Monday, July 16, 2007
Preparing Yalies for the real world
Having a "double major in film studies and gender studies" from Yale and access to "plenty of enticing projects" is not, apparently, sufficient to earn a living. Heh.
For some reason this reminds me of Ann Coulter's quip that (paraphrasing) "talk radio is disproportionately conservative because people listen to it while driving to and from their jobs."
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jul 16, 04:48:00 PM:
I read an article about a year ago about the problems caused by tens of thousands of graduates from Islamic Madrassas, with degrees in Koranic studies. Talk about a loser career path- iImmediate openings are available for jihadis and suicide bombers! The article cited complaints from Arab businessmen who decried the absence of people trained to do anything useful.
By , at
Mon Jul 16, 05:48:00 PM:
How do you get a gender studies graduate off of your doorstep?
Pay for the pizza!
By , at
Mon Jul 16, 06:58:00 PM:
Studying for the NJ Bar one summer, I found myself sitting next to a nice young man in bar review. The subject of the day was something really basic -- one of the 1L subjects. The instructor announces that "we'll skip over the next several pages in the outline because you learned that in law school -- just review it at home." The guy next to me looks down at the outline and says, under his breath, "I didn't learn this in law school." I looked at him and said "Let me guess, you went to Yale." The guy is stunned -- how did you know?
I knew because Yalies were notorious for having done a whole lotta jurisprudential, high minded, theoretical stuff in school. We who attended the more pedestrian schools (top 20 vs top 10) learned law.
By , at
Mon Jul 16, 07:26:00 PM:
It's a funny what do you call it? arrogance, obliviousness? that artists presume there by rights ought to be a market ready to support the product they want to produce.
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 16, 08:39:00 PM:
Those two majors and $.99 will get you a McChicken.
By , at
Mon Jul 16, 10:19:00 PM:
Real men of genius...
http://www.norrishs.com/ClassOf67/mp3/Bud%20Light%20-%20Real%20Men%20of%20Genius%20-%20Mr.%20Fancy%20Coffee%20Shop%20Coffee%20Pourer.mp3
By Jim in Virginia, at
Tue Jul 17, 06:12:00 AM:
Amazon has the book paired with "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency" by .... Glen Greenwald.
Heh.
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 08:48:00 AM:
So, it's pretty easy to sneer at this Daniel Brook guy because the format he chose to deliver his message seems to be basically a temper tantrum in book form. I think though, that if you took his message and tweaked the delivery some, many people would be nodding along in agreement.
Haven't you ever wished that art had a higher value to our society? That knowledge had for its own sake had more value? More concretely, have you ever looked around America's homogeneous suburban housing developments or ugly apartment buildings, and said "yuck! why?!" Have you ever been stuck in conversation with someone really boring, and wished this person were interested in something...anything...?
Of course, the reality is that often aesthetics = $$$; education costs money (in terms of time if nothing else) and people want low prices first, no matter what. But even in wealthy communities there's often no place for art, and rich people are often just as boring as everyone else.
Crying over the fact that society doesn't place a great value on your contributions, and claiming some kind of entitlement because of your obvious incredible potential, is a really good way to be a spoiled baby. But unless you really think that the almighty dollar is the be-all and end-all to life, I think that you should vote for art and the humanities to receive more public funding (or donate to private foundations, if you despise nasty ol' big government), and spend some time studying something "useless" at some point in your life. It'd make this country a better place to live and the people would be more interesting to talk to!
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jul 17, 09:19:00 AM:
spend some time studying something "useless" at some point in your life.
College grads are virtually compelled to do this already with required "electives".
I think that you should vote for art and the humanities to receive more public funding
I'd rather have more national infrastructure improvements. Our bridges are crumbling and our power infrastructure is stressed to its limits.
Art is nice, but you can't admire it while sitting in the dark due to rolling blackouts.
Suggest looking up the word "triage".
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 17, 09:29:00 AM:
Phrizz -
Good comments. My reactions in italics below...
Haven't you ever wished that art had a higher value to our society?
Not really, but then I have (almost) always lived in big cities or college towns where art seems highly valued. Princeton is building a huge new "arts center" at no small cost, and that's on top of several galleries and the University's art museum. So I've never had occasion to wish art were more highly valued. That said, I'm sure that most of surburbia is pretty barren.
That knowledge had for its own sake had more value?
I do not know what "knowledge for its own sake" is. As you probably know from reading this blog, I am interested in a great many things, but I still only pursue knowledge that I find interesting.
More concretely, have you ever looked around America's homogeneous suburban housing developments or ugly apartment buildings, and said "yuck! why?!"
All the time. Only five days ago I denounced "housing busybodies" who want to homogenize and regulate variety in their neighborhood.
Have you ever been stuck in conversation with someone really boring, and wished this person were interested in something...anything...?
Constantly. Being a corporate tool, that pretty much describes my day.
Of course, the reality is that often aesthetics = $$$; education costs money (in terms of time if nothing else) and people want low prices first, no matter what. But even in wealthy communities there's often no place for art, and rich people are often just as boring as everyone else.
I'm not sure that more art would make rich people more interesting, but I absolutely agree that rich people are often just as boring as everyone else. The one time in my life when I lived somewhere that was neither a big city nor a college town was 1994-1998 when I lived in Ridgewood, New Jersey, an affluent suburb near New York. In four years there I met just one couple that I felt even a mild urge to get together with a second time. Brutal.
Crying over the fact that society doesn't place a great value on your contributions, and claiming some kind of entitlement because of your obvious incredible potential, is a really good way to be a spoiled baby. But unless you really think that the almighty dollar is the be-all and end-all to life, I think that you should vote for art and the humanities to receive more public funding (or donate to private foundations, if you despise nasty ol' big government), and spend some time studying something "useless" at some point in your life. It'd make this country a better place to live and the people would be more interesting to talk to!
I agree with most of that (not, obviously, the public-funding part). That said, I think that it is less education that makes people interesting than curiousity. There are a lot of highly educated people who simply are not curious, and that almost invariably makes them boring.
By , at
Tue Jul 17, 03:39:00 PM:
This I cannot resist:
"Haven't you ever wished that art had a higher value to our society? That knowledge had for its own sake had more value?"
Art has had a "higher value" in our society, and knowledge "for it's own sake" likewise had greater vlaue than today. But, civilization graduated from the middle ages, thankfully, and those times are past. Mostly anyway.
By , at
Wed Jul 18, 12:59:00 AM:
YALE where the bar the miltary and invite terrorists to give speeches SCREW YALE
