Skip to main content

The Academic Apocalypse



Photo by Pixabay from Pexels


If we were living in a better society, one focused on the quality of life, where one could pursue one's interests, even if less remunerative and survive, maybe the humanities could be sustained. I work in one of those 'hot' professions as a software developer, and until recently in finance. in my years there I interest in the humanities or the social sciences to be almost nonexistent. There were many opinions, but generally ignorant. The unbalanced worlds of technology and finance have no art and at times no heart.

That said, some reasons, as well as some not mentioned by others:

Technology - That's where the money is, along with anything else the works with technology

Inequality: The wealthy can't make money from the arts, although they might enjoy it privately or at events, so it is underfunded

Funding: Students are cash cows milked for tuition, so choices are made for economic reasons.

Sexism: Women are often in non-STEM fields so...

Sexism: Men are in the [put one here] profession, and it gets funded...

Masculine society: We fund the military and let corporate ambitions destroy the planet, but again, little for the quality of life, family or health care or leisure, except as a cash cow for corporations...




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.