Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

University is mainly terrible because of what it implies 'intelligence' is Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It is my view that university academia is mainly terrible to society and some of its students because of what it implies 'intelligence' is.

    There is no doubt that sometimes some highly entertaining writers are educated in this way. But it is my view that they would have almost certainly have developed the intellectual faculties to deal with university from a much earlier age.

    It remains a heartbreaking stigma for some extremely clever people - geniuses even in some of the entertainment fields- that they never went to university, because of the 'seal of approval' of cleverness that it would have supposedly conferred on already clearly talented people. For university is unfairly synonomous with intelligence nowadays.

    What do we , perhaps biasedly, regard as intelligence?
    Some universities might downplay intelligence. After all , you can be very intelligent in your own right yet lazy in learning about other people's intelligences. Universities want you to learn about other people's intelligences (n.b famous people and, of those, only those who have, somewhat arbritarily, been rubberstamped by 'academia' as 'required reading') and, if you don't want to do that, for your own health, sanity and even prosperity you might be better forging your own path rather than going to university, no matter whether you're innately cleverer than most people at university or not.

    There are many types of intelligence. Large amounts of artistic intelligence have historically been appallingly treated by academia, treated as ephemeral entertainment that is merely a distraction for the masses rather than any of it being worthy of insightful study or preservation. Some 'ideas people' can't bear that they are not particularly original in their own right but more like the conglomeration of many other people's ideas. They make lifelong careers out of hiding behind work by carefully selected people and disdainfully mocking what is fresh (and therefore, to them, untested), what is innocent (and therefore, to them, easily malleable rather than respected in its own right as a kind of lifestyle choice), what is emotional (and therefore, to them, theatrical - something that might be studied as a curiousity but not to be regarded as an epicentre of its own intellectual processes and critical thinking in its own right).

    Thus, academia chooses what it wants to put under the microscope, under whatever subject, and treats society as its guineau pig subjects rather than as willing participants who have intellectual views in their own right.
    It is in the interests of academia, having laboriously educated itself in the 'official' way, to preserve its status in this way.

    Academia is clumsy, and overtly sociological rather than personal, when it attempts to understand popular culture - rock and roll, Hollywood films, comic books etc of all kinds. In being generally absent from discourse on such matters, it leaves the cesspool of gossip magazine journalism to give future generations an account. Does academia in general merely have a populism envy or is it something deeper - that it is inherently racist about American culture and pettily misunderstanding or envious about certain strands of entrepreunarial activity in general.

    And what does that say about how thinking yourself intelligent can make you exactly as narrow minded as some of the lumpen masses, who at least may have never pretended to be anything more than they are?

    It has long been a consideration of some despair to me that the academics, some of only ordinary talent, who inhabit some of our most beautiful university buildings will long be remembered after the nameless people who designed these beautiful edifices and who may have been geniuses in their own right.

    Universities are gilded cages for professors of mostly well funded learning at an early age (who benefitted even more after the abolition of grammar schools) who may be there by a more or less unavoidable course set out for them by their parents rather than by any special enlightenment about their subject.

    If you're of relatively working class stock, my advice would be think twice about some universities because the sense of complacent 'born to here'-ness of them will make you quietly die.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    TL;DR
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That is extremely difficult to read...

    Is there is a structure to your argument?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TL;DR

    I think someone clearly didn't get their first choice
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mother_Russia)
    That is extremely difficult to read...

    Is there is a structure to your argument?
    Structure to an argument would be far too academic. He is showing rebellion against the university system by refusing to conform to their methods!

    Fight on, brave revolutionary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, okay, I understand some creative careers don't need university, if that's a point of yours. I don't think university is 'terrible' though; it is true that they require intelligence in a black-and-white way, I guess, but there isn't really a way to discriminate other than 'A' levels. Also, I don't think it's that bad that they all look at a certain set of writers that they think is good - while it would allow more expression and show individual tastes if students were to choose themselves (is that what you're saying? I didn't really understand), it is easier to look at a set list of generally approved-of writers.

    I'm not really sure what you want us to say, but that's my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Riiiiight. University is not about showing "who's clever than who". Its about teaching people valuable skills that can translate over to a relevant career. Those studying a degree in Medicine or Engineering or Law for example need to learn exactly what's in their textbooks in order to succeed in their careers. You sound bitter tbh
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by combbrah)
    Riiiiight. University is not about showing "who's clever than who". Its about teaching people valuable skills that can translate over to a relevant career. Those studying a degree in Medicine or Engineering or Law for example need to learn exactly what's in their textbooks in order to succeed in their careers. You sound bitter tbh
    He does, doesn't he?
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.