This afternoon I re-read William Deresiewicz's The Disadvantages of an Elite Education. He began the essay with how he realized the deficiency of his elite education when he couldn't even make small talk with his plumber for ten minutes. He then moved on to many other relevant topics but overall I really connected with this article although it obviously has a lot of generalizations. I was curious about what other people think of it--it turned out the essay was much more controversial than I had expected, if not drawing mostly negative responses. It was a twelve page thread in College Confidential. Many people there criticized Deresiewicz for his over-generalizations and "straw-man" fallacy of blaming his own deficiency (not able to communicate with the plumber) on his elite education.
What interests me is that these people's evidence and support tend to be "I or my child or my friends can make small talks with the plumber with no problem" and therefore Deresiewicz is wrong. (Isn't this a straw-man fallacy also? Just like what they presume Deresiewicz's arugment is?) Deresiewicz may be the stereotypical elite who always uses big words or talks about Descartes (I'm not sure if he is really like that) but he is certainly not stupid. I'm sure he is not saying that EVERYONE in Yale and Columbia are socially stupid with people outside of their class. I think it's a common sense that exceptions always exist, and exceptions alone is not good enough to reject Deresiewicz's argument.
One person pointed out that, among the twelve page thread, if we look at it another way, we can say that a plumber doesn't know how to talk to a college professor. To take this further, a professor may not even be able to talk to another professor because their areas of studies have become so narrow and specific that there is only a handful of people in the entire world that study similar subjects.
My point is, who is able to talk to whom does not make or break Deresiewicz's argument in the essay. Many people in the thread, however, are so caught up with this controversial opening to the essay that they are losing the big picture, which is written right beneath the title: Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers.
Friday, January 7, 2011
How Rich Does One Have to Get to be Not Poor?
Just like how girls always think they are fat, or not think enough, people always think they are poor, or not rich enough. But how rich does one have to get to be not poor? What happened tonight inspired me to look into this question and hopefully it will end up as a post for my public blog.
------
Tonight at the dinner table, my mom asked me: "Tell me, why don't you think of making money as priority even though we are this poor?" She was talking about my decision to study humanities instead of subjects like business or medicine that would be more lucrative in future.
I didn't answer. I got up and left the kitchen. She repeated the question as I was about to go upstairs and added: "You know how my family was really poor before and your uncle [her brother] was determined to make money and he succeeded? Why aren't you like that? Tell me."
Suddenly I realized she was not joking. She was serious. I paused for a second, standing in the middle of the house, and went back to the kitchen and said:
"Do you seriously think you are that poor? Look at what you have, a three floor house, in suburb of New Jersey, TWO cars, THREE children, and one of them is going to college. You think this is what a poor person could have?"
My question is, how can a person like my mom and dad, who had no doubt gone through some extremely poor times, still think that they are "poor" now--and not just "normal" poor, but SO poor that it only makes sense for me to think of using my college degree to make as much money and as quickly as possible?
Just a couple of days ago I told Chris I knew I wouldn't earn much money in the future; all I want for myself is to be independent and not be a burden of my parents. Chris, ironically, commented that the only reason I was even saying things like that is because my parents gave me a comfortable life for me to feel secure enough to think this way.
I said, that's true.
My mom said, so you think we're not poor?
Unfortunately, I made a wrong move here by bringing up the people who live on food stamps. Immediately both my mom and dad chuckled with disdain:
"We were not going to bring this up but now you mentioned it...the people who use food stamps are MILLIONAIRES! They get cash, they don't pay taxes, they are much wealthier then we are! You know...." My mom started listing examples of her friends who are eligible for food stamps on paper but are actually pretty wealthy, at least by their standards.
My dad interrupted and said: "You know why America is not doing well? It's because all these rich people taking advantage of these social services!"
I left the kitchen while I could still hear them exchange with much amazement how I've changed. How my thoughts have changed overtime, or maybe it was "so suddenly". I could hear clearly enough because I was already on the stairs, but I yelled back anyway: "Is this what you want me to think? To fill my brain with? Money? Money money money? All the time?"
I did not even reflect on this episode at the dinner table until just now, more than four hours later. I was disillusioned. A little bit embarrassed. And a little lost as to what I should think. What is right.
------
Tonight at the dinner table, my mom asked me: "Tell me, why don't you think of making money as priority even though we are this poor?" She was talking about my decision to study humanities instead of subjects like business or medicine that would be more lucrative in future.
I didn't answer. I got up and left the kitchen. She repeated the question as I was about to go upstairs and added: "You know how my family was really poor before and your uncle [her brother] was determined to make money and he succeeded? Why aren't you like that? Tell me."
Suddenly I realized she was not joking. She was serious. I paused for a second, standing in the middle of the house, and went back to the kitchen and said:
"Do you seriously think you are that poor? Look at what you have, a three floor house, in suburb of New Jersey, TWO cars, THREE children, and one of them is going to college. You think this is what a poor person could have?"
My question is, how can a person like my mom and dad, who had no doubt gone through some extremely poor times, still think that they are "poor" now--and not just "normal" poor, but SO poor that it only makes sense for me to think of using my college degree to make as much money and as quickly as possible?
