<p>This word gets thrown around a ton on this site. What do you mean when you use it? I am curious because I have seen nearly every school, except a few, accused of being unintellectual.</p>
<p>Ah, “anti-intellectualism” can mean that the dastardly administration folk do not kneel down in adoration of the opinions one is pontificating. </p>
<p>The “ivory tower” isn’t always a pragmatic place. Those places that have pragmatism or even hints of pragmatism can be designated as “anti- intellectual” or “unintellectual.”</p>
<p>I am a professor in a business school and oftimes we lament the lack of intellectualism in business schools. However, I can’t say I’ve noticed it being a generally used criticism of most schools (on cc or elsewhere). </p>
<p>To me, an atomsphere is ‘unintellectual’ to the extent that there is a greater value placed on instrumental goals such as salary, job training, practice, solving real life problems, pre-professionalism or an emphasis on rote learning, memorization, regurgitation. And an atomsphere is more intellectual to the extent that there is a great focus on learning for the sake of learning, intellectual curiosity not attached to a practical goal, critical thinking, being well read, pondering philosophical questions, and valuing abstract ideas, principles and concepts. </p>
<p>I’m being purposefully overly simplistic and black and white to convey what it means to me. I’m presenting two extremes lumping a lot of stuff together as if they are polar opposites and they need not be. One can find an environment with a combination of features from either side; moreover, these features on a given side need not necessarily be highly correlated.</p>
<p>I’m used to hearing it in the connotation of being stuck up. It seems to me that an “intellectual” campus is one where people are really high on how smart they are/“philosophical”/“deep”. That’s just the connotation I’m used to hearing it used in. More liberal arts-y, rather than science/math geeky I think.</p>
<p>^ A demonstration of the problem (hahalolk’s post #4).</p>
<p>To me, it means a focus on learning and knowledge for their own sakes rather than for instrumental ends, a commitment to expand and to communicate knowledge (rather than, for example, hoarding it as a trade secret), and a commitment to address things on the basis of what for simplicity’s sake I’ll call neutral, shared values of intellectual inquiry rather than on the basis of emotion or political concerns (although both emotion and politics may well come into play), and to pursue knowledge (and to communicate it) where such values lead rather than cutting off one’s inquiry because the results may be unpleasant for one reason or another. It does not preclude experiential learning (as opposed to academic learning), but it rarely if ever permits purely experiential learning, and it privileges the conversion of experience into academic discourse from which others may benefit without going through the experience.</p>
<p>All that, and using big words sometimes, too. And paying attention to the work of others, both the live people around you and the people who wrote the books and articles you read.</p>
<p>Or, maybe, it’s purely social: living, working, and communicating using the set of behaviors we describe as “intellectual”, and which generally place high value on written communication and discussion as opposed to using your fists, your weapons, or your power tools.</p>
<p>I don’t think its liberal arts-y (really, humanities-y, since math and science are liberal arts) rather than science/math geeky at all, except that it is nearly impossible to function effectively in a humanities environment in an anti-intellectual way (except, perhaps, as an artist), while at college levels one’s intellectualism or lack thereof may not matter much in introductory/intermediate math and science courses. (Some of them.) And lots of engineers or physicians and the like are intellectual, but they don’t have to be.</p>
<p>while i never use that word, the development of the intellect is my primary purpose while teaching. students are often not so happy about this because they prefer just the basics, the grade, and then to move to their next class. getting out of the left brain and into the right brain is rather inconvenient and uncomfortable, but creative thinking requires both sides. it’s required in both the humanities and the sciences.</p>
<p>Wait, how do I demonstrate the problem?</p>
<p>What problem?</p>
<p>Some people like to consider themselves “intellectual” because they like to argue a lot about arcane and pointless ideas, often while drinking lots of coffee and dressing scruffy. Every college has some people like this, but some schools have a lot of them, which I guess makes them “intellectual” colleges.</p>
<p>Non-intellectual students are those who tend to ask the following questions (and mighty few other questions) in class and in describing the academic requirements for their degree:</p>
<p>Will this (hard topic) be on the test?</p>
<p>Will we have a review in class before the test?</p>
<p>Why do I have to take course X when I’ll clearly never use it?
