Heinlein says I'm not a competent human?

[cellio]

I got this from filkerdave:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. --Robert Heinlein

Let's see:

Change a diaper: I possess the theoretical knowledge. It would have to be really, really important before you'd get proof, though.

Plan an invasion: Sure, though I don't know how good the plan would be. But all that gaming experience has to be good for something, right? :-)

Butcher a hog: Nope, and not looking to change that.

Conn a ship: Nope.

Design a building: At what level of detail? I've helped specify one but didn't draw up the engineering diagrams, nor would I have had the right clues for materials requirements.

Write a sonnet: Not without a rules refresher. Maybe not even then. Now music, on the other hand...

Balance accounts: Yup.

Build a wall: For a suitably basic wall, yeah.

Set a bone: No one's ever asked me to and my first-aid card has expired, so I'll call that a "no".

Comfort the dying: I think so, though I'm pretty uncomfortable with it. (Aren't we all?) Ask again after the first session of the para-rabbinic program in a few weeks.

Take orders: Absolutely, but I have to believe the order-giver is in a position to do so.

Give orders: Yup, when necessary. The hardest part is establishing authority.

Cooperate: I like to think so.

Act alone: Frequently and I've been praised for the results, so yes.

Solve equations: Sure. I was doing that long before I was "supposed" to be. Mind, my knowledge of higher math (differential equations etc) is weak, but you didn't specify the domain. I grok algebra, basic calculus, and just plain logic.

Analyze a new problem: Don't we all? But yeah, I think I'm better than average at this.

Pitch manure: Um, I gather this involves more than applying first vertical and then lateral and then vertical motion to a shovel? Then I guess not. :-)

Program a computer: Yup.

Cook a tasty meal: Past guests have said so.

Fight efficiently: Probably. Martial arts and the real thing are pretty different, so I can't say for sure. And note that he said "efficiently", not necessarily "well". :-)

Die gallantly: If I say "no", does that get me off the hook for proving it? :-)

Comments

Re: MIT

[siderea]

How'd things get so far down that path to begin with, then?

It is much muttered that this, and many other things which are equally reviled, are a result of hiring non-scientists/non-engineers for administrative posts. They started hiring the leadership based on leadership experience at other institutions, instead of promoting from within the faculty, and apparently no differentiation was made between leadership experience in similarly technical institutions, and leadership at any old university.

So the joint is being run by people who do not get the culture and/or the mission, and are doing everything they can to normalize those things to what they're used to at more traditional universities.

The word "friction" does not begin to cover it.

I've heard it said that MIT's level of alumni giving is the lowest per capita for any school of its class. The joke is "Did you just hear what the MIT administration did this time?! Ooh, it makes me so mad! If I were giving them money I'd stop!"

I'm going to stop here before I launch into even more of a rant. It makes me so mad. If I were giving them money....

Re: MIT

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

MIT produces specialists. That's what it does, and that's what it's for. It does not think its job is to broaden its students minds.

My problem is the elitism that this fosters. The "I choose to do only this one particular thing" tends to promote the equally repugnant and useless response of, "So what good are you otherwise?" Thus exacerbating the "us vs. them" attitude on both sides.

Personally, I'm glad there are specialists, but its probably more important to have generalists who know when, where and how to use specialists to the greatest advantage.

Re: MIT

[gregbo.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's just a biased small sample, but quite a few people on mitmit who are currently MIT students or recent graduates seem
to like their humanities courses. Several of them are concentrating in
music, and some of them seem to have considerable talent.

Re: MIT

[siderea]

I am a musician who MIT and found the music classes excellent.

That does not mean I appreciated being required to take them, or being required to go through the whole HASS-D "pick one from column A or B" hokey pokey. That does not mean I did not resent the academic and schedule burden, not to mention the high-handedness of presuming to dictate that I must "broaden" myself.

I don't think I'm the only one to make this distinction.

And the fact that I, or anyone else, enjoyed a class does not (1) justify its being required -- presumably degree requirements should have educational bases and (2) does not mean anyone else would enjoy the class. Presumably there are people at MIT who enjoy studying French; does that mean all MIT undergrads should be required to take French to graduate?

Re: MIT

[gregbo.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised by your response. I checked the HASS pages, and the requirements for distribution and concentration aren't much different from when I was a student (class of 1984). There's a lottery now, which I imagine must give some students grief, especially if they waited until their senior year to fulfill requirements. There also seems to be a class size limit, but I suppose this is to prevent some subjects from being overenrolled. Except for 9.00 (intro to psychology), my humanities classes were generally small. I concentrated in creative writing, and there were usually no more than ten people in my classes.

What do you think are appropriate humanities requirements?