Everyone on DCUM should read Frank Bruni's recent book on colleges

[Anonymous]

^^^^ I meant to write "Oxford specializes in wankers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Yale-or-Jail mentality"? Seriously? This isn't the 20th century. I personally don't know anyone who actually talks like that, and doubt that more than a small minority of Americans think that way either.

PP, that's the joke about Wilson HS, FYI. It was largely true a few years ago. Every white kid I knew who went there got into an Ivy or equivalent school (Duke, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, PP, you're just confirming that you are rather thick.

Operating a flight is a physical skill in which, yes, years of experience counts. However, tracking and analyzing the education sector requires the same skills at which many journalists excel -- critical analysis, research, ability to synthesize data, and to write.

Better "thick" than your disingenuous word salads.

Your PP talked about those with multidisciplinary backgrounds being better at problem-solving. So I cited to pilots operating planes, which you reduced with sleight of hand to mere "physical skill" -- really? There's no problem-solving or critical thinking involved with pilots if something goes wrong? But anyway, let me give you another example then. Back in the 60s, when the NASA folks in "Hidden Figures" were trying to send astronauts to the moon, who were the problem solvers? Were they journalists with top-notch and well-rounded critical thinking and research skills? Hell no. They were mathematicians, engineers, and programmers with (gasp!) specialized theoretical and technical knowledge.

Keep on thinking that a journalist's research skills and analytical thinking alone are enough to solve big problems. They may sometimes help with revolutionizing higher-level thinking on a subject. On that I agree with you to a degree. But at the end of the day, who comes up with the actual solutions that generate tangible benefits?

[Anonymous]

looks like topic has morphed into the the Doers and the Writers.
Many of us would rather slowly research, write and teach. Less risky, safe, nice cadence, and every year is the same materials to teach. Less decisions to make as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, PP, you're just confirming that you are rather thick.

Operating a flight is a physical skill in which, yes, years of experience counts. However, tracking and analyzing the education sector requires the same skills at which many journalists excel -- critical analysis, research, ability to synthesize data, and to write.

Better "thick" than your disingenuous word salads.

Your PP talked about those with multidisciplinary backgrounds being better at problem-solving. So I cited to pilots operating planes, which you reduced with sleight of hand to mere "physical skill" -- really? There's no problem-solving or critical thinking involved with pilots if something goes wrong? But anyway, let me give you another example then. Back in the 60s, when the NASA folks in "Hidden Figures" were trying to send astronauts to the moon, who were the problem solvers? Were they journalists with top-notch and well-rounded critical thinking and research skills? Hell no. They were mathematicians, engineers, and programmers with (gasp!) specialized theoretical and technical knowledge.

Keep on thinking that a journalist's research skills and analytical thinking alone are enough to solve big problems. They may sometimes help with revolutionizing higher-level thinking on a subject. On that I agree with you to a degree. But at the end of the day, who comes up with the actual solutions that generate tangible benefits?

You two are the most boring people ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frank Bruni went to boarding school in Connecticut and Columbia University (one of the world's best schools for journalists). So who would he be if his choices were more low-key?

Actually, he turned down an Ivy to go to UNC.

not for J school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aw. Some people’s whole sense of self worth is linked to the name on their diploma. Don’t tell them that having a nice diploma isn’t what makes you a successful human being! They will collapse into an angry heap of punctured ego. Be kind. Don’t make them read a book that might shatter their sense of self worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, PP, you're just confirming that you are rather thick.

Operating a flight is a physical skill in which, yes, years of experience counts. However, tracking and analyzing the education sector requires the same skills at which many journalists excel -- critical analysis, research, ability to synthesize data, and to write.

Better "thick" than your disingenuous word salads.

Your PP talked about those with multidisciplinary backgrounds being better at problem-solving. So I cited to pilots operating planes, which you reduced with sleight of hand to mere "physical skill" -- really? There's no problem-solving or critical thinking involved with pilots if something goes wrong? But anyway, let me give you another example then. Back in the 60s, when the NASA folks in "Hidden Figures" were trying to send astronauts to the moon, who were the problem solvers? Were they journalists with top-notch and well-rounded critical thinking and research skills? Hell no. They were mathematicians, engineers, and programmers with (gasp!) specialized theoretical and technical knowledge.