Just a couple of days ago I told Chris I knew I wouldn't earn much money in the future; all I want for myself is to be independent and not be a burden of my parents. Chris, ironically, commented that the only reason I was even saying things like that is because my parents gave me a comfortable life for me to feel secure enough to think this way.
I said, that's true.
My mom said, so you think we're not poor?
Unfortunately, I made a wrong move here by bringing up the people who live on food stamps. Immediately both my mom and dad chuckled with disdain:
"We were not going to bring this up but now you mentioned it...the people who use food stamps are MILLIONAIRES! They get cash, they don't pay taxes, they are much wealthier then we are! You know...." My mom started listing examples of her friends who are eligible for food stamps on paper but are actually pretty wealthy, at least by their standards.
My dad interrupted and said: "You know why America is not doing well? It's because all these rich people taking advantage of these social services!"
I left the kitchen while I could still hear them exchange with much amazement how I've changed. How my thoughts have changed overtime, or maybe it was "so suddenly". I could hear clearly enough because I was already on the stairs, but I yelled back anyway: "Is this what you want me to think? To fill my brain with? Money? Money money money? All the time?"
I did not even reflect on this episode at the dinner table until just now, more than four hours later. I was disillusioned. A little bit embarrassed. And a little lost as to what I should think. What is right.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
On Oracle Bones, and more (+ a little note)
I edited and expanded this old blog entry for a new blog that I created named "Blabber." Blabber will be my public blog on books, pop culture, the past and the current, and other things of the universe, featuring a more formal writing, as opposed to this blog Carpe Diem, which consists of more casual writings about my personal life.
-------------------
Peter Hessler's Oracle Bones showed me both the China I already knew and the China I have no clue about. Peter Hessler, a typical elite white American, spent seven years in China first as a peace corp volunteer than as a journalist and a freelancer. He was present right at the center of many historic events such as the period when Falun Gong was banned from China. He read so many famous and obscure Chinese literature and research on China. He had developed profound friendships with so many Chinese and foreign people, both prominent individuals and common folks like you and me. I truly believe the China this man has seen and met far exceeds the China that most average Chinese themselves know.
Many Chinese people think that they know a lot and like to make comments about China, but in reality they are just using ignorance as a weapon. On the other hand, when a foreign white man like Peter Hessler begins commenting on the current events of China, many Chinese people--before even reading a word of his book--presume that there is no way he would be able to objectively, correctly, and thoroughly evaluate China simply because he is not Chinese like they are. In some way, I believe that Peter Hessler knows more about the Chinese people and Chinese mentality than Chinese people know themselves. Unlike many writings on China I read, I do not sense bias in his writing. He does criticize China at many points throughout the book but he does so in what I believed a highly objective manner. During a conversation with my economics professor, he commented on Peter Hessler: "this man obviously loves China, but that doesn't mean he has to be sentimental about China." Too many Chinese people including myself are sometimes overly sentimental about China. We feel the right to mock the government ourselves but get ridiculously outraged when a foreigner tries to say the same thing--except not in mockery, but in a more constructive manner.
I vaguely remember my former high school English teacher Ms. Armstrong said about mockery in writing. It was something about how if you only rely on that then there would be no meaning to your writing. I didn't really understand what she said at the same--I was, and we all were, at a cynical age when we just want to mock the entire world that displeases us so much. We put ourselves in such a high moral position that our eyes can't let in a grain of dust. Through all the mockery that we have done, however, we begin to lose the bigger picture--how do we fix the problems, and then how do we prevent us from making the same mistakes again?
The Chinese people are like our high school selves. They mock, they criticize. But when they come to the very cruel realities that they mocked and criticized--in private, they conform and they yield. They sigh and say that this is just how the things work, and how life is.
The popular and controversial author, blogger, and racer Han Han recently wrote a blog post titled "Just truth, or the truth we want," in which he talks about a seemingly shady death of a Chinese who refused to give up his home and land to the government. There was a huge outcry on the internet and in the media, questioning the "truth" provided by the officials and suspecting the death is a result of murder. Many doctors and experts of other fields investigated and concluded that it was just an accident, but the outcry grew ever louder and these doctors and experts became the new targets of conspiracy theories and so on. Han Han wrote that he rather believe in the opinions of the doctors and experts than the popular suspicions, which are based on little to no evidence. That is, however, not the point. It is sad that the people would always jump to conclusions when things like this happen. He wrote that the government has been so opaque with its operations in the past that it is making simple and straightforward matters seem shady. The government should reflect upon the reason why it has lost the trust of its people. Han Han once again eloquently expressed his opinion, which is certainly not anything ultra progressive or uncommon, logically and convincingly.
Well, if we examine the other party in Han Han's story, the conclusion is people like the truth that makes most sense and entails most drama. Our judgment is often clouded by our emotions and prejudice. To make my point brief, Peter Hessler is not one who is clouded by the popular conceptions and prejudice of what China is. He writes with beautiful fluidity and honest language. He is certainly one of the most inspiring figures of mine.
