Da Vinci in the Classroom
Tim Harford – the British economist and Financial Times columnist – is always a ripping good read, thanks in part to the fact that he’s in possession of the gimlet eye of an inquisitive practitioner of the dismal science. He doesn’t disappoint in his most recent piece, provocatively titled “Why There Will Never be Another Da Vinci.”
The answer, according to Harford? The massive increase in human knowledge means that these days discovery tends to be the purview of specialists rather than Da Vinci-esque renaissance men. One paragraph in particular stands out:
Benjamin Jones, an economist at Northwestern University, has been monitoring these trends for some years. The typical science paper or patent, finds Jones, is now produced by a large team. The specialisation of each of that team’s members, to the extent that it can be deduced, is narrower than before. And the members of the team are also older. All of this follows quite plausibly from the drift away from the world of Da Vinci: as the sum of human knowledge swells, individual researchers must spend longer and longer acquiring ever smaller slivers of it, before they are in a position to make their own contributions.
Harford is interested in the implications for scientific research, but doesn’t touch on the analogy that immediately presented itself to me: specialization in the liberal arts – and its often deleterious effect on the university.
Certainly it makes sense for academic researchers to whittle their expertise down to narrow subfields where they can be the guy (or gal) who knows an awful lot about an awful little subject (especially in the sciences), for the reasons that Harford presents. And there will be a market for their teaching among the handful of students looking to fill a similar niche. But what happens when that same researcher is also teaching students who are aiming for a broad liberal education instead of an academic micro-fiefdom?
A friend working on a graduate degree in political science once shared with me the experience of taking a semester-long comparative politics course with a professor whose specialization was Latin American judicial reform. The result? By semester’s end, the student had little in the way of general knowledge about governing institutions throughout the world, but felt compelled to be irate about the courts in Bolivia (not that that’s necessarily an ignoble impulse, but you take the point).
The controlling (and laudable) goal behind the concept of a liberal education is to graduate students with a broad fluency in the great debates and ideas of civilization. Hillsdale College and other similar repositories of excellence still seem to embrace that goal. But at an increasing number of colleges and universities, the students aren’t getting the great questions. Hell, they’re not even getting the interesting ones. Instead, they’re getting Intro to American Government as filtered through the lens of queer studies or some other niche seemingly designed for the sole purpose of proving the universities are overfunded.
A modest suggestion: if specialization is such a worthy goal (and in many cases, it is), let’s be equal opportunity about it – by keeping those who can’t teach anything useful out of the classroom.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
The problem with knowing a lot about a little is that you begin to think you know a lot about a lot. One does not equal the other.
Sep '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Au contraire, Troy. Some of the most impressive men and women I know today may be specialists in their occupation, but are truly wide-ranging in their interests and accomplishments. But the way we work and learn is radically different. We are wealthy beyond belief in easily accessed information and reference material. And correspondence with our peers and collaborators takes place instantly, rather than through letters or much-delayed writings.
Also, who can be a Da Vinci again when he and other greats like him have already picked the low-hanging fruit of human inquiry? We dig deeper and with more consequence today.
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
I agree, Steven, and am not taking aim at specialization in general (quite the contrary, it's foundational for an advanced economy).
Rather, I'm specifically concerned with its deleterious effects in the academy. Take, for example, two rather easy targets: Paul Krugman and Noam Chomsky. Both are academic specialists in relatively narrow areas. However, both have been given carte blanche as public intellectuals on a wide variety of subjects. Now imagine the mini-Krugmans and Chomskys, who have general education classrooms instead of the New York Times as their pulpits.
May '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Troy, do you think people pay attention to Noam Chomsky because of his linguistics expertise, or because they agree with what he writes? Isn't every citizen in a republic allowed to opine and gain a following, regardless of his background and expertise? That's why all of us are on Ricochet, so we can share opinions with our peers.
Apr '11
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
The department heads in my program recently changed the rules for the comprehensive exams, so that musicology students can choose specialized areas to be tested on rather than being expected to come prepared with a broad (comprehensive??) knowledge of their field...
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 9:55pmRe: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Fair question, Mark. It's probably true that Chomsky would still have a fair amount of followers if he was just an otherwise anonymous Huffington Post blogger. However, he has a much larger platform to speak on areas outside of his expertise because of his stature and credentials in a very narrow (and almost wholly unrelated) field. Of course, he has a right to opine. He just doesn't have a right to be considered credible because of his work in a different field. For another good example, look at Einstein's writings on politics. He was, at times, painfully out of his depth.
Jun '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Mark: I think there is definitely something to be said about Chomsky getting his soap box because of his linguistics fame. I have never seen a bio or resume about him that doesn't mention how great a linguistics scholar he is. Also, linguistics was the center of the universe for the left and their Hegelian fraud. Words are everything to a Marxist -- after all Marx never worked in his life (but even without the "sweat from his brow" he still stank, I understand).
Jan '11
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
I think it's the opposite. While it's true that individuals specialize, the universe of information ... including the body of learning that's been through the wringer ... is far more extensive. Further, the development of mass communication, especially the internet over the last fifteen years, makes all of it instantly available.
Again, let me make my pitch for the ideals of Jesuit education. Instead of giving someone skills for a narrow career, dwelling on complex ideas that only fall within a small circle, Jesuits use content to improve the skills of the thinker. A trained, disciplined thinker can learn anything.
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Seconded, KC.
