The general decline in standards today

[Edward]

It is an old custom to use titles like "General" "Captain" "Professor" "Judge" or "President" as a mark of respect even after the holder retires, or goes into another line of work.

A curious example. Mark Twain visited Austria in the 1890s and wrote about a political crisis then unfolding. He noticed that many of the Members of the House of Representatives were addressed as "Herr Professor". He wondered if this was a courtesy title, like "Colonel" in the southern US, but was assured that no, the men actually were professors and had earned their doctorates before going into politics.

Here in the UK, the title of "Doctor" for medical doctors is an honorific: their academic qualifications are actually two bachelor's degrees, neither a PhD (or equivalent). Hence arunning joke which some doctors indulge around academics about it being "nice to meet a real doctor".

Achtung, Minen!
Once upon a time -- obviously way before my time -- having a college education actually meant something. Sadly, in the last thirty or forty years college has proven that it is quite possible to come out of it dumber than when you went in.

Oddly enough, that's a view I only ever hear being advanced by those who did not have the experience of a college education. Like anything else, you get out of it what you put in.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Just to be clear, my comment that Bro. Brunswick was responding to wasn't a comment on college education per se. It was a comment on the utter corruption that's been rampant in the Harvard Economics department over the past few decades. The fact that Larry Summers today walks the street free and unmolested is a sad comment on the dissipated moral fiber of the American people.

 

[sheeplady]

pol·i·tics

noun (plural) /ˈpäləˌtiks/ 
politics, plural

The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power

The activities of governments concerning the political relations between countries


Anyway, I don't make or enforce the rules, just would hate to see this thread get shut down.

We'll have to disagree then. I feel very strongly that discussing mass murder (and genocide) is not political talk. I don't consider the systematic rounding up of political dissents or people of certain ethnic groups in today's world any different than major ethnic and dissent cleansing we've seen throughout history- no matter how much smaller some might consider the tragedy/ horror to be than some of the events of the 20th century. But I can see where a person could disagree and see this as political talk or not see the separate events as comparable. (There are even some who would state that some of the largest examples of this- such as the Holocaust itself- didn't happen and would see the discussion of these events in any way as politically charged. I have to admit, I find Holocaust deniers to be extremely distasteful and racist, to put it mildly.**)

But I'm not going to argue my point into the ground. Moderators can go ahead and remove my posts if they like, they are always free to do so. I too would hate to see the thread get shut down, I'll agree on that.

** I am in no way suggesting that anyone here is a Holocaust denier. I only use that as an example to show how there is an extreme diversity in what people would consider political, and that there are a few really crazy people out there as well. But if you ever read one of these people's rants, or have the unfortunate experience of meeting them, I suggest you *run.*

 

[sheeplady]

Hi

I agree. I didn't mean to include the average or even above average Harvard grad in the "brightest and best" category. Ever read Rich Dad, Poor Dad? Story of a kid whose professor (real Dad) made little money and his Rich Dad (best friend's Dad) knew how to make and keep money.

Later

I've never read it, but academia (the professoriate) is hardly the place to go seeking money. In most fields, you can make 3-10X with a M.S. or M.B.A. what you can make with a doctorate. This is why most doctorates are "free" in trade for work for the institution. People who go into academia have a different calling than those who choose industry- not a better calling- just a different one. And the plain truth is we need the researchers and the practitioners- and we need them to work together- even more so now that industry has slashed their research budgets.

 

[vitanola]

Everything can indeed be construed as political.

My hometown community theater has been embroiled in controversy of late, as they have been accused of
pushing a liberal political agenda in their choice of shows these last two seasons. The problematic plays being
"The Diary of Anne Frank", " The Sound of Music", and "My Fair Lady".

I suggested that, as they were independently endowed, and since it appears that plays by or based on Shaw are trouble
because he was a Fabian, and plays which portray Nazis in a poor light are considered outré, they should go whole hog, and
do a REAL season of music and drama. Start out with a children's production of "Der Jasager" ("He Who Says Yes"), move
on to "The Cradle Will Rock", "Working", and close the season with "The Threepenny Opera".

 

[Flicka]

Hi

I agree. I didn't mean to include the average or even above average Harvard grad in the "brightest and best" category. Ever read Rich Dad, Poor Dad? Story of a kid whose professor (real Dad) made little money and his Rich Dad (best friend's Dad) knew how to make and keep money.

