<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, but also nothing new
Review: Aronowitz has written an excellent book here, but the overall message is nothing new. Richard Hofstadter, in his early 1960s book, Anti-intellectualism in American Life (which won a Pulitzer Prize), demonstrated that American culture had been anti-intellectual since the early 19th century and perhaps earlier. Approximately one-fourth of that book was concerned with anti-intellectualism in U.S. education. In 1987, the liberal Russel Jacoby published The Last Intellectuals and the conservative Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind; Bloom's book also was essentially about anti-intellectual American culture, while Jacoby's was about anti-intellectual intellectuals, a group that largely overlaps with U.S. college professors. Most recently, Edward Said called attention to the dearth of public intellectuals in his Representation of the Intellectuals (including [American] colleges' responsibility for this situation), and Daniel Rigney, Leon Fink, Dane Claussen and others have written about anti-intellectualism and higher education, or (the lack of) public intellectuals and higher education.
Rating: 
Summary: A Criticism of Aronowitz' Solution
Review: I find myself sharing many of Stanley Aronowitz' worries, yet unimpressed by what I see to be his solution as elucidated in the final chapter.Firstly, I would like to address the areas where Professor Aronowitz and I share common ground. The entire book is an attempt to show that there is something wrong with the modern university ("post-secondary education") as it now exists. He does an excellent job of laying out the problems faced by the teachers, as far as job security and being able to pursue their areas of expertise are concerned, and the students, as far as outlook on education is concerned. Well laid out as well are the detrimental effects this system has, simply summarized by the title, "The Knowledge Factory," which gives light to the conformity of thinking that has replaced original thought first in the academy, and then in the masses of "educated" people. In all these areas I agree with Aronowitz. This is a very frightening trend, one that will have a profound effect first on the quality of academia, and next upon societal structure as a whole. With the professor, I agree that something must urgently be done. In his chapter entitled "The Dismantling the Corporate University," Aronowitz lays out a proposed curriculum that he believes will preserve the fundamental mission of higher education, which he defines as playing "a leading role... in the development of general culture" (172). He goes on to lay out a historical view of knowledge, in agreement with the "conservative camp", only replacing "reverence for the texts" with "critique". It is where Aronowitz diverges from the idea of reverence for the texts that I diverge in opinion from Aronowitz. What Aronowitz fails to recognize, perhaps in part due to his academic background, is that 70 per cent of the authors of the texts he intends to critique (4,500 of his "5,000 years of recorded history") have based their writing upon a reverence for those authors and opinions that went before them. They have recognized a common thread of the immutable inerrancy of truth, and, instead of rejecting it, they tweaked it, perfecting it with each generation of authors. Replacing reverence with critique is an Enlightenment idea with rejects all which was previously held in esteem. The liberal arts are seven in number, with the trivium being grammar (literature), rhetoric, and logic, and the quadrivium being mathematics, astronomy, music, and geometry. In all these arts, there are respected norms. There is room for a critique of sorts, but always within the rules. Note that both the trivium and the quadrivium are based upon mathematical principles. In logic things can be proven or demonstrated, and in music, a C is never an F sharp. Here we find truth ("Veritas", which as a matter of fact is the motto of the famous Harvard University). It seems that before one begins to critique, one must acquire a proficiency in the system of rules, that one can safely work within them, not bringing himself or herself into error, or as it would be, false or errant criticism. Traditionally, one who is working toward this mastery of the system is called a bachelor studying the liberal arts. One of achieves this proficiency is called a master of the liberal arts. Only then, as one who has mastered the rules, should one begin to add to the body of knowledge, to criticize, as it were. It seems, therefore, that Aronowitz would like his students to jump the gun, that he would like them to begin to critique before they know the rules of the debate. This starting too soon is dangerous in that it has lead in earlier times to erring scholars who never learned the rules before carrying their "critiques" outside the classroom, causing such events as the bloody massacres of the French Revolution, or Stalins' reign in Russia, or Hitler's reign in Germany. Failing to master the arts before one critiques the truth has often led people astray in practical ways. Aronowitz is right in wanting to reform the university, yet wrong in replacing reverence for the texts of great minds with critique of those same great minds, before we consume that of truth which they have to offer.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Like the previous reader, I've read both Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellecutalism..." and Jacoby's "Last Intellectuals". This work is just as enlightening as both of them. Aronowitz sheds light on the suspicions of most anyone familiar with university life today (I'm a recent college graduate). He charts out how physics and engineering grew to dominate the university during the cold war and how corporates sponsorship largely took the place of military support in the post-Cold War era. But what especially intrigued me was his background information on NYU and John Brademas' largely successful efforts to shake down wealthy donors and buy academic superstars. This transformed the reputation of the school. I'm going to graduate school at NYU in the fall, so I enjoyed hearing these details. Aronowitz is unique among academics, given his working-class background and unorthodox method of attaining his degrees. These experiences are reflected in a passionate yet realistic prose. "The Knowledge Factory" is an engaging read that should be picked up by anyone affiliated with high education (students, teachers...especially administrators).
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Like the previous reader, I've read both Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellecutalism..." and Jacoby's "Last Intellectuals". This work is just as enlightening as both of them. Aronowitz sheds light on the suspicions of most anyone familiar with university life today (I'm a recent college graduate). He charts out how physics and engineering grew to dominate the university during the cold war and how corporates sponsorship largely took the place of military support in the post-Cold War era. But what especially intrigued me was his background information on NYU and John Brademas' largely successful efforts to shake down wealthy donors and buy academic superstars. This transformed the reputation of the school. I'm going to graduate school at NYU in the fall, so I enjoyed hearing these details. Aronowitz is unique among academics, given his working-class background and unorthodox method of attaining his degrees. These experiences are reflected in a passionate yet realistic prose. "The Knowledge Factory" is an engaging read that should be picked up by anyone affiliated with high education (students, teachers...especially administrators).
<< 1 >>
| 
