Option 1: A Kindler, Gentler Philosophy of Success (16:55)
"Alain de Botton examines our ideas of success and failure -- and questions the assumptions underlying these two judgments. Is success always earned? Is failure? He makes an eloquent, witty case to move beyond snobbery to find true pleasure in our work."
Points to Ponder:
- Do you agree with de Botton's analysis of meritocracy?
- During Week 4; Kathryn Schultz's talk focused on being wrong. As de Botton described today's mindset concerning the 'bottom of society' being labeled "losers" did you find similarities between the messages? Is it true that our biggest fear in failure is not failing itself, but the judgement and ridicule?
- What is your idea of success? Where does your idea of success come from? Has it changed over time?
- How do we help our students define their own ideas of success (making sure each is truly the "author of his/her own ambitions")? How do we do this when our students place a high value on letter grades?
- What stood out for you in this talk? What do you agree with or disagree with?
"Bennington president Liz Coleman delivers a call-to-arms for radical reform in higher education. Bucking the trend to push students toward increasingly narrow areas of study, she proposes a truly cross-disciplinary education -- one that dynamically combines all areas of study to address the great problems of our day."
Points to Ponder:
- Have we (the liberal arts colleges) lost our roots? Coleman says "We have professionalized the liberal arts to the point where they no longer provide the breadth of application and the enhanced capacity for civic engagement that is their signature. Over the past century, the expert has dethroned the educated generalist to become the sole model of intellectual accomplishment. … The progression of today’s college student is to jettison every interest except one, and within that one, to continually narrow the focus, learning more and more about less and less — this despite the evidence all around us of the interconnectedness of things. …" Do you agree? Is Coe guilty? Is this true of your liberal arts alma mater (if you came from one)?
- Coleman talks about the connection between education and the public good, indicating the academy simply does not empower this connection. Do you think our students understand or feel a connection? Do our students connect their liberal arts education to civic engagement?
- Is there any way to know when Coleman's ideal marriage between liberal arts and public good is met?
- What do part of Coleman's talk to you most deeply agree or passionately disagree with? Why?
I listened to de Bottom and his discussion concerning meritocracy and success. During our instruction of our athletic training students, we freqently measure their "success" as they progress through our educational program. We are determining this level of success by what we feel a successful athletic training student should "look like" at this point in their education.
ReplyDeleteAs educators we should explore what goals each of our students may have. Knowing this can assist us in guiding them to forming their own visions of success as he mentions. This "ownership" of success can potentially lead to a more fulfilling career and life.
I listened to Coleman's talk. I'm confused. Her characterization of increasing specialization and narrowness certainly describes the college education some receive, but it's not at all what I've seen in most liberal arts colleges. If she were prescribing a more liberal education for those in relatively vocational or technical tracks, I could understand it, but instead she seems to be asking the choir to convert to their own religion. Am I missing something? Did all of the other liberal arts colleges ditch their breadth requirements while I wasn't looking? Or does she just not see the value of the existing breadth requirements to provide ethical and unifying insights as I do?
ReplyDeleteI listened to Coleman’s talk and I do believe liberal arts colleges have lost their roots a bit. However, I think the institutions outside of the “top 10-15” have lost their way a bit more due to a need to increase enrollments and bring in money. This has led to many institutions adding more professional programs such as nursing and athletic programs to appeal to more students. As a result, those programs take the focus away from the reason for a liberal arts education. As the product of a small, private, liberal arts college and a staff member at three others, I have seen how those institutions have either fought or embraced the divergence from the Liberal Arts.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I think the connection between education and the public good is not as strong as it used to be. It may be due to a number of factors, including the ability for staff and faculty to live further from campus, students having everything they need on campus (food, convenience items, etc), and the marketing of a “feel” on campus aka “the bubble”. I don’t have as much of a connection as I could and therefore have trouble passing that along to students. More connection to civic engagement is needed.
As with most great ideas, I don’t think there is a point at which we could say the need or partnership between liberal arts and public good is met. Some indicators that are more short-term are increased involvement in the community immediately surrounding these institutions and an increase in course topics/on-campus programming that include active movement toward acting in the good of the public.
I agree that we, as liberal arts faculty/staff/students, have a responsibility due to many factors (privilege, access, choice, etc.) to do more for the public good. It’s the most practical and beneficial action we can take.
I believe that there has been a clear shift the focus of education during the 40 years since I graduated from the small liberal arts college in eastern Linn county. While we as faculty talk about the value of a liberal arts education and the need to strengthen the core values of the curriculum, we continue to subdivide the curriculum into narrower and narrower slices and wage turf wars over our disciplinary fiefdoms. We no longer come together as an entire academic community to discuss big issues. If as faculty we seldom, if ever, attend events sponsored by departments other than our own, how can we expect our students to embrace the idea that a liberally educated person is one with broad interests, and not just an expert in a narrow field.
