Humanities education in America is facing a crisis at the highest levels, writes The New Republic, as job prospects dwindle and graduate researchers multiply. “Efforts to create new forms of general education foundered because general education was aimed at preparing students for the world outside the academic walls. Nestled in their disciplinary armor, the professors–the descendants of those late-nineteenth-century reformers who created the university in the first place–distrusted, and resisted, the idea of training people for practical affairs. Interdisciplinarity hit its natural limits fairly soon. Administrators often liked interdisciplinary programs, since they sounded exciting, and staff could sometimes be appointed without deferring to departmental power, and they were cheap–but for the most part, though, the disciplines remained intact and in charge, and interdisciplinarity actually reinforced their authority. In theory, as Menand shows in a fine bit of academic comedy, interdisciplinary courses meant enabling two people from different disciplines to teach together: this would lead to productive collisions, which would in turn show faculty and students the limits of their perspectives. But in practice the faculty tended to go awry with highly idiosyncratic versions of their colleagues’ disciplines, while their students sank into paralytic bewilderment.”
This technological feat changes our cosmic history.
Women have made incredible gains into STEM fields, but they continue to face gender biases in the workplace.
While text-generating AI can be very useful in some applications, it generates pseudo-profound bullshit — that is, content that sounds good to humans but whose truth value is unknown.
An inclusion expert explains why women of color are held back.
While most participants fibbed a little bit, laptop users were much more likely to lie – and by a lot more.