I think were all aware of the danger of losing the balance between the sciences and the humanities in human life. I most decidedly am not a partisan of science can explain everythingcamp of Messrs. Pinkel, Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. Now, before anyone reads that amiss, I will state for the record that I am an agnostic, secular humanist to the core. But heres something: One of the first quotes in this article is right where they lose me: “We have 11 humanities departments that are quite extraordinary, and we want to provide for that faculty,” said Richard Shaw, Stanford’s dean of admission and financial aid. --so youre expecting students to go tens (and sometimes hundreds) of thousands of dollars into debt, worsening a looming meltdown over unpaid student loans, just so the faculty can be provided for? The guy who made that remark just lost the case in a simple sentence. Students need to be able to SUPPORT THEMSELVES, and a vague promise of the desirable qualities of expanded critical thinking in the workforce isnt going to be enough to help these young people survive (and, by extension, the departments who hope to recruit them for study.) The case for the humanities is compelling, but this article didnt serve it at all.
Posted on: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:35:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015