From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 10 Jul 91 15:43:16 GMT From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard D'Ippolito) Subject: Re: Are humanities courses important? Message-ID: <28433@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> List-Id: In article Robert I. Eachus writes: > I have found that there are two cultures: those who will tackle > disciplines. The fact that some younger members of the more eclectic > group prefer heavy metal to Bach does not require lots of eclectives > in the humanities, it just requires time. They will go out and learn > it (whatever it is) on their own later. You have a heck of a lot more faith in culture by osmosis and self-education th an I do! How will you know what you don't know? > The idea that it is possible to get a "well rounded" education > today without courses in math, physics, and computer science is > ridiculous. The idea that it is impossible to get a decent education > without a sufficient set of humanities electives is job security for > certain members of the faculty, nothing else. I suppose that we could discuss this for a long time. Let me keep it short -- I think that you're so far off base concerning what it takes to be educated that I haven't the vaguest idea where to start, except to recommend Samuel Florman's books on engineering. Your expressed philosophy wil l produce nothing but efficient lobotomized technocrats. The opposite, humanit ies and arts without engineering, produces castrated dreamers. Rich Good taste is timeless. Why is a good time often tasteless?