Found 4 bookmarks
Newest
Saving the Liberal Arts - David Perell
Saving the Liberal Arts - David Perell
  • The decline of Liberal Arts is driven by both financial and ideological factors.
    • Universities prioritize career-focused majors due to funding cuts and student demand for practical skills.
    • The high cost of college tuition pushes students to focus on getting a high-paying job after graduation.
    • Professional skills become obsolete quickly, while a Liberal Arts education provides a foundation of knowledge that is timeless.
    • Liberal Arts education is considered "fundamental knowledge" that is slow to change and provides a broader perspective.
  • People are sacrificing their well-being for work without questioning why.
  • Obsession with productivity discourages people from pursuing non-income producing knowledge.
  • The decline of leisure time reduces opportunities for contemplation and reflection.
  • The Liberal Arts provide timeless and fundamental knowledge that is applicable across situations.
    • Universities prioritize filtering students for the labor market over nurturing their potential.
    • The tenure system can incentivize research over teaching and responsiveness to student needs.
  • A Liberal Arts education helps people question societal structures and appreciate life beyond materialism.
  • Critique of universities for prioritizing job placement over a well-rounded education.
There’s a trade-off between practicality and timelessness. Knowledge at the top of the chart, such as fashion and commerce, is immediately actionable, but decays the fastest. They’re relevant in everyday life for social and earning an income, but their specifics have a short half-life. Meanwhile, culture and nature are deeper on the chart. They offer fundamental knowledge. Their lessons apply everywhere, even if they’re beyond the scope of conscious thought in most people’s day-to-day lives. The further down the layers you travel, the longer it will take for the knowledge to pay off, but the longer that information will stay relevant and the more widely applicable it will be.
by pushing students to pursue what is immediately profitable instead of what’s ultimately meaningful, they will devalue fundamental knowledge. That’s because the business models for income share agreements and student debt insurance only work if the students make a lot of money after college.
In a study conducted during her time there, three quarters of freshmen said college was essential to developing a meaningful philosophy of life. By contrast, only a third said that it was essential to financial well-being. Today, those fractions have flipped.
You shouldn’t need to attend four years of college to earn a living. Instead, we should make it cheap and expedient for young people to receive a professional education and develop practical skills. After a year of training in the classroom, they can do an apprenticeship where they can get paid to learn instead of paying to learn.
These changes will help young adults achieve financial stability, build economically rewarded skills, and break free from parental dependence. They should study the Liberal Arts when they’re older. Rather than forcing students to slog through Dostoevsky when they are 18 — when they’re all wondering, rightly, how this is going to help them find a job — we should create schools for amateurs of all ages so they can read Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov later, when they have the life experience to appreciate it.
Today, most students are only able to formally study the Liberal Arts between the ages of 18 and 30. They only have four years during their undergraduate degree, and only the most academically ambitious of them continue their studies into graduate school. Of those who pursue a master’s degree, most stay in academia.
But if students could take Liberal Arts classes later in life, a much greater percentage would learn for the joy of it. Once again, the religious metaphor holds. No Church expects its congregants to only study the Bible for four years, with an option to keep studying as long as you plan to become a priest. But that’s what we do with the Liberal Arts.
Plato would have criticized today’s Westerners who compromise an erudite life and salivate over wealth instead, even when they’re swimming in riches.49 In a criticism of his contemporaries, he observed that their love of wealth “leaves them no respite to concern themselves with anything other than their private property. The soul of the citizen today is entirely taken up with getting rich and with making sure that every day brings its share of profit. The citizen is ready to learn any technique, to engage in any kind of activity, so long as it is profitable. He thumbs his nose at the rest.”
To prevent these failure modes, there are three guidelines Liberal Arts schools should follow: Don’t focus on practical skills, prize free thinking over ideology, and target an older audience of professionally established people.
A market-driven curriculum will create McDegree programs where students study the kinds of self-help books you find in the philosophy section of an airport bookstore. Think of already-popular books like Aristotle’s Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life, which reduces the great Greek philosopher into a self-help guru.
People who are employed struggle to pursue a Liberal Arts education not just because they have busy schedules, but because the material can feel so disconnected from daily reality.
With the extended focus on Professional Education at the early stage of a career, we should create opportunities for students to receive a Civilized Education throughout their life where they can appreciate life beyond the almighty Dollar.
