<p>Interesting take on why Chicago's core is and will remain unique.</p>
<p>hey!.....you said it was an interesting article</p>
<p>boy, you best check yourself before you falsely endorse that ****</p>
<p>How great to hear. I guess being a philosophy major won't get me far in life, huh? I personally think that we should be putting more emphasis on literature and the arts than on sciences these days. We all know that sciences are prestigious, but learning critical analysis may be the most important thing any person can learn. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I agree, and would suggest reading "Science and Human Values" by Jacob Bronowski (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060972815/qid=1136744908/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9571912-0764166?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)%5B/url%5D">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060972815/qid=1136744908/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9571912-0764166?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)</a>, who was both a scientist and a poet. His "The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination" is a good follow on book as well.</p>
<p>Interesting, in reading the Amazon reader comments, I believe they have missed the key point (at least for me) of the book. That is, that the "thought processes" or creativity found in scientific thinking and creative thinking in the humanities are the same, only the evaluation criteria are different. The use of metaphorical thinking is common to both types of creativity.</p>
<p>One of the most salient points in that article is that class size matters a lot. Quite a few schools still have some sort of general education requirement, in which the courses, while on the surface perhaps looking like distribution requirements, are nonetheless general education in the sense that the courses deal with issues that are not part of the specific training in a major. But IMO the only way this can work well is if there is ample opportunity for class discussion and debate, not large lectures.</p>