<p>
</p>
<p>No, not enough said. Doing a quick look, the only engineering major I could find in either of those two’s cabinets was Jimmy Carter’s second SecTreas, George William Miller, who had a degree in marine engineering. He did go on to get a law degree from Berkeley though. Carter’s first SecTreas, Werner Michael Blumenthal, got a BS in business administration (also from Berkeley, coincidentally), and went on to get a PhD from Princeton. The vast majority of both Carter’s and Hoover’s cabinets consisted of lawyers and the like.</p>
<p>EDIT: Actually, upon closer inspection, a few of Carter’s cabinet had degrees in economics.</p>
<p>^^Several possibilities come to mind, ModestMelody:
- Deresiewicz’s analysis is wrong
- Brown is not the kind of Ivy he describes
- What you mean by “communicating with people of varying backgrounds” is not exactly what Deresiewicz is talking about
- It is exactly what Deresiewicz is talking about, and therefore, you are not afflicted with the attitudes he describes (see #2)</p>
<p>If you’d be comfortable talking with the plumber (or with the dentist for that matter) about important ideas or issues, I think that counts for more than small talk. Especially if they are ideas or issues that matter to the plumber, and you can talk about them better than you could have without your education. Maybe you can share some theoretical knowledge about the chemistry of tap water, in language he could understand, without talking down to him. Or just talk to him intelligently about the practical choices he has to make in operating a business, raising a family, dealing with clients. Or, what does he think about building codes? If you can empathize with the world of regulations and red tape he works in, I’d say that’s a good sign Deresiewicz was not talking about someone like you.</p>
<p>schee410:
I was not suggesting that engineers necessarily make bad presidents. Only that engineers don’t necessarily make successful ones.
Are you suggesting Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter would have been more successful if only they’d had more engineers in their cabinets? </p>
<p>I’ve often thought our government would work better if more people in it had a problem-solving orientation based on a scientific or engineering background. You may be right if you’re suggesting the President is not the key, it has to be more pervasive at the next levels. But I think it would be naive to think such a background is sufficient. Those folks need administrative skills, too.</p>
<p>I think our countries would work better if our school systems churn out more problem solvers instead of bs-ers.</p>
<p>“Going to an elite college for the education” is simply another example of the latter.</p>
<p>tk-- I’m basically saying it’s not at about Brown not being that kind of place, or that I’m rare in not being that kind of person. I think that Deresiewicz is not only not talking about someone like me, he’s, in fact, only talking about someone like him.</p>
<p>Deresiewicz is the problem here, not his education.</p>
<p>MM – My opinion is that D. may be on to something, but if so, it has mostly to do with the kind of training he pursued in graduate school. He got wrapped around the axle of a particular approach to English lit or whatever. Then he generalizes the narrowness of that to the whole system of elite education. It may be that he just was not a very effective English professor, because he could not figure out how to bring his specialized, scholarly interests to bear on undergraduate education.</p>
<p>His observations about red tape or the lack of it at elite universities are interesting. I can understand how he thinks that cutting people slack in deadlines, grading, etc. may be creating a class of people who think they are above it all. The flip side of that is educating people who are enlightened enough to see the spirit behind the letter of the law.</p>
<p>^^i agree that the colleges help their students and make it awfuly easy to get what they want. however i doubt many schools besides yale would do the lax deadline type stuff.ivies peobably do make their kids feel entitled but can take two different paths depending on the person
- they can be spoiled brats and expect too much to come to soon
- they can come to expect excellence from everything and everyone around them.</p>
<h1>2 is higher expectations for life and overall happiness without really forgetting what work means. i think that’s better than thinking the system is a wall to success.</h1>
<p>^^and i don’t think ivy kids getting extra help gives them “no regard for law.” it’s the mentality of higher expectations.</p>