Big Q's + Monoculture

William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson talk on bloggingheads.com about "The Academic Industrial Complex”. During their hour long discussion two of the many points mentioned where whether there is room for the “big questions” on campus and how individualistic society has become. Their argument is weakened by a contradiction in William’s article “The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Campus” and lack of qualification and mention of the opposition’s view when arguing about the “big questions”. Another interesting point is mentioned, monoculture, but is not elaborated on or used to strengthen their argument.

Mark and Will bring up the point that “big questions” such as “What is the good life?” and “What is good society?” are no longer mentioned at college partly because college’s are no longer religious institutions, and partly because college’s purpose is to prepare students for a career - rather than molding their minds.

While Will and Mark are correct that neither of those questions are being brought to student’s attention, they do not have any ideas how this could be resolved, such as where could these questions be brought up? Perhaps students could take a required course where they write and debate about life’s important questions – this class could count towards philosophy credit. Or freshmen counseling sessions could contain philosophical discourse on top of the typical “How are you doing or what is going on in your life?” discussions.

They are also correct in assuming that a university’s purpose is to train for a career. But this is because students would not choose to go to a school which did not offer the best teachers and classes for them to succeed in their chosen career path. Students expect to answer life’s questions on their own, rather than going to a preacher and have them explain their personal solution. While figuring out these questions they want to be supporting themselves and their families, which college helps enable them to do.

Another point Mark and Will bring up while discussing the “big questions” is how individualistic society has become. They point out that these questions are not important in the university because people are obsessed with succeeding in school and their chosen fields. But in Deresiewicz article "The Disadvantages of an Ivy League Campus" he mentions how incapable students are of being alone. They are constantly on their phones or laptops instant messaging, and even go over to each other’s rooms to work on homework because they find solitude disconcerting. So, which is it - are students individualistic, collective, or a medley of the two?

Mark brings up the idea of monoculture during the “Computers, drugs, and Modern Student Culture” section of the video. He says on campus he sees students who all dress the same - there are few students who stand out with punk or hippie outfits. During class no one tells him he is wrong. Everyone buys into digital culture by bringing their laptops to class and using their cell phones constantly. This is an interesting idea I wish had been elaborated on more - monoculture could also be used to explain why “the big questions” and religion have dropped out of college campuses. Instead of students fulfilling their subconscious desire to come together through going to church, they’ve come together in daily life.

The internet and cell phones are so important to students because they can keep in touch all of the time. Instead of socializing on Sunday’s with their fellow believers they keep the channel of communication open 24/7. They have philosophical, and less philosophical, discussions all the time without the help of a religious figure or college’s nudging.

Many students are also open-minded and accepting – this has also led to monoculture. When questioning others beliefs, dress, choice of music, traditions, etc. they listen to the other side and try to understand it. They’ll discover something they like, or even that they were wrong, and adapt it into their life-style. The “lack of opposition” abounds because students are acknowledging other points of view as not being wrong, just different.

While Mark and Will’s discussion was full of interesting points, the lack of discord and representation of the opposition made the video hard to watch. The video and their articles contradictory content also weakened the video’s argument. An interesting point, monoculture, was mentioned but not expanded upon or used to strengthen their argument. Compared to the articles, the video itself was a disappointment.