I am writing to express my views on how some of you have conducted yourself in this university course you are taking with me. It is not uncommon for some-to-many American students, who typically, are first-generation college students, to not fully understand, and maybe not even appreciate the purpose of a university. Some students erroneously believe a university is just an extension of high school, where students are spoon-fed “soft” topics and dilemmas to confront, regurgitate the “right” answers on exams (right answers as deemed by the instructor or a textbook), and then move on to the next course.
Not only is this not the purpose of a university (although it may feel like it is in some of your other courses), it clearly is not the purpose of my upper-division course on Cross-Cultural Psychology. The purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to struggle intellectually with some of life's most difficult topics that may not have one right answer, and try to come to some conclusion about what may be “the better answer” (It typically is not the case that all views are equally valid; some views are more defensible than others). Another purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to engage in open discussion in order to critically examine beliefs, behaviors, and customs. Finally, another purpose of a university education is to help students who typically are not accustomed to thinking independently or applying a critical analysis to views or beliefs, to start learning how to do so. We are not in class to learn “facts” and simply regurgitate the facts in a mindless way to items on a test. Critical thinking is a skill that develops over time. Independent thinking does not occur overnight. Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend” their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply “pounding their chest” and merely proclaiming that their views are “valid.” One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence.
THE REST.
Negy said, "We're adults. We're at a university. "
ReplyDeleteThis is worth contemplating.
There are hundreds of thousands of adults in prisons and jails in this country.
And I've had some gifted minors in my classes.
It's not about being a place for adults. It's about being a university.
A church is a church. A mosque is a mosque. A brothel is a brothel. They are what they are regardless of whether the participants are adults or children.
A good university will welcome students of all ages.
... {ahem} ... unless Frod disagrees....
DeleteIt is so nice when children behave like adults. I was a child prodigy, who enjoyed the conversation of adults, and was constantly asked, "How come you know all this?" It was lots of fun. It's not something you can do for the rest of your life, though.
DeleteWhen I was about 5, I asked my Mom what the worst thing in the world was. She said adults who act like children.
I hate university students who act like children. Children should be steered clear of brothels, Bubba.
I don't see the two remarks as mutually exclusive. As Froderick pointed out, adults should behave like adults. (For all you know, Bubba, everyone in the class Nagy is addressing is an adult.)
DeleteYes, I've had some great students younger than 18 years of age. Those great students, however, behave with maturity, courtesy, kindness, and a sense that they have something to learn. Years ago, this sort of thing was synonymous with what was considered acceptable and expected adult behavior.
Perhaps, Bubba, if you object to the idea that universities are for adults, you can concede that a university is about being a place for people who act like mature, responsible, and open-minded individuals, regardless of age?
@Greta: Whatever the right answer is, I just know I want to streak across the quad in only my boots and hat on the first day of winter.
DeleteA church is a church, a mosque is a mosque, and a university is a place where we can expect people to behave like adults. If they're minors, we can still expect that.
DeleteOnly adults and adult-like behavior?
DeleteNo more streaking? No more sneaking a snort of bourbon during department meetings? No more MIT hacks? No more socially inept physicists? No more childlike anything?
We can't do without socially inept physicists, one reason being they so rarely come any other way. Don't worry, they often get smacked with a bladder, just like in Gulliver's travels, when they are socially inept. Let's therefore say: only adults and adult-like behavior will be met with approval.
DeleteOr perhaps we should say: any hijinx, particularly of the kind so beloved by youth, will be laughed at if funny, but will also be entirely the responsibility of the perpetrators? Those were pretty much the rules in my day, although we rarely saw the need to come flat out and say it.
Streaking during the dead of winter is no way to impress the girls, Bubba, especially not at the age that your mention of streaking implies. They like the horse: let them fuss over the horse.
P.S. At M.I.T., they advise students that if caught when carrying out a hack, "have some dignity, for yourself and for your captor." And as no less than Shelby Foote would have advised, bourbon is for outdoors. Scotch is for indoors. Even then, I go easy during those rare meetings when we're doing something important, such as getting money for students.
Delete@Bubba
DeleteI think the distinction to be wary of is childlike and childish. One I'm all for.
The world, or at least Cambridge, would be a poorer place without MIT hacks. After all, what else interesting ever happens at a Harvard/Yale football game?
DeleteAlso, measuring a bridge in Smoots shows an awareness of the contingent nature of systems of thought/measurement that many of Negy's students seem to lack.
DeleteOh, I loved this letter. It said so much that I want to say. And I really feel for Negy. Imagine having such a discussion in class on more than one day! The tyranny of religious belief to cloud one's open-mindedness.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't raised in a mainstream religion, but I also never expected others to understand/care/believe what I believe. In some ways, I think that was a gift (even though the religion itself was a bit on the crazy side).
Generally well-put. The only part I'd question, both on rhetorical/political grounds and on the basis of my experience, is the mention of "first-generation college students." It may vary by institution (our first-generation students, many of whom attend our still-mostly-commuter school because they want to stay near home for cultural and/or financial reasons, are, to generalize a bit too broadly but with some truth, often stronger than our second-generation-and-beyond students), but I don't see any significant difference in willingness to engage in critical thinking between my first-generation and later-generation college students. Of course, our first-generation college students are less likely to be Christians of any variety than our second-generation and beyond ones.
ReplyDeleteI'm also pretty shocked that he has to explain this to students in what sounds like a fairly advanced class that specifically addresses cultural difference. You have to wonder what students thought they were getting into -- or maybe it fulfills some sort of requirement, and meets at a popular time? Still, the subject matter would lead one to expect a need for the sort of open-mindedness, or at least willingness to view one's own traditions with a degree of critical detachment in the context/for the purposes of the course, that he mentions.
I blame Rick Santorum. Everyone's so touchy about "being indoctrinated" these days, the way they were about Intelligent Design leading up to December 2005, when the judge in the Dover, PA case ruled it ain't science.
DeleteAnd the touchiest students (and their parents) are, of course, those who have, in fact, been being indoctrinated all their lives, and are now mistaking training in critical thinking for indoctrination.
DeleteThat said, I'll freely admit that the academy has its own true believers. In my field, they're mostly Marxists, cultural studies types, and a perhaps a few lingering devotees of Freudian/psychoanalytic criticism (though of course there are also thoughtful, more selective practitioners of all of the above approaches; I'm thinking of the ones who engage in endless circular reasoning, always finding that whatever text they examine confirms the assumptions of the critical approach they apply). The sciences do seem to attract the occasional militant atheist. But critical thinking is as likely to reveal the weaknesses of those "faiths" as of the more traditional ones.