I apologize for not posting this earlier, when this editorial was fresher, but it's still available (as of 9/8/08) at forbes.com.



I thought something was wrong when I read it. I remembered hearing time and again that a well rounded education was an important contributor to making someone a productive member of society -- and I still believe that. Then I realized what it was: Mr. Baldwin substituted "productive member of the economy" for the more common and traditional "productive member of society". If the economic contribution of every individual were the only measure of their worth, then History really wouldn't be worth teaching. I, for one, do not welcome our new shallow, anti-intellectual overlords.

Read the full column here.
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/0811/014.html

"Society" is only for The Right Kind Of People.

An education in something you find interesting is always worthwile. It's something that no one can ever take away from you either.

A lot of what is taught in colleges is useless. I know next to nothing about Byzantium and that's fine with me. When teaching History to most students, the focus should be on topics that are relevant to our current society. Instead of teaching the dates of certain wars and other trivial details, teach about how the Constitution was developed, the Magna Carta, etc.

However, Baldwin's wording "isn't making himself into a more productive member of the economy" is suspect. It sounds like "a more productive employee of a corporation" to me.

it is not relevant to our current society. Wow! Are you clairvoyant? How can you know that Byzantium is not relevant if you know nothing about it?

In fact there are a lots of things to learn from the history of Byzantium such as the folly of war and conquest. There is much to learn about the seduction and ruination of the powerful including powerful nations by their drive for still more power and glory. The Byzantine Empire is known for for conspiracies and for secretive government. I know very little about the Byzantine Empire, but from the little I know, I believe that the study of Byzantium would be very useful for any person wishing to understand the workings of the Republican Party and certain other parts of our society right here, right now in our time. It's not the only useful thing to study, but it is not a waste of time.

Sarah Palin and John McCain are excellent examples of two uneducated fools who would have benefited from a broader education. Their views of the world are extremely narrow and they don't know it because they don't know what is out there. Sarah Palin, like Bush, has barely traveled outside the U.S. How can she pretend to understand people in other countries? How can she think beyond her own family, church, community, state, country and understand the thinking of the world?

A person may be intelligent, and it is possible for a person who has a natural curiosity, the ability to read and understand and a good supply of books to acquire information without a formal liberal education, but it is very rare.

Your attitude will put the U.S. back in the Middle Ages when the wonderful base of knowledge that was acquired by the Greeks and the flourishing Roman period was known only to monks laboriously copying ancient texts in monasteries. That's what we call the Dark Ages. Do you really want to go back to that time?

Every person should be exposed to as much knowledge about a variety of things as possible.

I know enough about history to know about the folly of war and conquest.
I agree that someone should study enough history to learn that.
If Byzantium is used as an example then it is not a waste of time,
but one does not need to learn lots of trivial details about Byzantium.

Besides an emphasis on trivial details (as opposed to salient lessons),
another problem is that History is often not taught in an objective manner
but rather in an indoctrinating manner. For example, I didn't learn about
the U.S. violating every treaty with Native Americans until I did a book
report for a social studies class. I believe the book was 'Custer Died for
Your Sins'. A controversial title, but a good book.

the traditional story told in your social studies' class, you would not have realized the importance of keeping your eyes open.

History is never trivial. This history will fail to be known. In its place there will just be blank pages unless universities keep it alive, and they keep such information (that you call trivial details) alive by teaching it to people. They serve a vital cultural function.

The real shame is how much time young people spend watching trivial TV and trivial pop and movie star news. Now that is a waste of time. Nothing wrong with a little of it -- but kids are tuning in to that junk far, far too much.

An example of what I would call a trivial detail would be the answer to the question
"How many divisions did Alexius III lead when he took offensive action?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Crusade#Final_capture_of_Constantinople

Why doesn't Billy Baldwin come right out and say it? "I'm stupid and I resent having to work my brain to have to keep up with others who are better equipped." :dunce:

and I'm proud of being stupid, stubborn and lazy. Hand me another burger and put a whole lot of that ketchup vegetable on it, would you?

.
.
.

And WHAT do we really need to know?

In my Opinion,

1

How to choose and train/educate yourself for a career

2

How to choose and purchase your home

3

and probably the most important -

How to choose a life partner.

School doesn't teach us any of that,

and "parents" don't seem to be setting much of an example in that area either.

That's my Canuk observations anyhoo . . .

most of the most expensive schools are vivisecting torturers of animals
and invested in war, animal slaughter, ecocidal stocks

There is misuse of the education system for political purposes and power holding and withholding. There is educational inequity. There's the dysfunctional factory model which sends students down an assembly line, requiring them to jump through some hoops that are counter-productive. There's the dysfunction in the system that limits degrees if the education comes from a wide variety of schools, over a long period of time. There's bad policy, bad methodology, and really bad legislation.

But there's no such thing as "overeducation."

Everything learned is valuable in some way. Learning is worthy and valuable.

The more educated a society is, the better direction that society will evolve. In my opinion, anyway, lol.

Education isn't, as you noticed, about producing "productive members of the economy." All education, preschool - whatever level someone wants to achieve, would be completely public and free, in an equitable society. Whether that education related to job skills and career of choice, or personal enlightenment/betterment, or just exploring a personal passion, is moot. All of those purposes benefit society.

One of the ways the war on intellectualism takes territory is to limit the value of thinking, and education, to the dollar, and to how much money it costs vs how much money it will "get you."

It's true that not everyone needs to pursue a B.A.. Some careers and professions don't need it. Personally, I think it should be required to register to vote. Practice in higher-level thinking, grounding in history and philosophy, better prepares voters to make sound choices on the ballot. Again, in my opinion. Or higher-level thinking should be the primary focus of public school pre-school - 12th grade, with a secondary focus on philosophy and history. Literacy should include thinking, as well as reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Still, there are many, many jobs and careers that don't depend on a B.A., if our students leave high school with a comprehensive education. Unless a professional career calls you, the reason to go on is to grow yourself as a more informed, thoughtful, responsible citizen of the world.

I think that one of the advantages of the British university system over the American is that it allows more specialisation sooner.

Having a small number of people who know a lot about ancient Byzantium has some value to society - it prevents the knowledge being lost, and helps discover more.

Having people learn a little about it and then forget it all is mostly worthless, and what value it does have comes from the study skills and intellectual discipline people gain while learning it, rather than from the knowledge itself, and could be gained while studying something else.

My partner works with his hands and comes home to read Proust. He only has a GED. Maybe the article is suggesting that it is worthwhile to examine the expense of higher education instead of just automatically writing out a check or signing a loan.