[Kerrigan]

I'm in America on a year abroad, having come from from a well-known® British university.

Here are my impressions summed up: American universities are top notch of course, but they are also breeding grounds from foolishly behaving, overly-political students.

I'm a history major, and the difference between the US and the UK is remarkable in this field of study. These "professors" in the US all seem to have intensely politicised perspectives of the world, and on top of that they have an inflated sense of self-importance which makes them think they are here to enlighten students.

It looks as though quite a lot of students believe that they have been enlightened, too.

Institutionalised naivety is my best description of it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I'm a history major, and the difference between the US and the UK is remarkable in this field of study. These "professors" in the US all seem to have intensely politicised perspectives of the world, and on top of that they have an inflated sense of self-importance which makes them think they are here to enlighten students.

Can't argue there.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

These "professors" in the US all seem to have intensely politicised perspectives of the world, and on top of that they have an inflated sense of self-importance which makes them think they are here to enlighten students.

I assume you mean “enlighten” sarcastically here? ‘Cause otherwise, wouldn’t that be exactly why they are there: to enlighten the students through teaching them? Thankfully, most of the teachers (I refuse to call them “professors”: they are not) I have been taught by at university seemed to have realised that the form of enlightenment it is their job to pass on to their students consists mainly of the ability to be able to think for oneself, assess material and situations critically, and try, whenever possible, to ‘think outside the box’, and have taught accordingly.

I’d say, though, depending on your field of study, that there are an awful lot of hyper-political students roaming Danish universities, as well. I should be very surprised if this were not also the case in Britain. Thankfully, the hyper-political students tend to flock together at such studies as history, Danish, literature, social sciences, anthropology, etc., and stay quite clear of the more marginal studies that I partake in (that is, Chinese, Portuguese, and Indo-European Phonology thus far, the last one beginning in a few weeks), so I am relatively free of them.

[Kerrigan]

As you know Kevin I have my own political opinions, some of which you may find offensive. But that doesn't mean that I want to view the whole world in terms of right v. left.

It is very cliche to try and put political spin on history (which is my major as I said above). In my years at university in the UK I haven't once heard a professor or lecturer express their political opinions. In the US though I hear it at nearly every lecture, and students eat it up.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It is very cliche to try and put political spin on history (which is my major as I said above).

It is also very near impossible not to.

[Kerrigan]

Oisin: what you described is quite similar to the UK. Quite a lot of the students are politically apathetic, but then you have groups of hyper-political students (some on the right, but mostly on the left) who stick together in courses like anthropology.

As a side note, I have a strong dislike for anthropology, since trying to study all aspects of humanity at all times in history and pre-history is, to me, the best way to get a warped perspective of reality.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It is very cliche to try and put political spin on history (which is my major as I said above). In my years at university in the UK I haven't once heard a professor or lecturer express their political opinions.

That's because they feel they don't have to. Largely because it's automatically assumed that everyone in the building is a pinko commie.

Oh yes. We used to have much fun over coffee in the faculty lounge. It used to run something like this:

Everyone else: "Thatcher was a bitch, wasn't she?"
Doofy: "Shut your pinko commie mouths or I'll shut them for you"
End of conversation.

I didn't go in there much. Instead, I forced myself to suffer hanging out with the hot, sweaty, leotard-clad dance chicks in the drama lounge. How depressing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Go into Science. We just think the Arts students are all crazy.



greg

[brapper]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

These "professors" in the US all seem to have intensely politicised perspectives of the world, and on top of that they have an inflated sense of self-importance which makes them think they are here to enlighten students.

It looks as though quite a lot of students believe that they have been enlightened, too.

Institutionalised naivety is my best description of it.

It's called the banking method of teaching. Teachers feel as though their job is to make "deposits' of information in the empty minds of students. Unfortunately, it is all too prevalent, even here in Canada.

Luckily, however, I am now taking to courses taught by foreigners - one English, one Indian. So far, I feel quite taken with their style of teaching....I actually want to attend.

[brapper]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Go into Science. We just think the Arts students are all crazy.



greg

...speaking of your sig. Guess who met some of those guys the other weekend.
[hint: me]

[DeathToWindows]

Considering I'm a Psychology major (neuropsychology) I don't get too much of this. You might get the rare snarky political remark, but it will obviously be in jest.

[wallinbl]

American students that head to Britain feel the same way. Once you get outside of your own culture/political environment, it's much easier to see that views are affected by the culture/political environment.

My wife was a history major at a US university and spend several semesters at Cambridge. She said basically the same thing you did but with US & Britain switched.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by wallinbl

American students that head to Britain feel the same way. Once you get outside of your own culture/political environment, it's much easier to see that views are affected by the culture/political environment.

My wife was a history major at a US university and spend several semesters at Cambridge. She said basically the same thing you did but with US & Britain switched.

That's interesting, and it makes sense too.

kerrigan: which specific universities are you comparing? Not all US universities are interchangable with one another, and neither are UK universities (selectivity, size, reputation, student body). It would be interesting to know what you are comparing to what.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by brapper

...speaking of your sig. Guess who met some of those guys the other weekend.
[hint: me]

Hahaha!!! No way! How was the conversation? Did you learn anything about "the girl?"

