<p>Interesting article from the Harvard Crimson:</p>
<p>A Harvard undergrad writes that a socio-econ/geog diverse student body combined with the college-admissions-game mentality has led to a campus culture lacking in intellectualism.</p>
<p>The author thinks the study of economics is anti-intellectual. Perhaps someone could tell me what fields rate as "intellectual" nowadays.</p>
<p>At one of the parent orientation sessions at my daughter's college, I was also given the impression (from a speech by one of the deans), that it was considered regrettable that so many students majored in economics or biology, rather than "real" liberal arts.</p>
<p>Funny, but it seems to me that biology and economics have always been part of the liberal arts curriculum. But then, I'm prejudiced. (I was a bio major, and my daughter is an econ major.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"With an influx of students from for whom a major draw is post-college career success and earning potential, there will naturally be less emphasis on the “frivolous” pursuits of the liberal arts and more on activities and areas of study that are distinctly pre-professional."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't see why this is a bad thing. Or why it should lead to a less "intellectual" environment, for that matter. The implicit idea that an "intellectual" should not be concerned with that which is outside the ivory tower seems, well, offensive to intellectuals and intellectualism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"A Crimson survey of the Class of 2007 found that more than 60 percent of those entering the workforce were pursuing jobs in finance."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This isn't just at Harvard. And I'm unconvinced that it has anything to do with socioeconomic diversity - it could be that that's where students believe, accurately or not, the jobs to be, or it could be that finance firms recruit VERY aggressively at top schools. She's thrown out this statistic to illustrate her point but provides nothing to demonstrate that students from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to pursue finance (and shame on a self-described intellectual for using such a shoddy argument).</p>
<p>This article could be used in many threads on CC regarding why someone should accept a full-tuition scholarship to a "lesser" school rather than attend Harvard. Is it possible that the author typifies many pseudo-intellectuals at Harvard? She is so caught up with her own intelligence that she apparently doesn't realize how stupid her argument is.</p>
<p>jessiehl, shoddy argumentation is right. This student is no intellectual.</p>
<p>I think a lot of people misunderstand what the study of economics is all about. I know a lot of economists (hazard of being married to an econ prof) and very few of them know much about high finance or the nitty-gritty of how to run a business. I suppose quite a few of the economics students at a place like Harvard might be looking forward to a job in the business world, but I don't see how that automatically disqualifies them from being intellectuals.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>But most of them simply don’t get what they should be getting out of college—the rigorous pursuit of liberal arts.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Why just liberal arts? There is so much to the world of knowledge besides liberal arts. Why should what a student "should be getting out of college" be so restricted?</p>
<p>Honestly, this student doesn't have a clue...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it possible that the author typifies many pseudo-intellectuals at Harvard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Given that she's criticizing the lack of people like her, I'm guessing "probably not".</p>
<p>
[quote]
At one of the parent orientation sessions at my daughter's college, I was also given the impression (from a speech by one of the deans), that it was considered regrettable that so many students majored in economics or biology, rather than "real" liberal arts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whoa, my head is spinning. My H majored in econ, one of my two undergrad degrees was biochem, and we both sort of think of ourselves as people who are interested in intellectual pursuits. Did this guy miss the last 300 years of intellectual history?</p>
<p>The author of the article does not, sad to say, cover Harvard in glory. Her article is historically shallow and analytically incoherent. </p>
<p>There is no discernible causation between HFAI and lack of intellectualism on campus (HFAI, by the way, has been in operation for as long as the author has been at Harvard--less than three years). The pursuit of lucrative careers is not exclusive to the less affluent. Ditto, the involvement in ECs. </p>
<p>Diversity promotes intellectually meaningful exchanges in way that roomfuls of students with the same backgrounds and the same experiences cannot. </p>
<p>That article should not have been published.</p>
<p>For those who don't have time to read the entire article , I'll summarize:</p>
<p>People here talk about yucky stuff , like careers and stuff, that I just don't want to talk about. I liked it better when most students were rich and living off their dead relatives and stuff. I mean, golly. How can we be elite if we are all just trying to get a job, and stuff?</p>
<p>^^^Very nice summary.</p>
<p>Stuff and nonsense.</p>
<p>^^^ LOL! very succinct summary cur! [The author would have been happier at Chicago.]</p>
<p>I suspect the author would be pleased that her article was being discussed, even criticised, here. If you go to the Crimson link, click on the author's name and read some of her other opinion pieces, you'll see that stirring things up seems to be what she enjoys doing. I think her name and her views are pretty well known among current H students.</p>
<p>^^^Well, a negative critique of your work is one thing; being told you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are is another. Simply "stirring things up" works while one is a college student, but doesn't get you too far after that.</p>
<p>^^^I guess I thought she might be thinking along the lines of "There's no such thing as bad publicity."</p>
<p>Marian:</p>
<p>I have heard something similar at another college, but I don't think the point was that bio or econ are NOT liberal arts, but that so many matriculants to that college are premed (bio), prelaw, & pre-IB (econ), that those classes are full, other departments go wanting for resources, and it possibly makes for a less interesting undergrad atmosphere since there is less diversity of major-students.</p>
<p>While the author's diagnosis is probably wrong, the issue remains that this student was surprised to find a lack of intelectualism at Harvard.</p>
<p>Having attended college both abroad and in the US, I was surprised when I arrived here (at a top 50 university) that students were not very interested in the outside world. The pre-meds studied hard, the psych majors partied hard, but no one discussed politics, philosophy, literature, current affairs or anything more intellectual than sports outside of class (if at all.)</p>
<p>IMHO, the problem is pervasive to American society as a whole, and, if the author of the Crimson article is to be believed, has infected even the highest levels of education in our country. It is very little consolation that perhaps U. of Chicago and a few others still preserves some of this dynamic that I would contend is the REAL reason anybody should want to go to a top school.</p>
<p>Many issues are conflated in Caldwell's piece, but I think that's partly due to the limited length of the column itself. Agreed, Caldwell might have been happier at Chicago (as long as she likes Thucydides). But . . . </p>
<p>Hey, curmudgeon, I admire you a lot--yet here I think you're dumping on Caldwell a little too much (and ditto, marite). The link with the HFAI is wrong, in my opinion. Still:
a) There are in fact groups of students at Harvard who are not particularly intellectual, taking "intellectual" to mean "primarily driven by acquiring and extending knowledge."
b) This is connected in some ways with Harvard's admissions policy. I believe that--very broadly speaking--Harvard selects a good fraction of its entering class for future success and not for love of knowledge per se.
c) Intellectualism doesn't reside in the major, but in the student. Hence, an intellectual could certainly major in economics (and some of my best friends are "dismal scientists"), but it's not automatically wrong to say that some of Harvard's economics majors may not be very intellectual. Ditto biology majors and pre-meds.
d) The focus on career success sometimes plays out in odd ways at Harvard--and elsewhere. I have only anecdotes to offer, but can observe that a friend of mine and I came from quite similar backgrounds (HFAI category, or very slightly above), both interested in science. Friend went to Harvard. I didn't . Friend observed that scientists often lacked economic power, and left science. I didn't. But the departure is not limited to Harvard students. Another friend, in Cambridge, from a wealthy background, grad student with Stephen Hawking, left science, "tired of being poor." For me personally, it was probably an advantage not to know so many future hedge fund managers and corporate lawyers.
e) Caldwell doesn't seem to be promoting ivory-tower thinking exclusively, since she mentions "the ability to engage with the world in a multifaceted way." </p>
<p>(No real ax to grind, here. Didn't apply to Harvard eons ago, and QuantMechPrime didn't either.)</p>