Well, to go back to the original question, what do you think are some of the properties of a good education? The people? Certainly. The classes? I would say so all though there are a lot of people who disagree with me. What kind of person you become? (Once again I am puzzled by your use of the word success- What sense are you using this word in?)
I'm glad that you had a good undergraduate experience, twhy, and remain in contact with many of the friends you made there. Oddly enough, that's one of the biggest things my friend got out of getting his MBA at Harvard. Yes, it was a graduate program, so there is that difference, but he made a large number of friends while there, and almost 20 years later, remains in touch with many of them, doing favors for them (networking), and recieving favors in return (more networking) during those years since graduation. It's helped him in the career path he's taken immensely, and he currently lives in Boston, which is a trip, seeing as how he's most definitely a Texas boy, who loves nothing better than to drink scotch while floating on a air mattress at Paleface Park. Frankly, I feel a bit odd defending Harvard. I've never done more than visit the campus. I'd rather my kids go elsewhere, although I'd be thrilled if they could get into Harvard, because that would mean they had had a very successful academic career, prior to college, and hopefully could go to the other universities I hope they'll attend, that are equally hard to enter. I really don't have a dog in this hunt! Keep D&D Civil.
Success imo is not limited to being the CEO of some Fortune 500 company. As an example, if you are a school teacher, success coulld be defined as getting your students interested in your subject and motivated to learn. Success as a teacher likely will never translate into Big Money. In some professions like doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs, success likely does translate indirectly into Big Money. My meaning of success also extends beyond your vocation.
Just saw your post, rimmy. You point out a really big problem. My father was a department chair for about 30 years, and loved to teach. He always made sure to teach at least one introductory class in his field every semester, because of the joy it brought him. Obviously, most of his classes were advanced, and graduate level. Also, he wasn't in the liberal arts, although he was widely read, and was a liberal himself. (yes, I know being in liberal arts and being liberal isn't something that automatically goes hand in hand, lol!) As a department chair, he had a continuing problem. He constantly had to juggle his schedule every year to put professors in classes, who simply couldn't teach, where they could do the least amount of "damage." It frequently drove him nuts, and it was caused, in part, by tenure. He supported tenure (so do I), but it is a bear to deal with as an administrator. Many of the professors that drove him round the bend published, but it was mediocre work. As a kid talking about it around the dinner table, I said, "Dad, you're the boss... why don't you just fire them?" He smiled and shook his head, saying, "You just don't understand, son. It's complicated. I can't. Maybe if they shot the dean or embezzled money from the college." Then he explained tenure. I asked him, "Why do they have such a crazy system?" And he replied, "They have it so you can speak your mind in or out of a class, and not worry about being fired by someone who disagrees with your views. I support it, and I think it's vitally important to preserve it. Unfortunately, a price for retaining tenure is having to deal with professors like the ones I was talking about. You'll understand it better when you're older." (do families still talk around the dinner table? It's when I learned a lot from my folks, especially my Dad.) Keep D&D Civil.
A good education is in the eye of the beholder. Some people believe that All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. I suspect that this is quit a bit of truth. Extending the notion, our K-12 education/experience also supplies a good foundation to launch our lifes. But ... As I have grown older, I have found that my K-Rice education was a bit lacking in some fundamental areas like: (in no order) budgeting, money management, investing, sales, time management, relationships with the opposite sex, entrepreneurship, public speaking, networking, etc. Getting back to reference of "Plato's 7th Letter", some here may argue the overall utlity thereof. I say "if it feels good do it". If you in college want to study 3rd Century Bavarian literature, go for it. But it should be at the student's discretion. Let the student pick what interests them. Standardizing required college courses does give students a shared experience, but it also runs the risk that the students will become resentful and will get a negative attitude toward learning.
I really don't have a problem with Harvard grad programs or the Harvard Undergrad degree of yesteryear. They've made some signifigant changes to their core curriculum and I think that hurts their students rather than helps them. But that is what this "discussion" is about I guess.
See, I guess that's where I disagree, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I understand what your saying, I just think its dangerous. Kind of like saying, well the Alcoholic has free choice to choose to drink, but well is he really free? Of course that's a rough example and stupid example. If one chooses to study Bavarian Literature of the third century and of that century alone, will they learn as much as the student who first has the groundwork laid in literature and then focuses on Bavarian Literature? I'm not trying to say that having a focus or a specialization is bad. One just needs the proper groundwork to view the specific with the idea of the universal in mind. I mean, I'm about done with my Master's in Literature, and one of my main focuses has been Russian Literature. I guarantee I wouldn't have gotten as much out of it if I didn't have the rest of the proper groundwork in the literary tradition. Harvard used to have the proper groundwork. They still do, they just don't require their students get that groundwork. That's the problem I see.
I had a friend who was department chair of a department in transition. They had multiple people retire or die. So she spent a few years working nonstop to build a new department and get new faculty, new standards, etc. Her tenure review comes up and the university decides she has not done enough because she did not have a book, only peer-reviewed journals. They gave her a ridiculous deadline of three months to get a book deal. At first she was going to try to go along but then she just said screw it and quit. Also, what you might not realize, is that currently academic publishing houses are dictating who gets tenure. The main peer review going on right now is not always by peers but by editors/readers at these publishers. Universities, then, judge a person by their acceptance. Of course, being accepted for a book is not always about quality of scholarship so it is really screwed up. Oh yeah - I meant to say in my earlier post that people who start by teaching in small liberal arts colleges find it near impossible to ever move on to a job at a research institution because they are seen to have wasted their time by concentrating on teaching. So if someone wants a really good position with the upper level liberal arts college they most likely will have had to have spent ten plus years at a research institution. Otherwise if you start small you will stay small. Capitalism. Books are products. Teaching is not.
Every single high schooler in America should be required to take a basic personal finance class before they graduate. How to have a checking account, how to balance a check book, how to budget, a little Time Value of Money, what is involved in a mortgage, how credit cards REALLY work, ect. Real world stuff that would prepare people. I was lucky and have fiscally responsible parents who taught me most of these things, plus I learned a lot on my finance classes in college. Many young American students don't have those advantages.
She had simply not been there the required time, but the administration considered her perfect for the position? Was that the situation? That's a terribly depressing story. It's also depressing to hear that the publishing houses have so much influence. That's rediculous. Keep D&D Civil.
As I said, the department lost pretty much everybody overnight and she was the most senior left (I think it literally got down to two professors).
I suspect that you are making a long story short. That department would be lucky to keep anybody after axing the "interim" department chair. Recruiting a new chair and rebuilding that department are gonna take a minor miracles. BTW, they are alternatives to publishing text books that allow professors to get their name and department out there. See http://cnx.org/.
I don't know what that means. Last I heard the department was fine. Not huge, but 6-8 quality Ivey-level professors is fine for the discipline. Nobody ever filled the chair position because they did not want to get stuck in the same situation so they apparently do things more as a panel.
From the sounds of it, the department chair and all tenured professors left. There has to be a story there, concerning bad acts from the college I suspect.
