Recent Comments
-
In response to “The Ph.D. Problem,” M writes:
-
In response to “Ayn Rand,” john winkelman writes:
I found Rand’s ideas quite appealing in the 1970’s and probably a part of me still resonates to them. The idea that a rational system of ethics could be based on rational selfishness is appealing, but I don’t think it works. Maybe it depends upon how one unpacks the complex idea of “selfishness”, or what one wants from an ethical system. I was amazed at her virulent attack on Kant, which I think is quite unwarranted. I think the best part of Rand is her pointing out how much we depend upon the free exercise of reason by talented minds, and more broadly her defense of reason in an age which often disparages it. The worst part is her neglect of much of reality — family, the effects of massive inequalities in wealth & opportunity, the complexities of economies and social systems, evolution, etc. Basically she was an a priori thinker, and a brilliant one; but there is very little of the empirical in her work, which is a worry….
-
In response to “Penn 17, Harvard 7,” John T. Bethell writes:
Versus Network’s coverage of The Game will be carried on Dish Network channel 151.
-
In response to “The MCZ at 150,” Blue Magruder writes:
Don’t be dismayed by the ‘MCZ not open to the public’ sign on the Oxford Street museum building. The newly renovated Great Mammal Hall and the zoological galleries of the MCZ which are open to the public are all in the Harvard Museum of Natural History, which IS open to the public from 9 am to 5 pm daily, 361 days/year. Visiting info at www.hmnh.harvard.edu.
-
In response to “Penn 17, Harvard 7,” Gifford Combs writes:
Please note that the Versus network is NOT carried on Direct TV any longer. It was dropped by Direct TV in August 2009 because of a failure to resolve a dispute over the renewal of the carriage contract with Comcast, the owner of Versus.
-
In response to “The Ph.D. Problem,” Marco Andreacchio writes:
Some thoughts on a “minor” point:
“Professors tend increasingly to think alike because the profession is increasingly self-selected. The university may not explicitly require conformity on more than scholarly matters, but the existing system implicitly demands and constructs it” (Prof. Menand).
No doubt. But is Menand not part of the clan? Are “deconstruction” and “postmodernism” not the dominant agenda in the Humanities? If one were to enter a graduate program in religious studies, history, literature, “cultures,” etc. etc. what chances would one have to survive by appealing to The Truth, or to Justice, or to “fascist” Plato? Is not anti-Platonism or Historicism held as THE dogma of our Age (so much so that usually one takes them for granted, without even feeling the need to voicing the names)? How many Ph.D.’s do you know who do not believe in all seriousness that thought is inextricable from its time, if only by the Time of all times, which is the “last” open-ended Age we live in? How many Ph.D.’s in the Humanities are there around who are not confident that theory is a doctrine informed by the social life it is supposed to be applied onto? (The classical “alternative,” of course, is that theoria is contemplatio, which points beyond the poietic domains of praxis, and thus of temporal physicality.) And does this belief not make those holding fast to it more prone than ever to feel “in their hearts” like prophets of their Age, not to say living gods? But how different is the academic “god” from a mercenary trader in words SINE RE (devoid of substance), in “free floating signifiers”—a merchant who sees himself (and his like-minded colleagues) as “beyond good and evil,” at least as long as he remains well couched in the Halls of Academia. For EXTRA ACADEMIA, he may very well become the pettiest of conformists: NULLA SALUS.
-
In response to “Evolution by Fire,” Stephen Tapp '71 writes:
I don’t think the relationship created was/is so unilaterally dominating as the author moralizes in the last graf here.
Nature has a way of creating balance given long enough.
-
In response to “Food and Mood,” Michael Davenport writes:
Hey, if this idea helps then I’m all for it. The holidays can be quite harmful to the bod so all of us could use a little discipline. Maybe I should just have 3 or 4 pieces of pumpkin pie instead of 10. My wife checks the scale every morning and I have to tell you that it really helps her.
-
In response to “Harvard 34, Columbia 14,” Julius H. Sherman '48; HLS '51 writes:
I have greatly enjoyed reading your coverage of the team’s games.
-
In response to “The Ph.D. Problem,” bsci writes:
That article really hit one of my biggest pet peeve. The one “true” profession for PhDs is a tenure-track job in academia. He threw some lip service in that perhaps we should change this, but when he’s calling PhDs who don’t get these jobs failures instead of making an effort to figure out what they are doing and if they think their PhDs are giving them value to their current work, he’s writing complete garbage. He also repeated tries to universalize the problems in English or humanities PhDs to all PhDs. There is commonality, but there are many differences and it’s amateur to brush over those differences.
If people want big changes (particularly in science) we need to be clear that there is value to science PhDs in an academic support/mentorship roles, in companies, in law school, etc. This needs to be drilled into the professors who are mentoring these students and they need to understand all their options from when they enter grad school. I think engineering PhD programs are leading the way in this (particularly regarding industry jobs) and some science programs are getting on board. The 10+ year PhD programs in humanities where a Harvard professor who has spent years thinking about these issues and still seems clueless is a really bad sign from the future of graduate education in humanities.
He also plays a bit fast and loose with numbers. He tries to say this is a problem beyond English by noting that the number of statistics and mathematics bachelors degrees has plummeted since the 70’s, he seems to ignore that the growth of related fields like computer science and engineering specialties have taken some of these students. From my understanding, there’s a total decrease in the numbers of humanities majors, making it a real problem.
Professor Menand has eloquently described most of the reasons why I am no longer interested in graduate school.
It’s a shame, because I think I could bring something novel to the social sciences.
I’ve been told by several professors that I would be a great Political Scientist. They say I have novel ideas and I could make a real contribution.
But I’m not going to get a Political Science PhD. I don’t want to enter the world that Prof. Menand describes. I don’t want to enter the peer review process that Michele Lamont described in “How Professors Think.” It would be a waste of my talent and a waste of my far-too-brief lifetime.
Perhaps it would be would be worth it if I knew with certainty that entering the academy would allow me to make a big impact on society. Unfortunately, I think the odds are too long. Fifty percent drop out. Twenty-five percent of the graduates get tenure. Less than one in one hundred of those tenured individuals become someone who makes a difference, like Prof. Jacob Hacker. If my number isn’t picked, then I’ll leave the academic rat race in my late thirties with a degree of dubious utility.
I’m not a gambler, so I’m not going to take the bet. And it’s a shame, because I know that by choosing not to enter academia I am contributing to the negative trends Prof. Menand describes. Yet I have no incentive to save the academy from its lameness. Why should I sacrifice a decade of my life trying to spice up a lame, stagnant discipline if my chances of making a difference are so slim? It’s a classic collective action problem.
I’m heading for public education. I would rather leave a legacy of 2500 children educated rather than a legacy of 2500 articles published.
(By the way, a previous commenter said this article should be sent out with every PhD. application form. Amen. People should know what they are getting into.)