This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College (NYMag)
link-archive link
Article describing what was predictably coming to college campuses since GPT3 got released. The narration follows some particularly annoying Korean-American student trying to make quick bucks from LLM-cheating start-ups and a rather dumb girl who can't follow basic reasoning, which makes the read a bit aggravating and amusing but overall the arch is not surprising. Recommended for a quick read. Basically all the grunt work of writing essays and the intro level classes with lots of rote assignments seem to be totally destroyed by cheap and easy high quality LLM output.
Some interesting highlights for me:
You mean like Oxford and Cambridge were doing back when Roger Bacon and Duns Scotus were alive and never stopped? The lindiest thing ever to lindy (apart from death, taxes, and revivalist movements calling out decadence and corruption in the Cathedral)?
Yes. I believe if you do a proper classics study in those unis even today the experience isn’t that far off according to a friend who did so a while ago. One of the most inspirational uni life stories I have ever come across is Bismarck’s actually. 3.5 years of non-stop drinking and partying and sword dueling topped with insane half a year crunch to graduate. Great recipe to create great men.
What you can't do at Oxford or Cambridge any more is the broad-based curriculum that Roger Bacon would have recognised as a Liberal Arts education, or that the Ivies and SLACs still claim (partially falsely due to grade inflation) to be offering in the US. I don't know the history at Oxford, but at Cambridge the traditional Arts curriculum was grade-inflated into irrelevance by the first half of the nineteenth century, and by 1900 honours degrees (which began life as additional specialist exams on top of the basic liberal arts curriculum for the most able students) were the only degrees offered.
PPE at Oxford and Natural Sciences at Cambridge aren’t far off, though.
Of course PPE is widely pilloried for leading to a superficial understanding. I don’t know if that means the curriculum is too broad or the testing too lenient.
NatSci is more specialised then it looks because there isn't enough time in the second year to stay broad if you want to qualify for a competitive specialised third year course. The vast majority of physicists took no courses for credit in the second year except maths, physics, and one scientific computing course that the Computer Science department helps teach but doesn't give its own students credit for. The vast majority of people who get onto a "proper" biological Part II (one that can lead to Masters' and PhD courses) either took all biology in the second year, or organic chemistry as their only non-biological course.
PPE is, by reputation, the easiest Oxford degree. I think this is another case of my underlying point that the closer you get to the classical/US idea of a liberal arts education the harder it gets to resist grade inflation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link