[Course X can be, but is not limited to, any of the following: Math class for non-math/science majors; literature class for math/science majors; foreign language class for anybody who believes they “suck” at languages; writing intensive class for people who believe (often falsely) that they’ll never have to communicate serious ideas to others in writing.]</p>
<p>You expect me to remember topic X from last semester? That was <em>last</em> <em>semester</em> and in a different class.</p>
<p>Do I really have to use some non-web sources for a research paper?</p>
<p>Why can’t I use wikipedia as a major source for a research paper?</p>
<p>Why do I need to take junior/senior college level courses in subject X since I’ll never use them when I’m teaching subject X in middle/high school? [Asked more often than I like to admit by future math, chemistry, biology, English, and history teachers at the college I teach at.]</p>
<p>What course should I take to fulfill General Education requirment X? None of the courses sound interesting to me at all.</p>
<p>I need to register for one more class to be full time, but I can’t find anything in the schedule that sounds interesting.</p>
<p>^^^ I like post #9 a lot!</p>
<p>Just a couple of side observations.</p>
<p>From personal anecdotal experience, far more humanities/arts students complain about the required math/science distribution courses, than math/science students complain about the required humanities/arts courses. That is consistent with the fact that courses like “physics for poets” and “rocks for jocks” are a widespread phenomenon, but I never heard of courses described as “literature for physicists” or “music for mathematicians”. It is important for humanities students to be reminded that a truly liberal arts education includes the sciences as well as the humanities.</p>
<p>Also, while no one is naming specific colleges, my guess is that at least among the top universities, you may find pockets, or subcultures (to borrow from Keilexandra), of intellectualism in many campuses that do not have a predominantly intellectual reputation – and the converse is probably true too.</p>
<p>@4thfloor My alma mater (UCSC) offers a class in algorithmic music that is mostly full of math and physics majors. And when Tom Lehrer taught they had a Math for Music class, but I suppose that’s still a math class for liberal arts majors (with singing and music!).</p>
<p>Yes, Princeton also has a course on Computer Music. The point, though, is that these sound (no pun intended) like bona fide inter-disciplinary courses, not dumbed-down music courses for computer science majors, unlike the physics for poets courses, which are actual physics courses dumbed down for humanities students, not inter-disciplinary courses mixing thermodynamics and Shakespeare!</p>
<p>But that Tom Lehrer course – “Math for Tenors”, according to Wikipedia – must have been quite a course to take!</p>
<p>^On the other hand, Princeton does have “Clapping for Credit,” although I am assured (and rightly so, it seems) that it is definitely NOT an easy course, merely the only introductory one.</p>
<p>@robinsuesanders: I almost lost my coffee when I read your post; it rang so true. It is sad when students are not curious about anything except what will be on the exam (especially after you have already told them three times and posted multiple practice exams online). The student whose “motor is always running” is the student I enjoy. Such students learn for the sake of learning, and they will be much more interesting adults as a consequence.</p>
<p>I like post #5 a lot. The one by JHS. This post should be archived by CC moderators for future reference.</p>
<p>And I mean this without a trace of irony or sarcasm.</p>
<p>The term “pre-professional” is sometimes used to imply “anti-intellectual”. That a college is “pre-professional” is seen as a negative by many folks on CC. If being pre-professional entails the behavior in robinsuesanders’ post–ie. the “I have to get good grades so I can get a good job that pays well/get into a good grad school” type of pragmatism–then I suppose I’d agree. Outside of that, however, I see it as an elitist distinction. Only the independently wealthy can focus entirely on learning for learning’s sake. The rest of us have to find a way to be gainfully employed, no matter how much we’d prefer to study philosophy rather than economics.</p>
<p>Intellectuallism is vastly overrated. Have you ever read papers that have been published by college professors that are just exceedingly dense and nearly impossible to get through? Where they take simple ideas and dress them up as complexly as they can imagine and then try to pass this off as insightful? I think that some in the academic world might see this as intellectuallism. I just see it as poor writing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my humble experience “pre-professional” students run the whole gamut. Some of them are intensely and innately curious about a wide range of topics and are genuinely interested in learning for learning’s sake while at the same time immensely practical in the sense of wanting to earn a good living. I’d call these students “intellectual.” On the other hand, some of the “pre-professional” students are deeply “non-intellectual” in the sense of demonstrating multiple aspects of the behaviors I listed in my previous post. And a few are actively “anti-intellectual.”</p>
<p>I also think there’s a real distinction that needs to be made between “non-intellectual” and “anti-intellectual.” In my opinion, the “anti-intellectuals” disparage the whole idea of “learning” as a way to improve oneself “holistically”—as opposed to “economically.” In other words, the “anti-intellectuals” value “learning” only if they see it as having direct, immediate, positive economic benefits to them, and they dismiss everything else as egg-headed and ivory tower silliness.</p>
<p>The “non-intellectuals” don’t actively attack the idea of learning for learning’s sake, but simply admit (sometimes quite openly) that curiosity and learning and creating new knowledge (for knowledge’s sake) is just not their cup of tea.</p>
<p>I hate to say it, but intellectualism has a bad conotation with me. That’s because I only know one couple who describe themselves as intellectuals. They don’t let their son read Harry Potter books. They say they’re pop literature and have no value. </p>
<p>IMO, you have to be open minded to be intellectual. Forbidding books one has never read is very close-minded to me. Bad conotation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d describe what you’re taking about as pseudo-intellectuallism and I agree that much academic writing is, in fact, poor writing. But academic writing usually is well documented and the sources it draws from are at least reliable, unlike some undergrads who seem to think that wikipedia is all you need to consult.</p>