The college landscape in America is beginning to look a lot like the 1920s, but since we’ve stopped reading the literature of that era, at least in school, it seems that we’re destined to learn those lessons the hard way all over again.
And now we have big business pushing universities to train students to use AI because they will need it for future employment. The distinction between learning and being trained has been erased thanks to higher education adopting a retail model.
Yes, Chuck Ryback wrote about this recently on "Inner Life," contrasting the technology-obsessed college environment to his experience teaching in prison (where AI and every other bell and whistle is banned).
I'm not the only one saying this, but once you follow the logic of using Latin phrases purely for branding purposes and turning universities into corporations, you're stripping universities of their historic birthright of challenging industry. Why bother with State U when you can just build your own Google Academy? Linking learning to employment in this way is the final nail in academic freedom's coffin. And I think my friend Steve is right that ceding meaning making to AI means reverting back to a Dark Age, in which Big Tech replaces the church.
Oof, this was tough to read because I recognized so much, correction: all, of it.
Your friend’s FB post may well point to where we’re going. Human history makes giant swerves. Our species unfortunately seems to learn best from mistakes.
One line that stood out to me was “the whole peppy, boosting, go-ahead game” - not least because I love your description of my newsletter as a “break from hustle culture.” So you got me thinking about my particular role in this time. I’m starting my Tuesday with appreciation that I’m still inside the institution, where my classes this very day will ask students to consider the value to them of books. (Today, it’s Ralph Ellison and Margaret Atwood in presentations at noon, Octavia Butler in class discussion at 1:30.) You’ve recommitted me to hope. One day at a time.
This was a tour de force. My three children graduated from Penn in 2010, 2012, and 2016 and while it's true that my two Wharton sons went first to McKinsey (my daughter was an English major and became a teacher), they and their friends do seem to place significant value in literature and other forms of art.
Is it possible that cultural capital will become both more rare and more valuable?
Again, this was a great essay and a great way to get my brain going early today.
While earning a B.S., I will confess to not always enjoying the gobs of reading my humanities courses tacked on; however, I certainly always appreciated the opportunity for self expression and enlightening debate. Ancient cultures held the development of the mind, body, and spirit with high regard. Unfortunately, our current culture does not seem to value what I believe to be an education which shapes and molds an interesting and purposeful individual.
As a parent, it is distressing to see the minimally diverse reading list for my highschool freshman. I have a library of classics, but I find them difficult to encourage at home. I am concerned about her preparation for the next level and this is even in an affluent school district, one that is intellectually influenced by the local university culture.
Thanks for sharing, Traci. In some quarters in higher ed, the classics are considered expendable because of their sexist, racist, __ist overtones. There was a play produced at PSU this year called "John Proctor Is the Villain," referring to Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," in which John Proctor's affair with a much younger Abigail Williams takes center stage in the Salem Witch Trials. The real Proctor and Williams were never romantically entangled, but that is incidental. According to this new play, Miller's fictional Proctor abused his power and thus can be pilloried as a #MeToo straw man. No need to read "The Crucible" for anything but that.
I get why some families are refusing to pay steep tuitions for that kind of education, too.
Sounds almost like a more "soft" or maybe silent banning of books. One might think higher education would be the perfect arena for discussions regarding sexism, racism, etc as stimulated by classics literature. I read The Crucible in highschool where we were encouraged to begin thinking for ourselves and have an open dialect about difficult topics. I feel fortunate.
I don’t intend to make any of this personal. My feeling is that the play has a flimsy premise if it draws #MeToo conclusions from a fictional work. Especially since the affair between Proctor and Williams is a flourish to deepen Miller’s critique of McCarthyism. The real John Proctor was quite different, and ironically Miller intended to denounce the very kind of Puritanism portrayed as progressive in the play.
I have two high school age kids in Community College right now, and another who teaches at a University. It's bleak. They don't even bother assigning the kids full books to read, just excerpts. One of them is taking an Ethics Philosophy class and they received handouts of a couple of segments of Victor Frankel's 'Man's Search for Meaning'. It's a 192 page book and I can't conceive of any situation where they could garner a full understanding of his book with only a couple of excerpts.