In other news: there is no denying that the US has the best universities in the world. They simply have incredible funding. "Rating" universities based on the political views of your profs and whether the students you know are activists or high-minded is pretty dumb.

greg

[Kerrigan]

University of Edinburgh, and the University of North Carolina

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

University of Edinburgh, and the University of North Carolina

Two very good schools. Thanks.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

University of Edinburgh, and the University of North Carolina

You said you were from a well-known university … 

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Hahaha!!! No way! How was the conversation? Did you learn anything about "the girl?"

In other news: there is no denying that the US has the best universities in the world. They simply have incredible funding. "Rating" universities based on the political views of your profs and whether the students you know are activists or high-minded is pretty dumb.

greg

One of the many pluses of capitalism.

[Salty]

I agree many many profs that I've had over the year, really end up getting a sick sense of self importance knowing that they hold this intense power over their students... probably one of the reasons many of my profs end up either really liking me or really disliking me is because I refuse to give them more respect than I would anyone else solely because they have their doctorate. I mean if they prove to me through lectures and what not that they're knowledgeable in the course material and are worth more respect, then fine I am more than willing to have my respect for someone grow deeper. I just refuse to assume that a Dr. makes you a better person than anyone else.

[besson3c]

There are far too many flawed generalizations in this thread. There are great universities in both the UK, US, and Canada (and elsewhere). Why are we (as a society) so insistent upon labeling things as "best" or "worst"? I have no idea what metric you could use to decide that the US has "better" universities than the UK or anywhere else, and I have no idea whether such stats or evidence really matters.

As long as you are in an environment where you have access to the resources you need and are in good hands, your education is what you put into it. You could have the best teachers in the world, but if you are nitwit that is not personally accountable for your own education, you'll leave a nitwit. You can't just sit back and say "okay, teach me", not put in the work, and then fairly criticize people when you don't learn anything or get the grade you want.

Personal accountability. It's an important thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why are we (as a society) so insistent upon labeling things as "best" or "worst"? I have no idea what metric you could use to decide that the US has "better" universities than the UK or anywhere else, and I have no idea whether such stats or evidence really matters.

Did you ask yourself that when you posted this?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/281650/factoids-about-canadas-health-system/

Originally Posted by besson3c

- Canada's average life expectancy is higher than the US

- The percentage of GDP spent on paying for health in Canada is significantly *lower* than the USA, perhaps proving or contributing to the notion that a national system actually costs less

In some ways, it seems like Public Health is like US Medicaid beefed up and on steroids. Is this an accurate statement?

And it's not abnormal to go into the PL and find more than one thread on the top that someone has posted showing how Canada is so much better than the US.

I don't know why certain Canadians in here are obsessed with comparing themselves with America.

As if they have something to prove.

Or if an American, or non-American says something in America is "The best"

There will always be someone coming in all defensive about it.

It almost comes off as insecurity.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Did you ask yourself that when you posted this?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=281650



And it's not abnormal to go into the PL and find more than one thread on the top that someone has posted showing how Canada is so much better than the US.

I don't know why certain Canadians in here are obsessed with comparing themselves with America.

As if they have something to prove.

Or if an American, or non-American says something in America is "The best"

There will always be someone coming in all defensive about it.

It almost comes off as insecurity.

Because we are better in most areas and it would be foolish to compare to other countries as North America as a whole is worst hehe.

[jcadam]

Liberal Arts majors are all insane. And their degrees are worthless. Join the guys over in the Engineering and/or computer science departments to get away from the PC craziness and learn some real, practical skills. Of course, at any major american university, if you're a CS major you'll be surrounded by Indians and East Asians.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Liberal Arts majors are all insane. And their degrees are worthless. Join the guys over in the Engineering and/or computer science departments to get away from the PC craziness and learn some real, practical skills. Of course, at any major american university, if you're a CS major you'll be surrounded by Indians and East Asians.

Or better, stick with liberal arts and either get a CS-related job or tack on a -science related double or minor—you'll be well-rounded and set apart from the rest.

CS majors are a dime a 40k-salary-dozen.
Engineers, 60k-dozen.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Athens

Because we are better in most areas

Thanks for proving my point Athens.

If Canada was so great, no one would need to be convinced.

I think some of you try a bit too hard.

[Kerrigan]

I'm reminded of this quote: “Seeing Scotland, Madam, is only seeing a worse England. It is seeing the flower gradually fade away to the native stalk.” Likewise, Canada is a lamer version of the US, and its faults are usually overlooked because it is never put under the microscope like America.

Canada is certainly not "beter in most areas". In fact, Canada's emissions regulations, educational standards, healthcare quality, economic output, and military capabilities, are all considerably below the US. So what is Canada better at?

[wdlove]

Education should be the primary focus. Politics have no place in education. Facts should be presented, students need to learn how to thinks and analyze.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by wdlove

Education should be the primary focus. Politics have no place in education. Facts should be presented, students need to learn how to thinks and analyze.