Wesleyan President Michael Roth, the author of the best book I’ve read on the Liberal Arts, once wrote: “Education is for human development, human freedom, not the molding of an individual into a being who can perform a particular task. That would be slavery.” Up until now, our colleges have followed a philosophy of giving young people freedom early and waiting until the postgraduate years to focus on a profession. Only toward the end of the 20th century did a bachelor’s degree become a prerequisite for most jobs and professional academic study such as a master’s or a PhD. We should return to a world where Civilized Education is not mandatory. Where students can postpone the Liberal Arts to acquire technical skills that are rewarded in the economic marketplace. Students are already asking for the changes, as shown by the changing composition of majors.
College was once a place to explore the True, the Good, and the Beautiful without regard for utility. But today, it’s seen as a means toward the end of finding a job. Ideas that aren’t economically valuable are belittled as useless knowledge. Materialism has become our North Star. As a society, we measure progress in changes to the material world, where we prioritize what we can see and measure. We evaluate ourselves by productivity, our economy by the availability of cheap goods, and our civilization by the rate of technological progress. We’ve forgotten about our human need for wonder, beauty, and contemplation. Today, we worship the Factual, the Useful, and the Monetizable.
Don’t get me wrong. The fruits of clean water and modern medicine are miraculous. But what good is a materialistic utopia if it comes at the cost of a spiritual one? We are more indebted, depressed, and suicidal than ever before. And yet, we continue to worship technological progress and material abundance as if they will elevate the soul. As so, we run and run and run — hoping that all that effort will save us. But if people feel too constrained to pursue wonder and beauty as ends in themselves, are we really making progress?
Mistaking money for cultural well-being is like mistaking a roof for a home. ROI-brain only speaks in the language of materialism, and we should be skeptical of it. Otherwise, our lives will follow the leash of cheap pleasures and distracting dopamine hits. Corporations, too, will continue to sell instant improvements without regard for their long-term effects.
Taken all together, the Liberal Arts is the meta-recognition of our world.
If we cannot question the systems that guide our lives, we will be enslaved to them. Nor will we be saved by comfort, pleasure, or a respectable job that impresses our family at the Thanksgiving table. Only with a Liberal Arts education will we develop the capacity to thrive as conscious adults. By studying the foundations of how we think, who we are, and how we got here, we’ll gain control over our minds and create a more flourishing civilization.
·perell.com·
Saving the Liberal Arts - David Perell
Interview with Leo Chang, Staff Designer at Darkroom Studios, on Visual Design
Interview with Leo Chang, Staff Designer at Darkroom Studios, on Visual Design
There are certain design principles you can apply to this like composition, hierarchy, color theory, and so on, but to the regular consumer, it’s the gestalt of all your design decisions that ultimately makes an emotional connection. We know emotion is so much of what drives purchasing behavior so the more nebulous goal of visual design is often pulling those levers in just the right ratio to elicit a desired connection to your product.
ven something as foundational as increasing white space in your design can instantly improve a customer’s perception of your brand’s worth when it’s done intentionally.
almost all clients agree that they need better look and feel in their digital experience, that they are looking to add some type of emotional signal that’s missing. But when it comes time to accept changes that address those problems, I’ve had several instances where clients are resistant to solutions that depart too significantly from what they’re already comfortable with. Usually that reservation is overcome when I correlate the visual changes to the ways in which the user experience is improved and the resulting impact on business performance. There will be also times when a client expresses to us that they’ve never been satisfied with their brand or website and they point to competitors that evoke certain emotional qualities that they are aspiring to capture. In those cases it’s quite rewarding to be able to translate those more nebulous feelings into concrete terminology that gives us specific visual principles to bring in or improve on.
·anthonyhobday.com·
Interview with Leo Chang, Staff Designer at Darkroom Studios, on Visual Design
The Computer is a Feeling
The Computer is a Feeling
  1. The computer is a feeling, not a device.
  2. By this we mean that what makes a computer a computer has nothing to do with commands, compilers, or even machines. For us, computer is the specific feeling of artifacts that allow for intimate systems of personal meaning.
  3. This point has been obscured for two reasons. First: the language we use to talk about computing - established decades ago - has lost its original meaning and force.
  4. Consider the term “personal computer”. This phrase used to distinguish what was special in the moment about the devices that gave us computer feelings: the Apple II, the Commodore 64, the Windows PC. They were personal – not big mainframes – and they were computers – a kind of device that runs instructions. 
