l'il mni and the big, bad class war part II

l'il mni and the big, bad class war part II
Topic started by neembu on Mar 30, 2008 7:48:45 am
Dearest Readers,

For years we have seen anon multinics with the talent of Jerry's kids (reference: Jerry Lewis) at a decathalon whine that neembu does not write her own copy. Why, they opine with the pungency of month old milk, does neembu not entertain and educate us with her own thoughts. To this neembu says, because it makes no difference-you can lead an anon multinic to a thought process, but you can't make it think.

Case in point is l'il mni's chocolate died sponge cake response to my post deconstructing his attempted hit and run on my Cary Tennis thread. When confronted with the fairly obvious fact that the American higher learning system has a history that dates back over at least 300 years (not counting the framing principles of the Enlightenment which is founded on the immeasurable scholarship of African and Middle Eastern civillization), l'il mni writes:

"I am not interested in the 200 year history of higher education in the US. I am interested in now."

Reader, once we have recovered from the sheer stupidity of this line of argument, we are left to wonder, what classist notions might benefit from such acontextualization?

L'il mni backtracks a bit, realizing that his opening statement is basically indefensible and admits:

"Historically, yes, higher education was meant to pass priviledge from one class to another. To some extent, that trend continues today."

Dearest daughter of Plato, have we located the contradiction of l'il mni's first statement and this latter notion? For the ukps in the audience, let me draw a diagram:

1. One cannot claim that they are disinterested in the historical process performed in forming a structure that is in action today and also claim that they are only interested in today's reality. This is akin to claiming that one cares about poverty but not the factors and processes that create poverty.

L'il mni opines on popular notions the functions of higher education by writing the following:

" An undergraduate or professional degree is seen by many as a "door-opener" than a quality intellectual experience.", which fulfills his odds of contributing at least one reasonable statement out of a slew of idiotic ones.

One of the contemporary debates in play in Humanities academe is the role of the Humanities in Liberal Arts and Professional Studies degrees. As the higher education system has experienced the encroachment of corporate interests and values, higher education adminstrations and faculty report that students are increasingly viewing their college degrees not as an introduction and foundational training in life long inquiry (the hallmark of the scholar), but as classes one purchases to get a degree that the student uses as an "admittance" ticket to the corporate job amusement park. Not her/his career, the fascinating intellectual and ethical responsibilities inherent in her/his labor, but the beginning of a corporate life and the materialism and social status that should result.

Li'l mni YET AGAIN ignores my argument that higher education scholars in non ivy league academe are interested in BOTH:

1. providing the necessary disciplinary/interdisciplinary education, practices and processes of analysis within

2. the reflective and knowledge making framework of the Humanities. No doubt Mengele's descendants will find management positions in multinational corporations. The argument behind the Humanities framework is at least he will be able to reason as to whether the results of his engineering are ethical and serving a long time positive vision. And at state school tuition.

When lil mni writes:
"But you completely reject the idea that the highly ranked universities, in general, might actually impart a better education as well, even if at the same time they seem to contribute towards a class stratification in society. "

I find myself having to pose a question along the lines of the philosophical ideas posted in the previous paragraphs. I don't necessarily believe an "ivy league education" is better-merely better funded. Information is information, and most of the scholars and artists we acknowledge as brilliant did their work in ghettos, pinds, gulags, their attics and garrets. They didnt have Montesanto or an overpriced writing program wiping their backsides while they completed their programs.

Having said that, does l'il mni find it excusable that the same brilliant child has a better chance of going to an ivy league if s/he is born to a wealthy fam with connections, than one who is not?

Does l'il mni think that there is a deeply disturbing contradiction in a higher education system that mouths platitudes about the democratizing dynamic of an education while supporting brand name schools that plop out graduates who will be chosen by govts, corporations, etc. over a state school grad because of the prestige wrongly attached to that degree?

This may be too challenging for l'il mni to countenance, so let's move to the next point.

L'il mni writes:

" then In my field at least, it matters if you go to MIT or Appalachian State. It matters on objective grounds. I am sure it matters in your field as well. You are just too dishonest to acknowledge it."

And we go back to the Cary Tennis column. To whom does it matter, l'il mni and why? and should it matter? Do you support class war, l'il mni? Because unless you acknowledge that buying into your notions of MIT or Appalachia State, you are participating in class war.

L'il mni has the decency to copy paste a previous line of argument I had posted to him yesterday. It reads thusly:
"At our college, the only doctorate program available for working class students and which has enrolled and graduated several brilliant students was denied federal funding for the next few years. Would it be cynical to observe that “our students” are meant for fighting for oil and not their own educations? Do you think that class war does not exist every day in the lives of million of ordinary people? Shame on you for you ridiculous b*, l'il mni. "


He responds with:

"Wait, what kind of students are enrolled otherwise? Are you telling me that Lehman College is reserved for aristocrats? Listen: I went to a graduate program too. And trust me, there was not one guy who came from a background of priviledge. Many were working class."

Why does l'il mni argue with people about the facts of their fields? MY workplace (which he as a typical, cowardly bullshit artist posts without disclosing his own) enrolls students who fall into the range of poverty line to affluent. Middle class IS a privillege. A degree IS a privillege, even if you have to work full time, be a spouse, a parent and a community member as well as a student who has to maintain at least a B average.

L'il mni continues:

"If you are trying to say that graduate programs in arts and sciences (law schools, business schools are another matter) are hostile to working class people to the extent that you need separate programs for them, you need to get your head examined..."

Daughters of Plato, observe the inconsistancies of l'il mni's argument. First of all, l'il mni is trying to throw in a comment so stupid it must be a desperate red herring. But for sake of insulting l'il mni, I'll add the following: The first is that Liberal Arts and Science ivy league schools have open admissions policies for their grad programs-the arrogance of this notion is typically jack* engineering student. The second is that while our higher education system may have points of entry, the SHEER EXIGENCIES of students from working class fams make it difficult. I invite l'il mni to take his frou frou cup of coffee and hang out on high school and college campuses that have predominantly working class student bodies and say hello to the ROTC recruitment officers. I invite l'il mni to offer to pay for those grad degree tuitions, child care, housing, food, hospital bills, etc.

Open the draft for the middle and upper classes. Then let's talk "class war".