I disagree with that at the higher education level, and especially in subjects like history and political science. You can't learn to think and analyze if all you do is repeat facts by rote. That's what you do in elementary school, not university.

In fact, the danger is that if you present history as nothing but a list of facts you conceal the analysis and political point of view that went into packaging those facts. That's when it becomes indoctrination.

A better approach is to confront the inevitable political aspect head on. Both lecturers and students should be open about their political points of view. In fact, my experience is that the best university professors understand this implicitly. That is why in many cases I have found that the best learning environment comes when students and teachers feel free to disagee with each other and among themselves about political matters. That's when you get the best discussions, and the most conducive learning environment.

[OreoCookie]

Well, I would say as long as it is obvious that what is presented is opinion, it's good. If you are a student, you can separate `facts' from `opinion' better. Certainly beats just copying standard textbook A.

On the other hand, classes shouldn't escalate to be a public podium for a professor to promote his points of views.

(I have never had this sort of problem, physics is not that susceptible to politics )

[Kerrigan]

Simey, I tend to think that current politics have no real influence on the study of history. Obviously contemporary critics of world events like Locke or Marx had considerable political bias when they wrote their accounts of history, and history is nearly always written by the victors, but I think that the advantage of classical education is that you can use hindsight to view history in somewhat objective terms.

I suppose you could say that at the heart of the classical interpretation of history is an identification of repetition. History basically repeats itself again and again, and keeping this in mind, you have a better perspective when you start studying a particular event.

This is my main gripe in the original post. It seems like in America, the past, ie, history, has a good deal of novelty about it. It looks as though scholars approach history with either a feeling of disconnect, or with an intent to view in modern day political terms. Recently, I heard a rather clever professor refer to the ancient Persian empire as a "pro-war" society, as though the same sort of left-right divisions of today were around back then.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Simey, I tend to think that current politics have no real influence on the study of history. Obviously contemporary critics of world events like Locke or Marx had considerable political bias when they wrote their accounts of history, and history is nearly always written by the victors, but I think that the advantage of classical education is that you can use hindsight to view history in somewhat objective terms.

I suppose you could say that at the heart of the classical interpretation of history is an identification of repetition. History basically repeats itself again and again, and keeping this in mind, you have a better perspective when you start studying a particular event.

This is my main gripe in the original post. It seems like in America, the past, ie, history, has a good deal of novelty about it. It looks as though scholars approach history with either a feeling of disconnect, or with an intent to view in modern day political terms. Recently, I heard a rather clever professor refer to the ancient Persian empire as a "pro-war" society, as though the same sort of left-right divisions of today were around back then.

I guess it depends somewhat on how narrowly you define "current politics." Political opinions are closely related to how you approach analysis of facts. How you approach your analysis of facts is likely to affect how you organize and structure those facts, and obviously will impact what sense you make of them. It's certainly going to relate to what facts you make part of your analysis and what facts you will choose to leave out, as well as what relative weight you give to those facts. I'm not saying that a professor teaching the history of the Napoleonic Wars should start ranting about the Iraq war. But that professor's approach to political issues will likely color how that professor approaches history, whether he or she is concious of it or not. In general, then, I think it is better to be open about that inescapable fact than to pretend it doesn'e exist.

I don't think it is possible to be completely objective about history, unless you make history nothing more interesting than rote learning of dates. But even that tends to be selective, because what you choose as a significant event on a particular date leaves out so much of what you have decided (totally subjectively) is not significant. All this is related to the same kinds of analysis and subjective thought processes that go into political opinions. The one can't be completely divorced from the other because it is at bottom a human enterprise. When humans try to make sense of the world, they do so subjectively. History is no different from any other field in that respect.

In any case, I took a lot of history classes and I found some more rewarding than others, and some more frustrating than others. My undergrad degree was in international relations, but the line between that and straight history is fuzzy. The most rewarding classes I had were the ones with the most analytic content. That is why I tended to gravitate toward seminars rather than lectures. It didn't bother me if I didn't agree politically with the professor, provided the atmosphere was conducive to a free exchange of ideas. In fact, both in college and in law school, I'd have to say some of my most rewarding academic exchanges where with professors I disagreed with politically. The best ones were the ones who enjoyed the rough and tumble of being challenged. And conversely, the worst ones were the ones (of whatever political persuasion) who were so narrow minded that they were convinced that their conclusions were the only valid ones. Be careful not to become one of those if you make this your calling.

Oh, and I would disagree that history is about repetition. As the phrase goes, history never repeats, but it rhymes. That's why every international relations major goes back and reads Thucidides. Oh, God I got tired of being assigned the Melian dialog!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Simey, I tend to think that current politics have no real influence on the study of history.

Are you...serious? Current politics do not influence historians? Good god, man, history is absolutely littered with historians who are influenced by their particular political/social society, and the other half are historians dedicated to pointing out these biases!

Of course the ultimate goal is to be as objective as possible, but I don't think anyone would say that's attainable. By definition a historian studies history through the glasses of his/her current society.

greg