Maybe. I dono. I don't automatically equate diplomas to learning. I mean, sure, lots of people learn things at school... but lots of people get degrees without learning anything useful, too, and I'm not sure why, say, an art history degree should be respected any more than four years spent backpacking around the world.
Most of the people I see shouting about anti-intellectualism have degrees, sure, but most of them are degrees in art history or other fields that are not applicable to creating or fixing anything, so maybe I /am/ the American anti-intellectualism that they speak of, because I value knowledge based on what it can be used to achieve, rather than knowledge that indicates belonging in a certain class, and because I don't have a lot of respect for degrees. I mean, I have a lot of respect for people who learned useful things and got a degree along the way... but I don't see the degree as primary; I see the learning as primary. I see a degree in art history a little bit like buying a lexus; It shows that you are a person of leisure.
You've obviously never been to a Korean university. The orgy part is less prevalent but certainly not the drunkenness and laxidasical attitudes. I went to both a US university and a Korean one and the work ethic of American university students is much more sturdy than Korean university students. The difference between Asia and the US (one of them) is that Asian students bust their backsides to get into school while the Americans busy their asses once in school. I'm generalizing of course, but at least in Korea, getting into a top school is more important than what you do once you're there. There's a reason that so many Asians want to go to US schools -- and it isn't for the basketball teams-- the quality is much much higher in the States (and UK) than Asia.
I know that people do study and learn things at university in the US, but culturally we tend to elevate going to a 'party school' above going to a school that is known to deliver a good education.
That may be the anecdotal truth, however nearly any student in the States would prefer to go to MIT or U of Chicago over San Jose State, though San Jose is far more of 'party school' than the aforementioned. Students do care about quality but a party school doesn't necessarily equate to a less serious school. The issue isn't party vs. academics it's about work-life balance. Medical students party very profoundly, however there's no doubt that they value their academics highly. As a current high school teacher, I have nearly daily conversations about college choices and the party aspect is way down on the list. Given a choice between a party school and a top-flight academic institution, nearly all of my admittedly small sample would pick the better academics. Of course, I admit to some selection bias because I'm an AP teacher and my students are far more driven than the 'typical' student.
>- 'jocks' are celebrated while 'nerds' are persecuted at the high school level, and to a lesser extent at the college/university level.
It's a huge problem. My understanding is that the definition of "Ivy league college" actually refers to what colleges play sports against what other colleges. An absolutely insane way to rank schools. Hell, we subsidize sports stadiums as adults; stadiums that cause significant traffic problems, and if you ask me, attract an undesirable element.
This is actually one of the things I really like about silicon valley; I don't know anyone who doesn't work a service job who is really into sports.
>- College/University are culturally seen as one large drunken orgy.
Wait, you mean it's not a large drunken orgy? I mean, I'm half joking, but outside of the math and engineering majors, I'm under the impression that a lot of partying happens.
But this goes back to my own prejudice against liberal arts majors. Does that prejudice make me an anti-intellectual?
> My understanding is that the definition of "Ivy league
> college" actually refers to what colleges play sports
> against what other colleges.
According to Wikipedia:
The use of the phrase is no longer limited to athletics,
and now represents an educational philosophy inherent to
the nation's oldest schools.
> I don't know anyone who doesn't work a service job
> who is really into sports.
There are downsides to the polar opposite though. Personally, I think the balance is to love playing sports (or possibly going to friends' sporting events to cheer them on), rather than to just love watching them.
> But this goes back to my own prejudice against
> liberal arts majors.
I think you're missing the distinction between someone that pursues are major because they want to coast through university vs someone that pursues a major because they have a passion of the subject.
>I think you're missing the distinction between someone that pursues are major because they want to coast through university vs someone that pursues a major because they have a passion of the subject.
I don't think passion has as much to do with it as you seem to think. I mean, sure, to be great, passion is required. But passion alone is not sufficient. You also need great skill to be great.
The problem with going into entertainment (and I'd class both art and sports as entertainment.) is that the way the economy currently works, sure, a great artist produces a lot of value. But a mediocre artist? A mediocre artist produces coffee.
Engineering,[1] on the other hand? or accounting? or, really, most other professions? Sure, the mediocre are worlds away from the great, but they still produce a reasonable amount of positive value.
My point is just that if you spend four (or six or eight) years of your life training to do something outside of entertainment, you have a pretty good chance of being able to produce a reasonable, if not great amount of value when you finish. More value than you could produce before you began the training, at any rate. If you study entertainment, on the other hand? you have an extremely small chance of producing a huge amount of value, but most likely you will not be capable of producing more value after you leave school than when you entered school.
So yeah, that's why I'm saying a degree in the arts implies a life of leisure; it implies that you have the resources to spend years training for a job that will not be able to support you when you finish.
I mean, as far as luxury goods go, it's pretty cool; I certainly find someone who spent a few years studying history to be quite a bit more interesting than someone who, say, has a really expensive car. But, for those of us without rich parents? in the end, we need to work for a living. School loans can't be discharged by bankruptcy.
[1]I think compensation for Engineers is the opposite of compensation for artists; Really great Engineers, unless they also act as businesspeople, don't earn a very large multiplier on what a mediocre Engineer earns. I mean, we're talking maybe 3x, when you account for location disparity. I personally think this is a market inefficiency; I believe a really great engineer produces hundreds, if not thousands of times as much value as a mediocre Engineer. That disparity of pay between the average and the great, though, actually exists in the entertainment world. The great artists make huge sums, while the average artist gets paid unskilled labor rates.
It's interesting, 'cause this might actually explain the Engineering market inefficiency.
The thing is, when you start your training, you don't actually know if you can become great, and I don't think you'd have many people going through the training to be Engineers if the average Engineer made day labor rates, even if the pay for the top people was so high as to make the total expected return similar to what it is today. Looking at it from that perspective, it's not a market failure, it's Engineering students trading off upside for a improved average case.
Most of the people I see shouting about anti-intellectualism have degrees, sure, but most of them are degrees in art history or other fields that are not applicable to creating or fixing anything, so maybe I /am/ the American anti-intellectualism that they speak of, because I value knowledge based on what it can be used to achieve, rather than knowledge that indicates belonging in a certain class, and because I don't have a lot of respect for degrees. I mean, I have a lot of respect for people who learned useful things and got a degree along the way... but I don't see the degree as primary; I see the learning as primary. I see a degree in art history a little bit like buying a lexus; It shows that you are a person of leisure.