At 10:15 AM 2/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>> I have been called anti-intellectual for saying that dockworkers should
>>make more than English lit profs,
>
>
>Bet they do. When I left academia in 1994
>I was making $35K. The ILWU isn't doing right by its members if it can't do
>a whole lot better than that. My autoworker friends were bringing in
>$70K--$100K with overtime.
Yeah, I know. The profs around here certainly whine about it enough.
>Course now I am a hotshot lawyer and making a
>ridiculous salary, but most lawyers don't.
yep
>> and that colleges shouldn't
>>have the
>>right to force a liberal arts curriculum on people who want an engineering
>>degree.
>
>
>The right! You'd create a cause of action for people who wanted to
>challenge college distributional requirements?
Or 'the power.' That's probably a better word. I don't know what you mean by college distributional requirements...is that the same thing as core curriculum requirements? If so, then yes, though I don't feel strongly enough about this to jump in bed with conservatives over it. The state of public education in America, pushed into a corner by privatizers, tax 'reformers' and corporate patrons, demands a united front.
>Or you just think that
>distributionals are dumb?
Possbily : )
dont know what they are, though
>For what it's worth, they're the bread and butter
>of academics.
I know. That's why the idea upsets so many academics.
>Humanities departments would wither and die without 'em.
Some, not all. Most would contract, or change, or give way to new departments. What I'd like to see is an arrangement where students have, instead of a core, the right to choose from 2 years worth of electives in any area they want, or to leave school as soon as they've completed their two years of course work in engineering, computer science, english lit, whatever, and still be taken seriously on the job market.
>classic study of anti-intellectualism in
>American life. As a rough approximation, I'd describe it, in this country,
>as a resentful contempt, tinged with homophobia, for any sort on
>intellectual or academic interest or attainment that is not more or less
>immediately translatable into a substantial remuneration.
Sounds like a reasonable generalization to me.
>It's hard to
>believe that anyone on this list who grew up in America hasn't experienced
>it.
I'm very clear about how to define "anti-intellectualism," but I want to guard against sloppy usage that could be used to make me look like an "intellectual basher."
>Obviously there is also a sort of obverse intellectual's arrogance that
>is also to be condemned, but the "I don't know much about history" (in the
>words of a popular song) mentality isn't to be celebrated either. jks
Agreed.