Later

This touches on something I would see as a sign of declining standards -- the idea that money is somehow the only worthwhile thing to struggle for, or indeed that money is the proper way to measure success.

I have deep respect for excellence. Money? Like Dorothy Parker said; if you want to know what God thinks of money, you only have to look at the people he's given it too...

 

[jamespowers]

This touches on something I would see as a sign of declining standards -- the idea that money is somehow the only worthwhile thing to struggle for, or indeed that money is the proper way to measure success.

I have deep respect for excellence. Money? Like Dorothy Parker said; if you want to know what God thinks of money, you only have to look at the people he's given it too...

God doesn't hand out money---maybe looks but not money. :rofl:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The idea of declining standards, rather than simply changing standards, always reminds me of E. M. Forster's novels. In particular the beginning of A Room With a View and the fraught relationship between the Emerson's and Charlotte Bartlett. After the room swap:

I would of course have given the larger room to you. But I happen to know it was the Young Man's. In my small way I'm a woman of the world, and I know what things can lead to.

Some folks think new standards are horrid. many of us find many of the "old" standards utterly ridiculous, as Forster so forcefully put forth in his novels.

 

[Flicka]

The idea of declining standards, rather than simply changing standards, always reminds me of E. M. Forster's novels. In particular the beginning of A Room With a View and the fraught relationship between the Emerson's and Charlotte Bartlett. After the room swap:

I would of course have given the larger room to you. But I happen to know it was the Young Man's. In my small way I'm a woman of the world, and I know what things can lead to.

Some folks think new standards are horrid. many of us find many of the "old" standards utterly ridiculous, as Forster so forcefully put forth in his novels.

She had a dirty mind, Cousin Charlotte. Not even I can imagine what might come of it and I'm pretty imaginative.

But you have to hand it to the Victorians and Edwardians - they had standards. Lots of them. Double standards, even.

 

[William Stratford]

Why do people look at historic fiction (from authors who inevitably had agendas of their own) as somehow documentary evidence of the past? That is like people 100 years from now assuming that Eastenders or Jersey Shore somehow reflect the life of the majority of people (or that Shakespeare did not write politically biased episodes favouring his own patrons).

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Why would one imagine that fiction written in a previous era had no bearing at all to the realities of that era? My point really was that Forster (and others) were discussing the absurdities of their reality, and commenting on the changing attitudes of the time, and that I see similarities. I in no way suggest that an author is describing anything as evidence of a real situation, but certainly it must reflect reality as he saw it? Especially for such biting, visceral satire as Forster wrote?

(My example of Forster is not entirely coincidental. I was torn between him and Hector Munro, but thought Forster better illustrated my point.)

bk

 

[William Stratford]

Why would one imagine that fiction written in a previous era had no bearing at all to the realities of that era?

I do not recall saying that it has "no bearing at all". I simply questioned the way that people accept it as somehow representative of the past. It is not a question of whether it reflects reality, but of how much of reality it reflects.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It surely reflects a discussion that was ongoing at the time. A discussion that seems to have centred around "the youth of today" and the "decline of standards". Sounds familiar? Indeed, there was undoubtedly an old guard who thought that such "decline in standards" was evidence of the end of society as they knew it.

Funnily enough, society didn't end. "Standards" changed, people got on with their lives, and were as "moral" and debauched, sober hardworking and feckless as they were before and we are today. One of the things I love about literature is that it remains relevant. Times change, and we get more gadgets, but the same basic moral quandaries arise time and again. Time and again we have people bemoaning the loss of "standards", and they can surely point to egregious examples to shock and titillate (this is where, currently, The Daily Mail has positioned itself, and to a lesser extent The Daily Express - if the story includes Princess Diana), but people remain people. Our cares and worries remain the same. Whatever spurious "standards" have been lost, nothing much changes.

bk

 

[Flicka]

Fiction is a source of information about the past. Historians use it, but naturally with the same caution as they approach any document.

So, to be specific: do you mean that Charlotte's statement is not "somehow representative of the past"? I think most scholars would disagree, but I'd be curious to see what you base your opinion on?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

but people remain people. Our cares and worries remain the same. bk

We have new worries as the world has never been so interconnected and reliant upon electricity, the internet, etc. We've never been so vulnerable to a global collapse. We now have genetically modified organisms aka GMOs or "food" that are forever changing our food supply and ecosystems in negative and unknown ways. Not too long ago the standard for food was food. As far as people remaining people, there are billions more of us today which surely has an impact on the consequences of bad behavior.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, the decline in the standards of food we can all expect come the great collapse (it is inevitable, I think) may be a cause for worry. However, we may all just start growing our own again, which might be a welcome return to a standard of the past.

