<p>QuantMech, I know/have known lots of Harvard students. No, they don't spend their lunch hours discussing Thucydides or Socrates, even the most "intellectual" among them. But Caldwell's notion of intellectualism is incredibly narrow. I don't think that math lends itself to lunch-time conversation. But it does not make math majors "unintellectual." The same goes for bio or economics majors. In fact, I know for certain that some students work extremely hard on their own or in groups and then relax by acting in what one might describe as a sophomoric fashion.
Maybe Caldwell could try discussing elliptic curves with some Math 55ers? That would show her ability to '"engage with the world in a multifaceted way."
Or how about the General Theory of Relativity? What makes someone intellectually superior just by virtue of having read Thucydides?
I have posted before that S was concerned that the Chicago core curriculum would get in the way of his getting in the more advanced math classes he thought he would want to take. I don't take that as a sign of anti-intellectualism on his part.
By the way, before I get thrown brickbats, I read Thucydides--or parts of it--in Greek in high school.</p>
<p>Marite, I'm not throwing brickbats at you! I wouldn't dare! I haven't read Thucydides myself and haven't been near Chicago (except in passing)! But I stick by my comment that you're being too harsh on Caldwell.</p>
<p>I think of math majors as ipso facto intellectual. I've seen a lot of arguments about mathematical issues sketched out on napkins, in dining halls and restaurants--and, furthermore, I could hardly begrudge anyone some down-time, when I'm here on CC!</p>
<p>Also, as I mentioned, I think that equating choice of majors with intellectualism is wrong, as is the attempt to connect intellectualism with socio-economic class.</p>
<p>And, yet, my observations--admittedly limited--have led me to conclude that there are some groups of students at Harvard who are not very intellectual (despite the presence of some supremely intellectual students there).</p>
<p>As a Chicago alum, I'm offended by the suggestion that this student would fit in at my alma mater. If I had met her there (or since), I would immediately engage her in a heated "intellectual" argument about why she was wrong, and most people I knew would have had the same reaction. For the record, I was an English major.</p>
<p>I do think it's true that students are less concerned with education for its own sake than they might have been a few decades ago, but this probably has more to do with the college admissions race they've been subjected to in high school than anything else. Too many students, especially those attending elite colleges, have never learned how to learn because they are too busy resume building. This isn't their fault, but it's a shame.</p>
<p>The author, I'm assuming, isn't referring to those who study Economics because they find it fascinating, but to those who see it as a proxy for a business major. Even though I've never had the urge to do anything particularly lucrative, it seems ridiculous to look down on those who do, or to deny the fact that some people are in fact able to walk and chew gum at the same time (or, perhaps, invest in stocks and talk Plato). Please don't assume that people like this author would fit in at Chicago -- they'd actually be reviled, for the most part.</p>
<p>EJR: "Even though I've never had the urge to do anything particularly lucrative, it seems ridiculous to look down on those who do, or to deny the fact that some people are in fact able to walk and chew gum at the same time (or, perhaps, invest in stocks and talk Plato)."</p>
<p>I agree that people who are hardcore intellectuals have the ability to be successful in the business world, but I don't think the author necessarily disagrees with you on this point. Read this quote by the author: "The ability to engage with the world in a multifaceted way, to employ the approach of liberal arts, and to absorb and apply new knowledge over the course of a lifetime is an essential part of being an intelligent and worthwhile person" What I got from that quote was that the author thinks that the rigorous thinking that is the staple of intellectualism is vital to leading a good life as well as to being successful in 'real world' careers like business. </p>
<p>BTW, I think she's wrong socioeconomic diversity being the cause of anti-intellectualism at Harvard. But I think that point can be separated from the rest of the article.</p>
<p>There also seems to be some argument on this thread about whether there is intellectual conversation at lunch. I couldn't find this anywhere in the article, so it's irrelevant. I don't think lunch conversation is a great indicator of intellectualism either.</p>
<p>I promise you that at Chicago EVERYONE has to read Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Thucydides, not so much.</p>
<p>They do talk about Socrates at lunch, though. I bet they do at Harvard, too, at least sometimes.</p>
<p>
I agree.