ReplyDeleteColeman is right. Many (most?) liberal arts colleges have strayed from their roots. But I suspect that few of us are bold enough to lead the charge back toward those roots.
Also found de Bottom's talk interesting. Something to consider: how would someone who had received a truly traditional liberal arts education define success?
ReplyDeleteAlain de Botton's talk rung true with me. There is an expectation in the US that everyone should raise to the top of their field, their hobby, or something in life. You're a slacker if you’re 'just' competent or 'just' average.
ReplyDeleteOne place this is evident is in grades. C technically stands for average (typical; common; ordinary), B above average and A exceptional. How I think they are interpreted today: C nearly failing, B passing, A above average(the expected grade, because everyone is expected to be above average).
Just like Lake Wobegon.
DeleteI had to look that one up. Lake Wobegon sounds like the perfect meritocracy, no loosers in sight.
DeleteI like Botton's idea of unfortunate, rather than loser. Loser carries so much negative energy and implies that the individual chose this path to failure;I doubt anyone would chose to become an addict or a homeless person. Circumstances certainly play a part in the choices that are made and often in success or failure.
ReplyDeleteI would love to live in Lake Wobegon "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"
My Rhetorical Theory students spend time discussing the Liberal Arts Education and Rhetoric, so I watched Coleman's talk. I'd thought about assigning a video of one of her talks to them last year, but I watched a bit and found it deadly dull!
ReplyDeleteShe's not a good speaker, but she does bring up some interesting points. I agree with Jon that her description of fragmentation and expert culture doesn't really match what's going on here at Coe. It DOES remind me of grad school.
I also disagree that community service is only "extracurricular." Here at Coe, there are a number of faculty who do service learning that is integral to the work of a class: my professional writing class, Karen Sindelar's Public Speaking classes, Barb Larew's accounting class all work within the community.
I do like her emphasis on an action-oriented curriculum, that has as one goal "advancement of the public good." It reminds me of my alma mater, The College of Wooster, where advancing the public good was just in the air on campus! We weren't so much political as we were involved in social justice--people involved in world hunger issues, a "peace" house, working to get our investments out of South Africa, etc. It made us feel like what we were learning was going to have some effect on the way the world would be in the future.
I may have my Rhetoric students watch this, so we can talk about what this kind of new liberal arts education might look like, and to what extent it is happening on Coe's campus.
I chose to listen to de Botton. Although having our world a true Meritocracy would be ideal, it is unrealistic. I don't feel anyone should get ahead or be promoted because of who they are. Or, children shoudln't be pushed ahead in grade school because they are trouble in the class or need to stay with their classmates. We can certainly strive for this kind of perfection. Students should be incouraged to set goals for themselves and work toward that success. Maybe that would be a good question to ask the incoming class- how will you determine your success at Coe and how will you work to achieve it? I particularly liked his definition of "unfortunate" & loser". Helped put some of the talk in perspective.
ReplyDeleteColeman.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that the liberal arts way has been lost recently a little bit, I think it is more of adapting to what they see as necessary for the future and for careers. There is still a need for liberal arts education, and the benefits are amazing to employers, but there are less and less employers that understand these benefits, as there are more and more technical and specialized majors, schools, etc. out there. They can get people who have studied precisely what they are to be working on, which is a great asset for some areas that are especially technical or skill-based. Liberal arts colleges are adapting to provide both holistic views as well as skills to be able to be marketable in the job market today.
Goodness, I listened to Coleman's talk, and was surprised at how anti-intellectual it was, all while being clothed in such intellectual rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with interpreting Jane Austen through whatever lens you find relevant? What is wrong with pursuing an inquiry that you love right until the very end, instead of jumping ship and reading some Thucydides just to keep up my cred as an educated generalist? What is wrong with a specialist knowing more about their particular topic than a generalist? etc etc.
I feel like I need a chaser! And here it is: Reggie Watts Making Fun of "Big Idea" Presentations!
I enjoyed the 13 discussions this summer.... See you all on campus!
Re de Botton:
ReplyDeleteThis was probably an interesting talk. I was only half-listening, however, because I kept waiting for him to play the piano.
Seriously...
The issues he raises are at the core of American politics today. Particularly in what is increasingly a "winner-take-all society," people are more vulnerable than they're used to being, or than their leaders are used to acknowledging. The debate over health care is, at its core, an argument between "protect yourself against unexpected horrors" versus "why should the hard-working and successful and prudent be taxed to provide benefits for losers" (see Scalia's dissent in the Supreme Court decision, or Rick Santorum's frequent screeds).
It is hard for someone like me, who agrees with de Botton (and John Maynard Keynes) both on the value of meritocracy and the impossibility of achieving it in the real world, to see the commentary of Scalia, Santorum and their ilk as a remotely plausible basis for running a real-world society. But it's a difficult myth to give up, for reasons stated above.