KC Mulville:
Again, let me make my pitch for the ideals of Jesuit education. Instead of giving someone skills for a narrow career, dwelling on complex ideas that only fall within a small circle, Jesuits use content to improve the skills of the thinker. A trained, disciplined thinker can learn anything. · Jul 11 at 10:24pm
Jun '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Oops, Troy -- I posted at the same time. Your explanation is better.
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
I never resent an assist, Larry.
Jun '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
KC Mulville: ...
Again, let me make my pitch for the ideals of Jesuit education. Instead of giving someone skills for a narrow career, dwelling on complex ideas that only fall within a small circle, Jesuits use content to improve the skills of the thinker. A trained, disciplined thinker can learn anything.
I used to practice forensic engineering and one thing that I noticed about lawyers is how quick a study they were. Brilliant, some of them, but a waste of a first class mind.... Does law school teach well or select students well? Either way, the result is impressive.
A further note about education, I think a bachelor's degree in engineering is also an excellent general education for those of us who aren't as well-founded as a Jesuit. What I learned the best was to how to learn. So, KC, you have put your finger on Troy's dilemma.
May '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Larry Koler
A further note about education, I think a bachelor's degree in engineering is also an excellent general education for those of us who aren't as well-founded as a Jesuit. What I learned the best was to how to learn. So, KC, you have put your finger on Troy's dilemma. · Jul 11 at 10:36pm
Larry, I can't overstate how studying complex dynamical systems completely changed the way I think about everything. Encountering all those unexpected counter-intuitive system behaviors, the accumulated experience of continually having my expectations defied, has has instilled a strong sense of humility. It was a series of hands-on lessons in unintended consequences. If you don't profoundly understand how a system operates, trying to externally manipulate it to achieve a desired result is dangerous.
Such humility is necessary even, or perhaps especially, when a system is not easily modeled with numbers and equations, such as a human society. It definitely made me a Constrained Vision subscriber.
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:56pmOct '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Using patents and published papers as any sort of measure of human knowledge is deeply flawed. If careers in pure and applied sciences were rewarded in proportion to the production of poetry we'd see the same things - senior scientists putting their names on works as co-authors for a much longer stretch of their career, and numerous co-authors to justify investment in an empire of Large Haiku Collider projects.
By the way, when was the Golden Age of liberal education that actually graduated students with a broad fluency in the great debates and ideas of civilization?
May '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Troy and Larry: It seems like what you are really complaining about is not specialization, but wanna-be punditry and the unwarranted credibility certain parts of the public give to famous people on subjects they aren't famous for.
I think this is related to confirmation bias. Everyone likes to hear somebody of notoriety confirm what they already believe and things that agree with their ideology.
You don't seem to be saying you wish Krugman was more of a generalist, because that would, of course, increase his gravitas on topics outside economics.
Mar '11
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
I am an expert in a rather limited area of optics. For anything else I am an amateur - I like to think a well-informed one (e.g. global warming).
I don't know much about American politics, I must admit, which is maybe why I support the whacko conservative candidates, against the advice of the expert Mr Murphy - but, as he points out, his profession is the last refuge of scoundrels...
Jun '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Mark Wilson: Troy and Larry: It seems like what you are really complaining about is not specialization, but wanna-be punditry and the unwarranted credibility certain parts of the public give to famous people on subjects they aren't famous for.
I think this is related to confirmation bias. Everyone likes to hear somebody of notoriety confirm what they already believe and things that agree with their ideology.
You don't seem to be saying you wish Krugman was more of a generalist, because that would, of course, increase his gravitas on topics outside economics. · Jul 12 at 12:07am
You are right that celebrity itself is seen as some kind of measure of gravitas in an individual -- at least for the uninformed. So, confirmation bias (preaching to the choir) can morph into new converts for the people in the middle who only pay attention during the pre-election period.
Perhaps if Krugman got out more and got more generalized he wouldn't be so close minded. So, he might indeed get more gravitas but he might also moderate his crazy pronouncements.
Jul '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
KC Mulville: I think it's the opposite. While it's true that individuals specialize, the universe of information ... including the body of learning that's been through the wringer ... is far more extensive. Further, the development of mass communication, especially the internet over the last fifteen years, makes all of it instantly available.
Again, let me make my pitch for the ideals of Jesuit education. Instead of giving someone skills for a narrow career, dwelling on complex ideas that only fall within a small circle, Jesuits use content to improve the skills of the thinker. A trained, disciplined thinker can learn anything. · Jul 11 at 10:24pm
I cannot emphasize how wrong this is. There is a limit to human intelligence and that is finite.
In addition, by supposing that man can learn anything, you are also implying that man can learn everything, and that is not true. It is the conceit of the leftist that believes this to be true. As a matter of fact it is the basis of Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society."
Sep '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
I honestly believe that the 4-year university belongs on the endangered species list. Between the loss of fidelity caused by radical leftist ideology and teaching, and the plain economic bubble of higher education, I think that more people will begin to opt out and pursue a more meaningful education elsewhere. This trend should buttress the classical liberal education as a traditional counterweight to the recent academic excesses.
...or maybe I'm just a dreamy optimist. :)
May '10
Re: Da Vinci in the Classroom
Larry Koler Mark: I think there is definitely something to be said about Chomsky getting his soap box because of his linguistics fame. --- Actually Chomsky was skating on thin ice politically when he proposed that grammar is innate. That contradicts standard Marxist theology. It was only when he revealed himself to be a hard-core leftist that his theory became acceptable.