At the university, you're paying the teachers to make some change in you: to give you a body of knowledge or a skill or a new way of looking at things.(*) Or are you paying them to certify a lie -- that you are competent at X?
I can easily imagine cases where I'm required to show competence in something that isn't germane to what I really want to learn. For example, suppose I want to master chemistry. That implies a lot of chemistry courses, some physics, and bunch of math courses and some computing: but the university wants me to take some general studies courses as well, like swimming and latin and composition. I balk at that: I don't want to be a well-rounded citizen (who doesn't accidentally drown), I just want to be a chemist.
I could be wrong about the value of those requirements. The younger and less experienced I am the more likely I am to be wrong, and my experience with college students (including myself) has not impressed me with their great wisdom. For example, that composition course is actually pretty important if I want to communicate with other chemists, or CFO's, or funding agencies.
But suppose I'm right, and Subverting the Patriarchy 101 will never be useful to me as a chemist or as a citizen. I can see the temptation to lie to the university and to make them lie on my behalf, certifying to the world that I am competent to subvert the patriarchy -- at the 101 level.
(FWIW, I missed the memo that explained why patriarchy was intrinsically worse than other models for society. It seems to have been successfully implemented everywhere.)
No. Just no. If I can't lift the pallet, I'll say so and bring in a forklift. I won't pretend I can. If I'm really no good at something, I'd like to know where my limits are. And if I have ethical objections, I'll let them know.
(*)When I checked in at the Physics Department at U of Illinois the day after moving to Champaign, I discovered that the next day was a "free shot" at the Qualifying Exam. You got 2 chances once you'd started studying, but trying before you started school didn't count if you failed. I hadn't studied anything in a couple of months, and unlike Feynman I didn't remember all the constants and formulae. One E/M problem I should have remembered the formula for, and didn't, but I did remember how to derive it. The examiners looked at each other as I scribbled on the board. I didn't pass that time. But I did have a handle on the material. Yes, oral exams... cutting edge then and now.
1 comment:
If you want to study undergraduate chemistry in the Baltics or Scandinavia, you'll get only chemistry (with the associated physics and Maths and . . . ). No composition or subverting the Patriarchy. Of course the local and other EU students matriculating will have had the equivalent of the composition in their I.B. or equivalent beforehand.
(I taught one course where I felt obligated to tell the students that I was marking on content and not grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but that:
A) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors could make their meaning unclear enough that they'd lose marks anyway, and
B) communication is kind of important in the workplace.
The one student in that group who never got 'red-marks' was a German national for whom English was a second language never formally studied . . .
Speaking of Patriarchy:
Once again in Norway the tuition is free, even for internationals. In most of the others it's free for citizens of EU nations, which is why I advise any kids who might qualify for citizenship-by-patriarchy in ANY of the EU countries to make sure the applicable parent/grandparent has started the process of getting them that passport.
Post a Comment