(no subject)

[ursula]

Tim Burke has some comments (on a New York Times article I have avoided reading) about the way liberal-arts schools sell choice which seem remarkably aware of the ways in which the liberal arts are genuinely elite.

My roommate for a summer Research Experience for Undergraduates several years ago was Hoa. At some point not very far into our acquaintance, she asked me, "There aren't very many Asian kids at your school, are there?" at which point I said, "Huh?" and she explained, "You seem to have trouble understanding my accent."

My small-elite-liberal-arts-college was full of Asian-American students; but it didn't have many students like Hoa, who had been in the U.S. all of two years, and had switched her major from teaching (in Vietnam) to mathematics (at a large East Coast state university). Hoa seemed to conclude that my school was horribly expensive; but of course it was too well-endowed to ask anything at all from someone like Hoa. The issue was more that nobody like her would have considered attending an institution focussed on writing and reading and being a better person. She was going to college-- and participating in a competitive math REU-- so she could get a good job when she was done.

That was the true luxury of Swarthmore: the luxury of getting an education, rather than a career. It was a class distinction, but not the distinction of pricetag; and I think that elitism was invisible to most of us.

Comments

[bloodorange.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about invisible; maybe lurking deep down somewhere, maybe depending upon one's course of study. Those of us who took classes with Marge Murphy were certainly reminded of this very luxury, in any case. I'd read the Times article when it came out and struggled over what to make of it (let's ignore the "three examples makes a trend" skepticism, anyway), and so I liked Tim Burke's piece a lot. It definitely put things into perspective for me--I mean, even though I don't plan to ever be a "full-time" mother with no career aspirations, running a printshop is just the same as being a stay-at-home mom in terms of "using my education." It's messed me up a little bit, maybe especially because the three other members of my family to have gone to elite colleges all have/had powerful and/or academic-field-related careers. All women, too. Sometimes I wonder if there's something else I should be doing with my education and my Intellectual Abilities, but somehow I think that satisfaction of selflessness won't hold a candle to practicing my craft well, practicing other, secondary crafts well (hopefully many involving yeast!), reading the Times in the morning and running around with my dogs. Or whatever.

Oh, I don't know why I'm going on like this in your comments. Something resonates with me, I guess. Don't mind me. I just haven't gotten some of this stuff out yet, anywhere else.

[ursula]

But what good is an education, if it needs a higher degree to activate it?

(And of course, like everyone else, I post to get comments; don't apologize.)

[bloodorange.livejournal.com]

Career-wise? Yep. Maybe I don't need a higher degree to do the work I want to do, but it'd help (say, if I wanted to teach a class here and there, or if I just wanted better credentials). This would, of course, not really be the case had I gone to art school, but art school is basically technical school anyway.

Jessica Todd Harper, naive WASPy Bryn Mawr rich girl at thirty, once told our photography class that the purpose of our education was to make our minds interesting places to spend the rest of our lives. I like this explanation.