very limited career opportunities at pay levels that will never recoup your college costs?
A LOT of people. How many applications do they turn down? They can just keep jacking up the prices and people will still keep going. The name is worth far more than the job prospects available. I'm just not sure that they only want to be a club for the super rich (or maybe they do and just admit enough poor people to try to appear otherwise.)
Similarly, I can't see employment being a problem for someone graduating from Stanford. They'll get paid.
> Who has the money to go to Stanford to get a degree that offers very limited career opportunities at pay levels that will never recoup your college costs?
A lot of people. If your family makes under $60k/year, Stanford waives tuition and room and board. If your family makes more than that but under $100k, they waive tuition.
> Not only intoxicating but immensely powerful - we live in an age where politics is dominated by form rather than content, "spin" and being "on message" are more important that policies.
Both of them are indeed right. Except it has always been like that, and not necessarily a new phenomena as we sometimes think. Here's a quick excerpt to an interesting essay in imperial villain making....
By the end of the 90s, the hardliners calling for regime change in the east found that they had a powerful ally in government. This new president was not prepared to wait to be attacked: he was a new sort of conservative, aggressive in foreign policy, bitterly anti-French, and intent on turning his country into the unrivalled global power. It was best, he believed, simply to remove any hostile Muslim regime that presumed to resist the west.
There was no doubt who would be the first to be targeted: a Muslim dictator whose family had usurped power in a military coup. According to British sources, this chief of state was an "intolerant bigot", a "furious fanatic" with a "rooted and inveterate hatred of Europeans", who had "perpetually on his tongue the projects of jihad". He was also deemed to be "oppressive and unjust ... [a] sanguinary tyrant, [and a] perfidious negotiator".
It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.
The point of a liberal arts college was never to teach skills, but the final indoctrination necessary to take one's inherited place as a member of the upper class. Some people saw it as a shortcut to joining that class. In the past, it amused members of the class to allow this, but in these economically straitened times, they're pulling the ladder up. Now, you need to "prove" you're already a member, by stumping up the cash.
The cynic in me thinks that this worry is because of the threatened profit margins. Giving a humanities education is a lot cheaper to a student than giving solid engineering one. If you charge similar tuition the margins on the former are much higher.
[+] [-] ars|12 years ago|reply
Reminds me of the joke:
Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. "Herr Altmann," said his secretary, "I notice you're reading Der Stürmer! I can't understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?"
"On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we're on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!"
[+] [-] mlchild|12 years ago|reply
While in high school I gutted it out in English so I could make it to my next math class, as I grow older I've found myself increasingly drawn to reading and writing. The power and precision of the right word at the right moment can be intoxicating.
Perhaps if college and high school students were given the chance to peek into the whole world of opportunity in written expression, the humanities would see a resurgence.
1 - http://paulgraham.com/essay.html. "Moneyball" is one of my favorites and I've read an awful lot of thoughtful food-focused essays in the last few years, but does anyone have a good one on the role of color in fashion? The cerulean rant in "Devil Wears Prada?"
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
Not only intoxicating but immensely powerful - we live in an age where politics is dominated by form rather than content, "spin" and being "on message" are more important that policies. Orwell, Koestler and others who were directly familiar with the totalitarian regimes understood the power of language and idea to shape and control people.
Think of how important Goebbels was to the Nazis or how important the arts (or at least his control of the arts) were to Stalin - those are direct indicators of important these topics are.
I'm rather amused that Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language is features on HN's front page at the same time as this discussion.
Edit: From 1984
'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'
[+] [-] yummyfajitas|12 years ago|reply
And for that reason, it doesn't address the fundamental problem (as perceived by university administrators): "We have 11 humanities departments that are quite extraordinary, and we want to provide for that faculty..."
(The principal/agent problem is a common problem in non-profits, which are often merely schemes for funneling money to assorted insiders.)
[+] [-] subsystem|12 years ago|reply
"Blue is in fashion this year" from The Language of Fashion[0] might fit the bill. It has been several years since I read the book, but I remember it being quite difficult to get through.
The rant in "The Devil Wears Prada" is fairly correct from a more practical standpoint. We're talking about things like trend development[1] and trickle-down theory[2] (in the fashion sense). If you only read one book on fashion it should probably be Fashion-ology[3].
"Perhaps if college and high school students were given the chance to peek into the whole world of opportunity in written expression, the humanities would see a resurgence."
To be fair I'm not sure these fairly traditional elite universities are representative for all schools.
[0] http://books.google.se/books/about/The_Language_of_Fashion.h...
[1] Chapter 9 and 10: http://www.prschool.ge/img/every_day/Fashion%20Marketing.pdf
[2] http://www.margaritabenitez.com/trends/lectures/TRENDS_CH03....
[3] http://books.google.se/books/about/Fashion_ology.html?id=LUW...
[+] [-] cubancigar11|12 years ago|reply
But the idea of cultural domination is anathema to most of the 'new generation' which relies, rather, depends on cultural assimilation and tolerance in this global economy for their bread and butter. And this change hasn't come due to humanities... it has come due to technological revolution. So, of course, the interest in humanities is fading.