  5. Both of these features are now ubiquitous. Computer-devices are now everywhere, nearly all of them personal in some sense. This comes from the commodification of hardware. What was previously scarce and expensive is now simply an implementation detail: computerization is the cheapest way to control any machine, whether it is a toaster or a fridge or a car or a smartphone. 
  6. These devices may have the hardware of a computer inside, they may even run a computer operating system like Linux, but they're not computers in the emotional sense that we mean. “Computer”, once an apt term for both the technology and the feeling it gave, has become less descriptive with time. 
  7. Second: the modern internet exerts a tyranny over our imagination. The internet and its commercial power has sculpted the computer-device. It's become the terrain of flat, uniform, common platforms and protocols, not eccentric, local, idiosyncratic ones. This is out of necessity: if two or two hundred or two million or two billion computers are going to communicate with each other, they simply must agree on quite a bit. 
  8. The triumph of the internet has also impoverished our sense of computers as a tool for private exploration rather than public expression. The pre-network computer has no utility except as a kind of personal notebook, the post-network computer demotes this to a secondary purpose. 
  9. We live in a world of ubiquitous computer-devices, but fading computer-feeling. Consider the smartphone, an indisputably "personal computer." The smartphone is for you; it sits in your pocket. The smartphone is a computer; it is made of silicon and software.
  10. But the smartphone is not a philosophically meaningful computer. It gives only dim flashes of computer-feeling. Accepting it as a COMPUTER feels silly, wrong.
  11. Do you dream about your smartphone? 
  12. Does it feel like a place that you can inhabit and shape and reconfigure? 
  13. Does it give you a sense of possibility? 
  14. Computers are a feeling, not a device.
  15. An old dogma is that true computer-feeling emanates from certain technical commitments. Open source and free software partisans hold to the orthodoxy that the computer-feeling depends on the capability to read and write source code. 
  16. The modern era highlights the absurdities of this creed. We live in a world awash in resources shilling the self-help doctrine of “learn to code”. But, as yet, the computer-feeling continues to ebb away. Programming is a means to evoke a computer-feeling, but no iron law requires that one will use it for this purpose. 
  17. This orthodoxy is also a kind of fetishism. “Programming” can conjure a computer-feeling, but it is not the computer-feeling itself. The sense that programming is the only way celebrates the tools, but not the experience. We want the experience. 
  18. Making “computer” mean computer-feelings and not computer-devices shifts the boundaries of what is captured by the word. It removes a great many things – smartphones, language models, “social” “media” – from the domain of the computational. It also welcomes a great many things – notebooks, papercraft, diary, kitchen – back into the domain of the computational. 
  19. The agenda is to expand our understanding of what makes the computer-feeling. 
  20. The agenda is to advance the computer-feeling in devices, objects, and cultures.
·docs.google.com·
The Computer is a Feeling
The End of the English Major
The End of the English Major
. Perhaps you see the liberal-arts idyll, removed from the pressures of the broader world and filled with tweedy creatures reading on quadrangle lawns. This is the redoubt of the idealized figure of the English major, sensitive and sweatered, moving from “Pale Fire” to “The Fire Next Time” and scaling the heights of “Ulysses” for the view. The goal of such an education isn’t direct career training but cultivation of the min
Or perhaps you think of the university as the research colony, filled with laboratories and conferences and peer-reviewed papers written for audiences of specialists. This is a place that thumps with the energy of a thousand gophers turning over knowledge. It’s the small-bore university of campus comedy—of “Lucky Jim” and “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”—but also the quarry of deconstruction, quantum electrodynamics, and value theory. It produces new knowledge and ways of understanding that wouldn’t have an opportunity to emerge anywhere else.
English professors find the turn particularly baffling now: a moment when, by most appearances, the appetite for public contemplation of language, identity, historiography, and other longtime concerns of the seminar table is at a peak.
“Young people are very, very concerned about the ethics of representation, of cultural interaction—all these kinds of things that, actually, we think about a lot!” Amanda Claybaugh, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education and an English professor, told me last fall.
In a quantitative society for which optimization—getting the most output from your input—has become a self-evident good, universities prize actions that shift numbers, and pre-professionalism lends itself to traceable change
One literature professor and critic at Harvard—not old or white or male—noticed that it had become more publicly rewarding for students to critique something as “problematic” than to grapple with what the problems might be; they seemed to have found that merely naming concerns had more value, in today’s cultural marketplace, than curiosity about what underlay them
·newyorker.com·
The End of the English Major