The Mistakes Can Help

I've been reviewing mathematics and logic recently, because I'm planning on returning to university next year to study those subjects more. It may seem an odd step, but I personally find it odd that more philosophy students don't get drawn in by maths after they discover most of philosophy to be pretentious douchebags building theories and arguments from mist. But I probably feel this way because the way I was first introduced to philosophy was as a logic student in highschool, so it is perhaps more a return to a first love than anything else.

Anyway.

It strikes me that while answer sections in the back of the books are helpful, it can actually be beneficial for say, 2-3 percent of those answers to be mistakes. It not only keeps you thinking, it's also a reminder of the room for human error, and it also allows you the exhilaration of feeling that you got one up on the author of the textbook.

On a related note, Wolfram Alpha is a great way of settling the debate of whether your answer is right or the textbook's.

Future proof

“Employers are seeking adaptable graduates who can respond quickly and creatively to the challenges of both the domestic and international workplaces.”

“Employers look for graduates with generalist skills like learning ability, the potential to grow within their organisational structure, and the adaptability and flexibility to move across and up into different job roles. Employers increasingly recognise that generalist degree graduates have welldeveloped communication, analytical and problem-solving skills.”

This is taken from UQ’s website. Can you guess which faculty boasts about this? Here’s a hint: one with “welldeveloped” communication skills. If you guessed “Faculty of Arts”, you would be correct! They are trying to entice people to take an Arts degree by arguing that it is somehow future proof. It should be a familiar line to anyone who has ever flicked through the higher education section of a newspaper, or careers, or whatever (I myself never do this voluntarily, but have been told to do so occasionally by various friends/family who wanted my opinion).

There was in fact a time when I thought there was something to be said about the idea that “welldeveloped communication, analytical and problem-solving skills” were the things an Arts degree conferred, and that they would be important and valuable non-tangibles.

Although I still think that the ability to write well and to possess a sharp analytical mind are vital, I no longer think an Arts degree confers these traits to any significant measure (and I am myself the unhappy holder of such a degree, as Taleb said of his MBA).

I don’t think I need to provide any further argument as to why a university who can’t proofread correctly is not in any position to teach communication skills. And with regard to analytical and problem solving skills, most of the people I took classes were terrible in both. The post-modern philosophy that dominates almost all of the humanities is more a rejection of analytical processes. There is certainly no problem solving going on anywhere in that field.

In fact, the best response to any university boasting about their ability to grant you “welldeveloped communication” skills is that line from Good Will Hunting:

“you dropped 150 grand on a f***in’ education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”

The amount might be closer to 5 grand in Australia but the point remains the same.