[+] [-] Qom|12 years ago|reply
I honestly don't see how studying Ancient Greek for example is supposed to encourage cultural domination. The term "humanities" denotes a vast array of subjects.
If there is cultural domination going on, it's mostly with the mass media output of whichever country happens to be in a position of power at the time. For instance, the US have been flooding the market for a long while with their audio, video and written content thanks to their dominant economic position. Local production simply cannot compete with billion-dollar budgets. This leads to cultural intoxication in millions of minds around the world as they are exposed every day to the American way of viewing the world and American cultural norms. A humanities course, no matter how active in its propaganda, cannot possibly rival this kind of utter cultural domination.
[+] [-] jtheory|12 years ago|reply
I'm not at all clear how especially something like studying ancient Chinese philosophers could fit into your generalizations, but regardless -- mastering communication and clear thinking on complex, diverse topics is hugely valuable in almost any endeavor, and I've encountered some shamefully poor communicators (and unclear thinkers) in the tech world.
I suspect if the humanities could successfully focus on good outcomes in these categories, and demonstrate the value, they'd benefit from it... somehow blending in applied rationality with the standard paths would be awesome, and if that were available I'd go that route again, if I had the choice again.
[+] [-] jccalhoun|12 years ago|reply
I'm in media studies and use cultural studies, gender studies, and anthropology (which likes to claim it is a "science" but I don't really consider it one). Those fields along with things like post-colonial studies are all about examining and tearing down the systems of cultural domination.
As someone who got my BA in English, I find it difficult to understand why some humanities departments are as large as they are at large research universities. Literacy and literature are very important but I don't know that we should be churning out very many people with phds in English.
[+] [-] cubancigar11|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|12 years ago|reply
Hard to justify the price tag.
I'm not against humanities per se, but at what's being charged by the top Universities, well...
"I'm going to get another loan for a Masters in English" jeez The younger me would have answered that with "but you already speak English" (yes, there are several sub-branches, and things to be researched, etc)
But get this, people are probably not going to be less interested in humanities, but they're not going for a formal education in it. You can study languages, literature, history, without needing to pay an arm and a leg for it.
And guess what, Computer Science started that trend.
[+] [-] otoburb|12 years ago|reply
Although, another way of looking at the situation is that the difficult economic situation combined with large expected debt load post-graduation acts winnows out humanities students who just aren't serious about their studies. Hopefully this translates into more passionate and eager students for professors to teach amongst the diminished ranks.
[+] [-] gutnor|12 years ago|reply
This was this nice previous generation dream that productivity would create a Star Trek society where people can spend their time in non-profit occupations.
Did not turn out that way. Every minute you study must have a ROI in dollar because the world is a harsh place if you do not have the right set of skills.
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
For my business degree I had nearly 2 whole years of humanities courses...
[+] [-] CmonDev|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runawaybottle|12 years ago|reply
Anyway, this one seems like a recent game that proves me wrong: http://www.stanleyparable.com/
Games like Half Life 2 and Call of Duty try to mimic films in a very theme-park ride way, something many gamers have pointed out. The gaming community hasn't exactly figured this one out yet, so I'll let college humanities departments get a pass on this one.
Films are pretty new too, and academia has more or less embraced it.
[+] [-] jccalhoun|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcburton|12 years ago|reply
This is, in part, what the Digital Humanities doing, engaging with digital modes of cultural expression [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_studies
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_humanities
[+] [-] nathas|12 years ago|reply
A large group of kids learn to pass the test and move on. There's very little unstructured exploration or debate, on the whole. I had some excellent teachers and classes in high school, and I had some awful ones, but I damn sure never had freedom to mentally explore interesting topics in-class. High school was a means to an end; just a way to leave home and go to college. Personally I didn't take that approach but I know a lot of people who did.
At that point, a student's approach is "do academia to get to next stage". It doesn't make you care at all about Shakespeare.
And for families that are monetarily burdened by college (read: every family, save a handful), you're not going to go waste $40k/year for something with no prospects.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
The author keeps making this point over and over again, so sure, I'll bite.
First, I'm a huge fan of a classic liberal education. It truly enriches life, and so much of that kind of an education is literally priceless.
Having said that, colleges are only ending up exactly where they wanted to go: at the bank. If colleges keep charging more and more money, it's perfectly reasonable for the people paying for and loaning the money (not to mention the poor saps going into debt for most of their life) to ask themselves "Am I getting something for this money where I know the money will be replaced one day?" Because money, you know, doesn't grow on trees.
It's one thing to be independently wealthy or a trust fund kid and take ten years of ancient Greek pottery. It's another to have mom and dad mortgage the house for it. And while a classic liberal education can't be replaced and is priceless to have, lots of things in life can't be replaced and are priceless to have. Life is full of things that we don't put price tags on. But that doesn't mean they don't cost anything.
Colleges are pricing themselves out of the market. Humanities are the first to go. Our system of higher education needs rethinking and refactoring. There's a huge pivot coming, whether these institutions are ready for it or not. And while that might not be such a good thing for overstaffed humanities departments, that's a great thing for people wanting to make their lives better.