-------------------
Peter Hessler's Oracle Bones showed me both the China I already knew and the China I have no clue about. Peter Hessler, a typical elite white American, spent seven years in China first as a peace corp volunteer than as a journalist and a freelancer. He was present right at the center of many historic events such as the period when Falun Gong was banned from China. He read so many famous and obscure Chinese literature and research on China. He had developed profound friendships with so many Chinese and foreign people, both prominent individuals and common folks like you and me. I truly believe the China this man has seen and met far exceeds the China that most average Chinese themselves know.
Many Chinese people think that they know a lot and like to make comments about China, but in reality they are just using ignorance as a weapon. On the other hand, when a foreign white man like Peter Hessler begins commenting on the current events of China, many Chinese people--before even reading a word of his book--presume that there is no way he would be able to objectively, correctly, and thoroughly evaluate China simply because he is not Chinese like they are. In some way, I believe that Peter Hessler knows more about the Chinese people and Chinese mentality than Chinese people know themselves. Unlike many writings on China I read, I do not sense bias in his writing. He does criticize China at many points throughout the book but he does so in what I believed a highly objective manner. During a conversation with my economics professor, he commented on Peter Hessler: "this man obviously loves China, but that doesn't mean he has to be sentimental about China." Too many Chinese people including myself are sometimes overly sentimental about China. We feel the right to mock the government ourselves but get ridiculously outraged when a foreigner tries to say the same thing--except not in mockery, but in a more constructive manner.
I vaguely remember my former high school English teacher Ms. Armstrong said about mockery in writing. It was something about how if you only rely on that then there would be no meaning to your writing. I didn't really understand what she said at the same--I was, and we all were, at a cynical age when we just want to mock the entire world that displeases us so much. We put ourselves in such a high moral position that our eyes can't let in a grain of dust. Through all the mockery that we have done, however, we begin to lose the bigger picture--how do we fix the problems, and then how do we prevent us from making the same mistakes again?
The Chinese people are like our high school selves. They mock, they criticize. But when they come to the very cruel realities that they mocked and criticized--in private, they conform and they yield. They sigh and say that this is just how the things work, and how life is.
The popular and controversial author, blogger, and racer Han Han recently wrote a blog post titled "Just truth, or the truth we want," in which he talks about a seemingly shady death of a Chinese who refused to give up his home and land to the government. There was a huge outcry on the internet and in the media, questioning the "truth" provided by the officials and suspecting the death is a result of murder. Many doctors and experts of other fields investigated and concluded that it was just an accident, but the outcry grew ever louder and these doctors and experts became the new targets of conspiracy theories and so on. Han Han wrote that he rather believe in the opinions of the doctors and experts than the popular suspicions, which are based on little to no evidence. That is, however, not the point. It is sad that the people would always jump to conclusions when things like this happen. He wrote that the government has been so opaque with its operations in the past that it is making simple and straightforward matters seem shady. The government should reflect upon the reason why it has lost the trust of its people. Han Han once again eloquently expressed his opinion, which is certainly not anything ultra progressive or uncommon, logically and convincingly.
Well, if we examine the other party in Han Han's story, the conclusion is people like the truth that makes most sense and entails most drama. Our judgment is often clouded by our emotions and prejudice. To make my point brief, Peter Hessler is not one who is clouded by the popular conceptions and prejudice of what China is. He writes with beautiful fluidity and honest language. He is certainly one of the most inspiring figures of mine.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Green Mushroom.
Yesterday I bought a green mushroom plush at Morning Glory. The Super Mario Brothers' green mushroom collectible. I bought it because 1) it was 50% off; 2) I've always wanted it. Actually, I first bought a red Mario plush. But I realized what I really wanted was the slightly more expensive mushroom, so I returned the Mario and purchased the mushroom.
Anyway, the point was I felt freakishly happy after I bought the mushroom. Normally I consider buying stuffed toys as retarded. It's not "cool." It's not something that nineteen-year-olds do. But then I thought--who cares--I like Super Mario Brothers, and I like mushroom. This is something that defines the quirkiness of me. I am childish, and I am proud.
Anyway, the point was I felt freakishly happy after I bought the mushroom. Normally I consider buying stuffed toys as retarded. It's not "cool." It's not something that nineteen-year-olds do. But then I thought--who cares--I like Super Mario Brothers, and I like mushroom. This is something that defines the quirkiness of me. I am childish, and I am proud.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Reality check.
Barnard--and just NYC in general--really has a way of getting to you. The pea coats, the boots, the makeup (which I don't do because I don't know how)--in a population as diverse as the one in Barnard/New York, these are the things that girls from all different cultures share. I certainly do not object to this new and higher level of aesthetic awareness; I expected it and looked for it. Besides, this isn't even the point. I just don't know if NYC/Barnard is bringing me happiness at all. I'm not miserable. I'm quite happy with spending most of the time by myself doing things I particularly like without outside influence. I just feel like I can't connect with the campus or the people on the campus and something that should give me the deep satisfaction of a college life is seriously missing in action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)