Agreed -- I think my friend Steve is right about a new Dark Ages where literacy is concerned. I am fortunate to have three book-loving kids. When I told me eldest about some alarming stats about how many college students *don't* do their required reading (as high as 70% in one study), she looked hurt. "It's a book, not a burden," she said. Indeed. And I agree that you can't excerpt your way through primary texts. This is one reason why "Babbitt" is no longer read. It's too damn long.
I just reread Babbitt recently and was reminded of both how prescient it is and that it's not very long at all. My kids read a lot too but their peers read very little at home.
I take your point! Obviously I didn't think it was too long, either. But I wish whoever tries to teach it much luck, even in an upper-level literature class.
I too have been shocked at the things the business types on the Board of Trustees have said. The "re-organization" principle has been applied at the college level and even the state level to get rid of "inefficiencies" (programs they don't like). One side of my family was very educated and the other side not educated. The educated side was able to adapt to changes much better in my observation. In fact, the uneducated side insisted on all of the kids going to college.
This essay is not meant as a personal attack on anyone or any particular board. However, the current corporatization of higher ed is a logical consequence of business ownership of private colleges and an overwhelming majority of Babbitts governing public universities.
I'm reminded of Wendell Berry's reflection on the legacy of James B. Duke, for whom Duke University is named. Duke monopolized the tobacco industry, hurting farmers like Berry's father and grandfather, but was then celebrated as a philanthropist. He writes, "If you can appropriate for little or nothing the work and hope of enough such farmers, then you may dispense the grand charity of 'philanthropy.'"
And now we have big business pushing universities to train students to use AI because they will need it for future employment. The distinction between learning and being trained has been erased thanks to higher education adopting a retail model.
Yes, Chuck Ryback wrote about this recently on "Inner Life," contrasting the technology-obsessed college environment to his experience teaching in prison (where AI and every other bell and whistle is banned).
I'm not the only one saying this, but once you follow the logic of using Latin phrases purely for branding purposes and turning universities into corporations, you're stripping universities of their historic birthright of challenging industry. Why bother with State U when you can just build your own Google Academy? Linking learning to employment in this way is the final nail in academic freedom's coffin. And I think my friend Steve is right that ceding meaning making to AI means reverting back to a Dark Age, in which Big Tech replaces the church.
Oof, this was tough to read because I recognized so much, correction: all, of it.
Your friend’s FB post may well point to where we’re going. Human history makes giant swerves. Our species unfortunately seems to learn best from mistakes.
One line that stood out to me was “the whole peppy, boosting, go-ahead game” - not least because I love your description of my newsletter as a “break from hustle culture.” So you got me thinking about my particular role in this time. I’m starting my Tuesday with appreciation that I’m still inside the institution, where my classes this very day will ask students to consider the value to them of books. (Today, it’s Ralph Ellison and Margaret Atwood in presentations at noon, Octavia Butler in class discussion at 1:30.) You’ve recommitted me to hope. One day at a time.
I'm glad that you're still fanning the flames, Tara. And it probably says more about you than about me if you could draw hope from this essay!
Haha! Off to fan them ...
Josh,
This was a tour de force. My three children graduated from Penn in 2010, 2012, and 2016 and while it's true that my two Wharton sons went first to McKinsey (my daughter was an English major and became a teacher), they and their friends do seem to place significant value in literature and other forms of art.
Is it possible that cultural capital will become both more rare and more valuable?
Again, this was a great essay and a great way to get my brain going early today.
Thank you, David. I thought you'd be interested in Patel's op-ed, since you're a Penn alum. I'd be interested in your kids' take.
While earning a B.S., I will confess to not always enjoying the gobs of reading my humanities courses tacked on; however, I certainly always appreciated the opportunity for self expression and enlightening debate. Ancient cultures held the development of the mind, body, and spirit with high regard. Unfortunately, our current culture does not seem to value what I believe to be an education which shapes and molds an interesting and purposeful individual.