[+] [-] drob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacques_chester|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lyricalpolymath|12 years ago|reply
Moreover there is large evidence that Art (and humanities) can set you in the mindset of hacking. PG himself says that painting can teach many things about hacking [1] and I am living proof that Art can definitively teach you how to hack (and also be an entrepreneur): I received my first computer only when I was 19, but I had been hacking since I was 3 years old, through the art of Berrocal whose sculptures can be taken apart, transformed and combined, they are like 3d puzzles, tactile problems that need to be solved [2]. It has taught me practical tools, methodologies and ways of creatively find solutions that can be applied to both programming and to the day to day challenges of entrepreneurship.
There is actually a necessity and a current trend to connect Arts+Design+Humanities in the STEM education. it's called "from STEM to STEAM" [3] and it's backed by great figures in both art and computer science such as John Maeda
Don't despise arts+humanities, you'll be only limiting yourself. A good old poem can hack your brain! give it root! ;)
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html [2] http://berrocal.net [3] http://stemtosteam.org/
[+] [-] Shorel|12 years ago|reply
It was an obvious decision to study computer science, and I guess I am not the only one.
BTW, I envy those toys you had.
[+] [-] JonSkeptic|12 years ago|reply
From the article:
>But with the recession having helped turn college, in the popular view, into largely a tool for job preparation, administrators are concerned.
And I am concerned for the administrators. Who has the money to go to Stanford to get a degree that offers very limited career opportunities at pay levels that will never recoup your college costs? Only the most foolhardy or the richest will do this. I am concerned that the administrators apparently do not realize this.
Just for fun, here's a link to the tuition and fees page of Stanford:
http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/registrar/students/tuitio...
Now, who wants to pay upwards of 20k a semester after housing, books, tuition and expenses to get a degree in "Renaissance French literature and the philosophy of language", "German", "philosophy", or "world languages and culture"? How long will it take to pay back your student loans? 40+ years on a philosopher's salary. Will your crippling debt hinder any other aspects of your life, like getting married or buying a house? Hopefully, not.
College tuition is so high, that the decision to pursue a degree that does not virtually guarantee a decent paying job is financially and almost morally untenable, unless you already have substantial liquidity.
But the academics, as smart as they are, just don't seem to make the connection:
>“Both inside the humanities and outside, people feel that the intellectual firepower in the universities is in the sciences, that the important issues that people of all sorts care about, like inequality and climate change, are being addressed not in the English departments,” said Andrew Delbanco, a Columbia University professor who writes about higher education.
Only a very small subset of people go to college to 'change the world' or 'tackle pressing issues', most go to make a better life for themselves somewhere down the line. It's really hard to correlate study in Renaissance French literature and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt with a better life.
This article really paints the picture that people who handle administration for colleges, and professors who study college trends, really don't see the cost benefit analysis aspect of it at all. Or maybe they just value degrees far more than they are actually worth.
---
Sorry, that was too long and I think I've got to cut myself off there.
[+] [-] gexla|12 years ago|reply
A LOT of people. How many applications do they turn down? They can just keep jacking up the prices and people will still keep going. The name is worth far more than the job prospects available. I'm just not sure that they only want to be a club for the super rich (or maybe they do and just admit enough poor people to try to appear otherwise.)
Similarly, I can't see employment being a problem for someone graduating from Stanford. They'll get paid.
[+] [-] tzs|12 years ago|reply
A lot of people. If your family makes under $60k/year, Stanford waives tuition and room and board. If your family makes more than that but under $100k, they waive tuition.
[+] [-] stuaxo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Surio|12 years ago|reply
> The power and precision of the right word at the right moment can be intoxicating.
@arethuza (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6645940) replied:
> Not only intoxicating but immensely powerful - we live in an age where politics is dominated by form rather than content, "spin" and being "on message" are more important that policies.
Both of them are indeed right. Except it has always been like that, and not necessarily a new phenomena as we sometimes think. Here's a quick excerpt to an interesting essay in imperial villain making....
By the end of the 90s, the hardliners calling for regime change in the east found that they had a powerful ally in government. This new president was not prepared to wait to be attacked: he was a new sort of conservative, aggressive in foreign policy, bitterly anti-French, and intent on turning his country into the unrivalled global power. It was best, he believed, simply to remove any hostile Muslim regime that presumed to resist the west.
There was no doubt who would be the first to be targeted: a Muslim dictator whose family had usurped power in a military coup. According to British sources, this chief of state was an "intolerant bigot", a "furious fanatic" with a "rooted and inveterate hatred of Europeans", who had "perpetually on his tongue the projects of jihad". He was also deemed to be "oppressive and unjust ... [a] sanguinary tyrant, [and a] perfidious negotiator".
It was, in short, time to take out Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The president of the board of control, Henry Dundas, the minister who oversaw the East India Company, had just the man for the job. Richard Wellesley was sent out to India in 1798 as governor general with specific instructions to effect regime change in Mysore and replace Tipu with a western-backed puppet. First, however, Wellesley and Dundas had to justify to the British public a policy whose outcome had long been decided in private.
Read the rest here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/24/foreignpolic...
[+] [-] gaius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seivan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atlantic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njr123|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]