Re: 50 Book Challenge 2008

On Jul 21, 4:58 pm, "Dark Phoenix" <dark_phoe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Dark Age Ahead, by Jane Jacobs. Random House, 2004
>
> In Dark Age Ahead, Jacobs describes her take on the decay of
civilization=
 in
> the US and Canada. She makes strong points. She marks out five
=91pillars=
=92 of
> civilization that are going downhill.
>
> The first is community and family. This is not the usual cry of =93ZOMG
w=
e=92re
> not like Ozzie and Harriet anymore!=94 but a reasoned look at how
familie=
s
> these days are more focused on consumerism than nurturance, thus putting
=
the
> family in debt, and how so many people within a community choose fiscal
> advantage over the good of the community at large. Living in a small
> town/rural area as I do, I get to see these things up close and
personal.
> Magnify these problems by 10 to get a small American city and it begins
t=
o
> look insolvable.
>
> Higher education is the second pillar. Jacobs claims that universities
ar=
e
> sacrificing true education to credentialing as many students as
possible.
> And it=92s certainly true that curriculums have been dumbed down so that
=
more
> people can pass courses with less effort. Add this to the trend of
requir=
ing
> less courses outside of the students major and you have a lot of people
w=
ho
> don=92t know much about anything but their one small focus. No wonder
whe=
n
> they go out into the world they don=92t see the big picture. They=92ve
be=
en
> taught not to!
>
> =91Bad science=92 is the third problem the author tackles. Her biggest
co=
mplaint
> is that economics are running the show. For instance, when economics
runs
> medical research, drugs and treatments that will only help a few people-
=
or
> will be inexpensive or unpatentable- are ignored in favor of big,
expensi=
ve
> technologies and drugs that will be sold to millions. (not that I=92m
say=
ing
> that those big technologies and millions of people should be ignored,
> either, but there could be a little more balance) True enough, but under
=
bad
> science I=92d also put the trend in the US of allowing religion to
influe=
nce
> the teaching of science. Scientific enquiry comes to an end when the
answ=
er
> is =93Because the Bible/Koran/the Goddess said so=94.
>
> Bad government and it=92s catering to the special interest groups is the
> fourth issue; we=92re all well acquainted with that. Whoever gives the
be=
st
> vacation trip to the Congressman gets their vote rather than the
Congress=
man
> looking out for the best interests of their constituents.  Self policing
=
by
> the =91learned=92 professions is the last pillar, but I=92m not sure
ther=
e is a
> real decay there as it being something that never really existed.
>
> All Jacobs=92 points are valid and well made. What I find sad is that
she
> never really gives any solutions. I=92m not sure anyone *could* offer
> solutions, really.
>
I read that book a while back. I liked a lot of what she started out
saying, but in the end she became very prescriptive about things.

Credentialism is one such problem. It's a major problem, and part of
why a bachelor's degree is worth less today than it was ten years ago.
Fifteen years ago, I was dismayed when people talked about themselves
as a product produced by the college.

It makes sense as far as engineering and business degrees go. Still,
if that's really the case, then these degrees should be conferred by
special institutions, said one friend. There was no salient difference
between a liberal arts degree and a business degree said the friend
who'd suggested it. Both suggestions came from philosophy majors I
hung out with (and dated), and neither was being mischievous.

But with some hindsight, it seems to me that the credentialism isn't
completely wrong. Obviously, I wanted the credential (as I told a
professor, "Of course I want the degree, if I didn't I'd just read the
books myself;" he thought I'd just been having fun). Furthermore, the
very fact that so many people decide to go to college just to get a
job, even classics majors, means that their degree should mean
something in the workforce.

That means that the idea that education "completes the individual" is
the patrician notion of the university as a glorified fini****ng school
projected from the 19th century wealthy on the 21st century
bureaucrat. It means that the idea that education teaches people how
to confront and solve any problem needs, at minimum, strong revision.


-F