Regarding "Why do we even bother?" (Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008):
Sam Norton '12 suggests that Princeton ought to provide "more potential for specialization at an early age" and instruct us on how "to succeed in the workforce."
I humbly beg to differ. Knowledge ought not to be compartmentalized by department or career, as human experience can't be categorized. As Cicero suggests in "Pro Archia Oratio," "All arts which are relevant to human culture have a certain common bond, and are connected, one to another, by a sort of, as it were, kindred relationship." The study of liberal arts creates engaging, thoughtful students, better equipped to think seriously about issues and act as informed citizens. The liberal arts enable students to place their own views amid a broader context of ideas. Education ought to be pursued for its own inherent value, not as an instrumental means to a better paying career.
For Princeton to encourage early specialization would detract from this fundamental goal of a university: education. One can acquire vocational skills outside of academia, while the opportunity to engage in the marketplace of ideas is not so readily available. The pursuit of scholarship is more than our temporary task as students; it is a lifelong vocation.
Shivani Radhakrishnan '11
Early specialization is not a good idea
Regarding "Why do we even bother?" (Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008):
Sam Norton '12 gets the purpose of higher education and a liberal arts education in particular exactly wrong.
Norton argues that students can better explore new ideas and broaden their social networks "outside a college setting." Yet college graduates have less time to meet new people and confront new ideas once they begin their practical careers. If scientists don't crack open Shakespeare in college classrooms, they probably won't encounter him in corporate pharmaceutical labs.
Norton argues that "elite" universities should reward applicants who define their career interests as high school seniors. Yet specialization at the age of 17 may prevent students from discovering the technical subjects that Norton supports but most high schools do not teach. Why do we even bother sending high school seniors to college if the goal is to reinforce their career interests and assumptions about the world?
A more practical approach, Norton concludes, would help the United States manage a "complex world" of global terrorism and credit default swaps. Yet American workers can't solve complex problems without being creative, imaginative and analytical. Reading the Iliad may not teach us how to read a balance sheet but it does teach us how to think critically about the goals of our institutions and their development over time.
Jeff Tessin GS
COMBO's biggest revelation: Students need more to do
Regarding "COMBO: Wealth divides undergraduate community" (Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008):
The Committee on Background and Opportunity (COMBO) should have been named COMBOJBO, or the Committee on Mumbo Jumbo. When will Princeton stop obsessing about race, gender and now, happiness related to wealth? Do you want to see some really unhappy people? Go to Palm Beach, Fla., Grosse Pointe, Mich., or Beverly Hills, Calif. Happiness is not at all related to money. For Princeton students to waste their time on such mumbo jumbo surveys indicates to me that their course loads are too light, the number of courses taken is too small and school vacations are too long. Why not require six courses a term, curtail vacations and eliminate reading periods? Then everyone would start to get real value for the money spent!
Michael Scharf '64