As a parent, it is distressing to see the minimally diverse reading list for my highschool freshman. I have a library of classics, but I find them difficult to encourage at home. I am concerned about her preparation for the next level and this is even in an affluent school district, one that is intellectually influenced by the local university culture.
Thanks for sharing, Traci. In some quarters in higher ed, the classics are considered expendable because of their sexist, racist, __ist overtones. There was a play produced at PSU this year called "John Proctor Is the Villain," referring to Arthur Miller's "The Crucible," in which John Proctor's affair with a much younger Abigail Williams takes center stage in the Salem Witch Trials. The real Proctor and Williams were never romantically entangled, but that is incidental. According to this new play, Miller's fictional Proctor abused his power and thus can be pilloried as a #MeToo straw man. No need to read "The Crucible" for anything but that.
I get why some families are refusing to pay steep tuitions for that kind of education, too.
Sounds almost like a more "soft" or maybe silent banning of books. One might think higher education would be the perfect arena for discussions regarding sexism, racism, etc as stimulated by classics literature. I read The Crucible in highschool where we were encouraged to begin thinking for ourselves and have an open dialect about difficult topics. I feel fortunate.
Was this a student led thing or did professors guide them into that?
https://arts.psu.edu/research-creative/penn-state-centre-stage#:~:text=John%20Proctor%20is%20the%20Villain&text=Alternately%20touching%20and%20bitingly%20funny,own%20coming%20of%20age%20story.
I perused that professors Instagram. Wow…. Really a reminder college is overpriced
I don’t intend to make any of this personal. My feeling is that the play has a flimsy premise if it draws #MeToo conclusions from a fictional work. Especially since the affair between Proctor and Williams is a flourish to deepen Miller’s critique of McCarthyism. The real John Proctor was quite different, and ironically Miller intended to denounce the very kind of Puritanism portrayed as progressive in the play.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy08MkKurx5/?igsh=MXR4MW1keW5icmlhNg==
I have two high school age kids in Community College right now, and another who teaches at a University. It's bleak. They don't even bother assigning the kids full books to read, just excerpts. One of them is taking an Ethics Philosophy class and they received handouts of a couple of segments of Victor Frankel's 'Man's Search for Meaning'. It's a 192 page book and I can't conceive of any situation where they could garner a full understanding of his book with only a couple of excerpts.
Agreed -- I think my friend Steve is right about a new Dark Ages where literacy is concerned. I am fortunate to have three book-loving kids. When I told me eldest about some alarming stats about how many college students *don't* do their required reading (as high as 70% in one study), she looked hurt. "It's a book, not a burden," she said. Indeed. And I agree that you can't excerpt your way through primary texts. This is one reason why "Babbitt" is no longer read. It's too damn long.
I just reread Babbitt recently and was reminded of both how prescient it is and that it's not very long at all. My kids read a lot too but their peers read very little at home.
I take your point! Obviously I didn't think it was too long, either. But I wish whoever tries to teach it much luck, even in an upper-level literature class.
I too have been shocked at the things the business types on the Board of Trustees have said. The "re-organization" principle has been applied at the college level and even the state level to get rid of "inefficiencies" (programs they don't like). One side of my family was very educated and the other side not educated. The educated side was able to adapt to changes much better in my observation. In fact, the uneducated side insisted on all of the kids going to college.
This essay is not meant as a personal attack on anyone or any particular board. However, the current corporatization of higher ed is a logical consequence of business ownership of private colleges and an overwhelming majority of Babbitts governing public universities.
I'm reminded of Wendell Berry's reflection on the legacy of James B. Duke, for whom Duke University is named. Duke monopolized the tobacco industry, hurting farmers like Berry's father and grandfather, but was then celebrated as a philanthropist. He writes, "If you can appropriate for little or nothing the work and hope of enough such farmers, then you may dispense the grand charity of 'philanthropy.'"