I agree again. </p>
<p>It was these things that I found "amusingly abhorrent" about the article. I may even agree that there needs to be a more intellectual vibe on American campuses, ala SamK. The more the better IMO. </p>
<p>As a History major , I do remember that I claimed the moral and intellectual high ground reserved only for those of us without a clue how we were going to support ourselves. Still feel that way just a bit. Sorry. ;)</p>
<p>So, I'm not opposed to THAT part of her article. Just don't go blaming it on the people at Harvard on financial iniatives.</p>
<p>Then again, I also think I'm a dinosaur. That the world has changed. That to forego thoughts of "How am I going to support myself?" was a lot less scary in 1974 than in 2007. Maybe an economics student could explain that to us in words even I could understand. ;)</p>
<p>The author's theory that the college admissions race mentality has negatively impacted intellectualism hit home with me. Prior to discovering CC, I was quite naive about the obsessive competitiveness of the college admissions process, but I suspect most Harvard applicants are not. I'm sure many of them calculate exactly how many AP courses, ECs, CS hours, GPAs and SAT scores they need to get to Harvard, beginning in 9th grade or earlier. It seems like in my day (but again, maybe I was just naive), Harvard-bound students possessed a natural intellectual curiosity, rather than a set of defined numerical standards forcing their choices.</p>
<p>There are indeed some students at Harvard who are career-minded. I've met some of them. But, as another poster has said, that is part of the zeitgeist and it is not confined to Harvard; and I'm sure that some can be found at Chicago. It does, after all, have an economics department.
I also think that many Harvard students are far more absorbed by their ECs than by their studies. But that's not a new phenomenon. David Halberstam recalledd spending more time on the Crimson than on homework. And that would have been in the 1950s.
But I still think the student is not only narrow in her definition of intellectualism, she is also wrong to attribute it to students who are on financial aid. I doubt that the students who attended HYP on their trust funds were any more intellectual than the students who are currently there on scholarships. GWB, JFK (both of them), Al Gore, did not exactly shine in college.</p>
<p>The funny thing about all the resume' padding is that financial firms like Goldman Sacchs don't care about your ECs. (At least that is my impression from my friends who went to the financial sector.) If you have a high GPA from HYP in a quantitative major, that's good enough for them.</p>
<p>marite: "I doubt that the students who attended HYP on their trust funds were any more intellectual than the students who are currently there on scholarships. "</p>
<p>I googled some of the author's other articles, and I don't think she thinks highly of the trust fund babies...</p>
<p>The thing that bothers me about that article--as it did Curmudgeon and others--is the implication of a golden age of higher education spoiled by the influx of career-minded students on financial aid. That's why I wrote that post.
At any particular time, in college, there are some students who are there not to enlarge their knowledge, but for some other reason. When I was in college, my roommate was quite open about her goal: to find someone to marry. While looking for Mr. Right, she switched majors at a dizzying pace. She was not the only one doing so. Another large group of students were semi-permanently protesting.</p>
<p>I actually find today's students far more serious about their studies than my own peers were.</p>
<p>Apologies to EJR--I should not have suggested that this particular student would be happier at Chicago. But (<em>dons flame-proof jacket</em>) I have the impression that the students at Chicago, as a group, are among the most intellectual in the US. On the other hand, I thought everyone there still had to read Thucydides; so maybe my information is out-of-date.</p>
<p>^^lol, marite, your line about Chicago, "It does, after all, have an economics department."</p>
<p>Also, I suppose the fact that my group uses napkins one can write on (i.e., paper) is a dead give-away about our socio-economic class!</p>
<p>Caldwell argues that admission of a larger number of students in need of financial aid has resulted in a greater fraction of students who concentrate on obtaining a marketable undergraduate degree:</p>
<p>
[quote]
With an influx of students 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 have any specific knowledge of Harvard that allows me say this is true/not true, but it doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.</p>
<p>What I don’t get is why that phenomenon, if true, prevents Harvard from being a bastion of intellectualism. This is Caldwell’s description of how an intellectual operates:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The ability to engage with the world in a multifaceted way, to employ the approach of liberal arts, and to absorb and apply new knowledge over the course of a lifetime is an essential part of being an intelligent and worthwhile person.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps Caldwell needs to take a few electives outside of history and literature so she makes the discovery that most “new knowledge” allowing us to “engage the world in a multifaceted way” is occurring in the technical/scientific fields. Chastising students for studying science, technical social science, applied economics, etc. because it lessens the intellectual atmosphere of the campus displays her own narrowness and ignorance of what constitutes an educated person in the 21st century.</p>
<p>Maybe the reason she finds so few students willing to chew the fat with her is because she doesn’t have much to say that is worthwhile hearing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe the reason she finds so few students willing to chew the fat with her is because she doesn’t have much to say that is worthwhile hearing.