Keep on thinking that a journalist's research skills and analytical thinking alone are enough to solve big problems. They may sometimes help with revolutionizing higher-level thinking on a subject. On that I agree with you to a degree. But at the end of the day, who comes up with the actual solutions that generate tangible benefits?

PP is an ill-informed. There was a lot of disciplinary cross-over described in Hidden Figures - mathematicians becoming engineers and programmers. The dogged pursuit of a flawed argument perfectly illustrates PP’s limitations.

[Anonymous]

Congratulations, you've established the unremarkable concept that math and engineering/CS are adjacent fields with great overlap in theory. So it makes perfect sense that someone with deep knowledge and training in math could easily develop expertise in engineering and programming.

Of course, none of the above speaks to how a journalist's research and writing abilities are at best marginally relevant to the kind of problem solving that requires a certain level of expertise and training in a field of study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations, you've established the unremarkable concept that math and engineering/CS are adjacent fields with great overlap in theory. So it makes perfect sense that someone with deep knowledge and training in math could easily develop expertise in engineering and programming.

Of course, none of the above speaks to how a journalist's research and writing abilities are at best marginally relevant to the kind of problem solving that requires a certain level of expertise and training in a field of study.

That’s the point you seem incapable of grasping. Liberal arts and the social sciences, education, business, law, and policy add are somewhat “adjacent fields,” dependent on critical thinking, research, and problem-solving skills. Writing about the impact of elite education, or lack thereof, does not require “expertise and training in a field of study.”

I have two liberal arts degrees, a master’s in sociology, a Ph.D.in education — and I have no problems recognizing the validity of Frank Bruni’s insights, even though — gasp — he does not have a Ph.D. in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal arts and the social sciences, education, business, law, and policy add are somewhat “adjacent fields,” dependent on critical thinking, research, and problem-solving skills. Writing about the impact of elite education, or lack thereof, does not require “expertise and training in a field of study.”

Of course Mr. Bruni has a sufficiently broad background to write about elite education. The key word here is "write." Not even I disagree with that.

But your original argument was that people with multidisciplinary backgrounds are allegedly better at problem-solving, and by lowering the bar now to "writing," you've shifted the goalposts so far that they're on the opposite end of the field. What background or training does he have to solve actual problems associated with elite education?

[Anonymous]

What are you jabbering about? Bruni's not trying to solve any problems in education.

[Anonymous]

Since people here on DCUM seem so appreciative of book recommendations that might challenge their thinking, I have another one. It’s called “Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite” and it has a lot to say about how today’s parental obsession with pursuing elite credentials and jumping through endless hoops has led to the highest levels of depression in teenagers and twenty-somethings ever seen. You can only push kids so hard until they finally break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you jabbering about? Bruni's not trying to solve any problems in education.

I wasn't the one who first brought up problem solving. And if his book isn't trying to solve problems, then it's more pointless than I thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be hard to believe, but it's actually quite possible for people with nice diplomas to be successful human beings too.

+1

I went to an elite uni in my home country. Most of my "professional" friends in the US have HYPS degrees. Lovely people, and just brilliant. Articulate, polished, well-networked. Most of my local "mom" friends went to JMU, VCU, GMU, etc. Also lovely people, but nowhere near as bright or successful. Obviously, just my personal experience, but the difference really is glaring. Are they both happy? Sure, probably in their own way. But they are not equivalent.

Funny. I went to Oxford and a lot of the people i knew there were utter wankers.

Yes, well Oxford specializes in Oxford. It comes with the British class system.

I'm a graduate of two Ivies, and I can attest that it's like any population. There are a number of jerks who are not that smart (and you can't help but wonder what special hook got them in), and there are amazing people who humble you and make you wonder how you were admitted in a field that included such extraordinary stars.

You know very little about Oxford (or Cambridge by extension).

Their admissions is little different from HYP these days. The last time the class system had a role at Oxford was before WWII. Similar to when the class system in the US also played a big role in admissions to HYP. If anything, I'd even argue that Oxbridge admissions is more merit driven than HYP admissions where the soft factors counts for much more (race, diversity, famous parents, alumni/legacy etc).