This is literally the mirror-image of the STEMlord anti-humanities arguments, and it's a silly argument in either direction. Both STEM and the humanities are academically rigorous and contribute great value to a student's education--that's why the best schools have so many gen-ed requirements.

STEM and the humanities would do much better uniting against their common foes in academia: administrators and athletics.

[–] turtlegreen@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I'd like to think I'm being a little bit more nuanced than that. My complaint is not about any field of study or pursuit - they're each great on their own - but about bringing together these very different things under one roof. The reasons why and consequences of.

If this was a mirrored anti-STEM hit then I would be criticizing myself with these statements. I'm not.

Traditionally universities were not vocational schools. They managed well enough for a long time, and they didn't stand as an impediment to society. Then capitalism came and exploited it and now engineers, artists, and diplomats alike have to deal with the consequences (which often means competing against other). My argument is that we should simply reverse the exploitation - of the trades, of the universities, of the students, and of access to careers.

If we're to go after the admins and loan servicers etc., I don't see why we should normalize the abuses they did to the system. There's really no point in going after the admins unless we're aiming for systemic changes imo.

As for my comments on "intellectual," it's not like someone has to be intellectual to be a good person or that it's really even that great of a quality. But since that is one of the arguments STEMlords like to make to belittle others, I think it is relevant to point out how training for a career in an applied science is not, all things considered, an especially rigorous intellectual pursuit. Which is fine because it is a horrible criteria to judge anyone by anyway.