Scathing article from Harvard grad

<p>Actually, the author in question, who has a conservative axe to grind, seems to have liked Harvard quite a lot. Here is an interview with him from The Atlantic's website: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200502u/int2005-02-10%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200502u/int2005-02-10&lt;/a> He describes his book as God and Man at Yale with more sex, or as I Am Charlotte Simmons with less sex.</p>

<p>It strikes me that a number of the academic regrets expressed by the author are curriculum-based, which seems to argue for an integrated core as the beginning point of a college education. (I would say high school, but won't wander off into utopian fantasies). I think that an integrated approach to knowledge can be quite valuable. </p>

<p>In my case, although I transferred from St. John's College after two years to major in philosophy elsewhere, with each year that passes I am more appreciative of that foundation - tutorials, seminars, preceptorials, in-depth examination of original texts in the same historical periods - a hands-on archeological tour of the developing dialogue of the principles underlying our religions, laws, politics, and literature. </p>

<p>The program not only gave me a reasonable grounding in the philosophical and historical roots of western civilization, but also developed my perspectives about learning in a way that simply 'taking classes in different subjects' was unlikely to accomplish. Discussions of seminar and tutorial questions almost always continued at the breakfast table, over coffee, over a beer at the Little Campus, in the dorm rooms. It was sometimes exhausting, but always satisfying, digging for that treasure. </p>

<p>At the next college, I was lucky enough to be admitted to a graduate tutorial with the most brilliant professor I have ever known. One whole semester, five students, focused on the first five pages of Aristotle's Physics, a paper due every week - it was very demanding (2 of the 5 dropped the course) and highly stimulating - thrilling, in fact. I believe that If I had not attended St. John's, my intellectual 'muscles' would not have been sufficiently developed to maximize this marvelous opportunity. </p>

<p>Although the greatest minds may teach at the most prestigious colleges, it is possible, as with the author of the article, that one's thirst may remain unquenched, because despite the richness and expanse of opportunities, there is no institutionalized mission to facilitate and champion the integration of knowledge. A student might fill in 2% of the educational pie chart with sociology, 40% with biology, 20% with political science, 5% with art history, etc. We could make the case that it is too much to expect any young person, regardless of intelligence, to have the breadth of perspective to choose synergstic educational offerings or to synthesize the varieties of human knowledge. It can be hit or miss, a patchwork without unifying principles. </p>

<p>I probably sound like a reactionary - "Back to the monasteries!!! - Everyone should study Latin and Greek in grade school while illuminating manuscripts!!!!" - but I would maintain, nonetheless, that if this young man had attended St. John's, or a college with a similar orientation, he would not have become bitter about the deficits in his college education.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000345.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000345.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Interesting blog post that counters Douthat's Atlantic article. </p>

<p>excerpt:
*
"What he has hit upon is that it was indeed possible to arrange your academic life at Harvard so that no one was pushing back.</p>

<p>Fortunately, perhaps, I did not discover this in time. So I took courses in which teachers pushed back--and pushed back very hard.</p>

<p>There were professors I never knew--those who stood in front in large lectures. But some of them pushed back: David Herlihy, Albert Lord, Michael Walzer, Wallace McCaffrey, and Ed Purcell come to mind.</p>

<p>And then there were the smaller classes where I really got to know the teachers. Rick Ericson pushed back hard from the first week in economics 10 and kept pushing back the whole year. Others who pushed back really hard include... what was the name of that math 55 professor?... what was the name of that Straussian gov 106b section leader?... In my sophomore year John Geanakoplos and Roger Guesnerie in micro theory, Shannon Stimson and Jeffrey Weintraub in social theory, and most especially Marty Feldstein and Olivier Blanchard in macro theory blew my mind wide open. Peter Huber in statistics pushed back, as did Zvi Griliches and Mark Watson in econometrics, Richard Musgrave and Manuel Trajtenberg in economy and society, and William Thomson (visiting from Rochester) teaching advanced micro theory. In my senior year Bill Lazonick was a superb thesis supervisor. Because Karen Huang persuaded me that I needed to learn something about sociology, I landed in the company of Harrison White and Mark Granovetter, who tried very hard to teach me some (but it didn't stick).</p>

<p>Thus by the time I hit graduate school, and the truly extraordinary teachers and colleagues I found there and have continued to find since, I was more than ready. I had found undergraduate Harvard very hard indeed--not that my grades had been low, or that good grades had been hard to get, but a lot of people had been convinced that I could think hard and had made it their business to make very sure that I had done so.</p>

<p>It is, I think, extremely easy to have Ross Douthat's experience as a Harvard undergraduate--especially if you go looking for it. But I didn't have that experience. For that, I owe a lot of extraordinary teachers an enormous debt. "*</p>

<p>The Crimson answers too:</p>

<p>"Douthat falls victim to his own college-era critique, generalizing the experience of a Harvard student from his own career, which was largely dependent on his personal choices. Perhaps the most vivid recollection in the article is the discussion of a “pathetically easy” paper, for which he apparently “didn’t need to do any reading, absorb any history, or learn anything at all.” One can only wonder why an individual with such a high commitment to academic rigor would have enrolled in such a course in the first place. "</p>

<p>Full article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505732.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/today/article505732.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>