As someone with a philosophy degree and many years of formal training in classical music, I give this piece a hearty thumbs up.<p>While the author clearly values the liberal arts (um, it's McSweeney's), there's something to be said for actually getting things done in the world. A lot, actually.<p>What the author is parodying is less the degree itself but more the miles wide and inches deep approach to education and life that many intelligent people are fond of taking.<p>I've been guilty of this, and satire is usually born of familiarity, so I assume the author has been as well. The point is, recognize that pursuit of education as amusement and status symbol is a hobby done for you and none other, and if you want to make some kind of impact outside of your own head, you're going to either have to get deeper and more focused or get more pragmatic.
The term liberal arts denotes a curriculum that imparts general knowledge and develops the student’s rational thought and intellectual capabilities, unlike the professional, vocational, technical curricula emphasizing specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science. In classical antiquity, the liberal arts denoted the education proper to a free man (Latin: liberus, “free”), unlike the education proper to a slave.
The less polite original title: "<i>The Only Thing That Can Stop This Asteroid Is Your Liberal Arts Degree</i>".<p>Unfair since plenty of those with liberal arts degrees contribute to society in a way we geeks value, but still amusing.
Ah, Grinnell, alma mater of Robert Noyce.<p>Actually, I'm not sure what the point is. The fantasies with which underemployed recent BAs make the 40 hours pass? A take-off on the brand of thriller in which Joe Normal gets sucked into international (or interplanetary) intrigue and danger? Revenge for the balderdash the author was forced to write last year?<p>But wasn't the lead in _The Eiger Sanction_ an art history professor who did CIA hits in the off-season to support his Picasso habit? Yeah, Clint Eastwood's a bit long in the tooth, but I'd back him against Bruce Willis for asteroid destruction any day of the week. (Cf. _Space Cowboys_<liberal arts mode>, another profound exploration of the human spirit</liberal arts mode>.)
I'd just like to point out that Harvey Mudd College is a liberal arts college. As is Pomona College, where I got my (BA) degree in Computer Science.<p>So, yeah, the post is funny, but some of us have both a liberal arts degree and an ability to do utilitarian things.
There's a flaw in assuming that an undergraduate liberal arts education is terminal. For instance, "between 1986 and 1995, more people earning PhD degrees in the earth sciences graduated from Carleton (50) than any other four-year college."<p>And that's from a tiny liberal arts school with a total population of ~2,000 students.
The real issue is the separation of Arts from Science. The best artists are scientists and the best scientists are artists. Was Da Vinci any more into liberal arts than science.<p>Anyone who specialises in a single viewpoint and is unable to compromise probably isn't a candidate for saving the earth.
Way too many people taking this far too seriously as an attack on liberal arts. It's just absurd humor and could be flipped for equally funny effect - some movie astronaut/action hero in a tense meeting of academics who all consider his input weirdly vital.
What are the odds of actually stopping an asteroid? I suspect that asteroids small enough to be escaped by evacuation wouldn't be detected soon enough, and I highly doubt if we could do anything to divert or destroy a larger asteroid.
Few things are more tedious than reading science majors endlessly, smugly belittle arts subjects. "Oh ho ho, something I don't understand and haven't done and probably couldn't do, they must be idiots, let's constantly mock them". I saw quite enough of that on slashdot so was very disappointed to see this sort of bilge get so many upvotes here. Thankfully some of the comments, at least, show a more nuanced grasp of reality.
Do we really need physicists? What have they done apart from give us ever increasing ways of destroying ourselves. Has quantum theory brought happiness to the world? Love? Peace? Has it helped you feel more connected to your neighbours, to the person on the bus or tube? Has it had any meaningful positive effect at all on the human condition?<p>Or is it and its ilk of science degrees merely a relentless march to the day that the whole world disappears in one of two ways, self-annihilation or self-exile in VR?<p>And even if we survive somehow, what about once the relentless march of science is over, when there are no more secrets to uncover? What next? Is that the end of meaningful life as this author thinks?<p>Or is there perhaps something more to life than finding the next equation? Perhaps we will put aside the toys of technology and start reflecting on ourselves.<p>Maybe by doing a liberal arts degree.