[/quote]
That, or if she is as abrasive and opinionated in person as she seems on paper, she may drive away many whom she might find sufficiently intellectual. Her manner doesn't seem very inviting of friendly discourse -- intellectual or otherwise. </p>
<p>I also question her ability to have accurately sized up the student body at Harvard in her barely two years there. She seems to have started with a theory about the HFAI and antiintellectualism and then to have written something to try to support it.</p>
<p>Harvard certainly does not need my defense. However, I would like to say that the young woman I know who recently graduated from Harvard is incredibly intellectual and intelligent. She majored in classical archeology and then went to med school.</p>
<p>I don't think there are that many true intellectuals anywhere, that is those who are interested in ideas for their own sake, but why should there be? And I'm sure Harvard has a higher concentration of them than most places. No, not higher than Chicago, but higher than most places.</p>
<p>I don't think Chicago has a higher concentration either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think there are that many true intellectuals anywhere, that is those who are interested in ideas for their own sake
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree. I think there are a tremendous number of intellectuals in this country/world, but for whatever reason, there is not much value placed on intellectualism anymore.</p>
<p>I smell a book in the making: How Harvard Sacrificed Its Intellectual Soul on the Altar of Careerism (or some such title) by Lucy Caldwell</p>
<p>Lucy Caldwell is the new Ross Douthat. Bashing Harvard always sells - especially bashing done by an insider, so that everyone can say "See! I told you so!"</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <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> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I didn't use the term "intellectual," but after her freshman year I asked D whether she found the kids at Harvard to be regular kids or were they strange or somehow operating on a higher, or at least different, plane from ordinary college students? She said that they seem like regular smart kids about 90% of the time, but these really strange, exhilarating, and quite wonderful conversations keep breaking out at the oddest moments. For example she said a group of a half dozen or so of them were sitting around watching the Red Sox play a game in the 2004 World Series when for some reason an argument broke out about the policies of the 19th century Austrian political leaders and how that contributed to the start of WWI. And the kicker was that every nearly kid knew the names of the 19th century Austrian leaders and their policies and had a strong opinion on the topic - in the middle of a Red Sox game.</p>
<p>I don't know if that qualifies as "intellectual," but my daughter says these sorts of conversations happen regularly and are one of the things she really loves about the place. I think the problem here is that Lucy Caldwell may be looking at the kids spending hours watching a baseball game and shaking her head in disappointment when she should be watching the game herself and joining in the conversations.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I'm sure many of them calculate exactly how many AP courses, ECs, CS hours, GPAs and SAT scores they need to get to Harvard, beginning in 9th grade or earlier.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I'm sure they don't calculate any such thing because, if hanging out on CC should have taught you anything, it's that NOBODY knows how many AP courses, ECs, CS hours, GPAs and SAT scores they need to get to Harvard or other high end schools. If such a thing could be calculated or otherwise known, you'd see a lot less angst on CC.</p>
<p>
Fair enough. </p>
<p>Those moments were great , weren't they? Wherever you found them.</p>