I was talking about fundamental worries, though - life, death, relationships (see signature), which seem to me to transcend time, social and national boundaries. The real universal human worries so well enshrined in your declaration of independence, constitution and bill of rights.

bk

p.s. Is your signature your own words, or a quote. Very good!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I suggested that, as they were independently endowed, and since it appears that plays by or based on Shaw are trouble
because he was a Fabian, and plays which portray Nazis in a poor light are considered outré, they should go whole hog, and
do a REAL season of music and drama. Start out with a children's production of "Der Jasager" ("He Who Says Yes"), move
on to "The Cradle Will Rock", "Working", and close the season with "The Threepenny Opera".

Throw in "Waiting For Lefty" and I'll buy a season ticket.

 

[William Stratford]

Fiction is a source of information about the past. Historians use it, but naturally with the same caution as they approach any document.

It is, and they do. Not everyone uses such caution though, and all too often will use a quote from literature as somehow a meaningful description of "the past" in a generalised sense when in fact all literature is written with an agenda in mind.

So, to be specific: do you mean that Charlotte's statement is not "somehow representative of the past"? I think most scholars would disagree, but I'd be curious to see what you base your opinion on?

As I said before, it is not a question of whether it reflects reality, but of how much of reality it reflects. I tend not to base my opinions of the past on literature, as all literature is written with a political agenda in mind, but find more informative sources in diaries, personal letters, the popularity of artifacts and through well-researched non-fiction texts (which tend to have less of an agenda (although are never without such)).

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Yes, the decline in the standards of food we can all expect come the great collapse (it is inevitable, I think) may be a cause for worry. However, we may all just start growing our own again, which might be a welcome return to a standard of the past.

I was talking about fundamental worries, though - life, death, relationships (see signature), which seem to me to transcend time, social and national boundaries. The real universal human worries so well enshrined in your declaration of independence, constitution and bill of rights.

bk

p.s. Is your signature your own words, or a quote. Very good!

Thanks- my own words earlier in the forum that I made into my sig.

 

[Edward]

Just to be clear, my comment that Bro. Brunswick was responding to wasn't a comment on college education per se. It was a comment on the utter corruption that's been rampant in the Harvard Economics department over the past few decades. The fact that Larry Summers today walks the street free and unmolested is a sad comment on the dissipated moral fiber of the American people.

I have no insight into that particular institution, so I can't comment on that. I am, however, rather oversensitive (on a moral, rather than personal-professional) level to the populist, tawdry cynicism towards academia, which has become so popular nowadays (ironically very often among those who are the first to resort to cries of 'class war' in an attempt to discredit discussion in other areas). Good to know I may have been too quick off the mark here.

I've never read it, but academia (the professoriate) is hardly the place to go seeking money. In most fields, you can make 3-10X with a M.S. or M.B.A. what you can make with a doctorate. This is why most doctorates are "free" in trade for work for the institution. People who go into academia have a different calling than those who choose industry- not a better calling- just a different one. And the plain truth is we need the researchers and the practitioners- and we need them to work together- even more so now that industry has slashed their research budgets.

As I freely advise my students when they come to me looking for career advice: you don't go into academia for the money. It's one of the most rewarding jobs in the world, but not for the money. Very much a lifestyle choice.

This touches on something I would see as a sign of declining standards -- the idea that money is somehow the only worthwhile thing to struggle for, or indeed that money is the proper way to measure success.

I have deep respect for excellence. Money? Like Dorothy Parker said; if you want to know what God thinks of money, you only have to look at the people he's given it too...

Quite. One of the most truly disheartening things in my career has been seeing how successive government policies have made it ever more expensive to go to university, to the point where not only are some closed out because they simply cannot afford it: others are actively choosing not to go because they don't see it adding to their pay packet at the end. Naturally, it is understandable given the debts it now incurs that this will be so, but to see the true value of a tertiary education so compromised, so held in such contempt that it means nothing other than "will it get me a better paying job" is truly heartbreaking.

She had a dirty mind, Cousin Charlotte. Not even I can imagine what might come of it and I'm pretty imaginative.

But you have to hand it to the Victorians and Edwardians - they had standards. Lots of them. Double standards, even.

Oh yes. On balance, I much prefer an honest society of lower standards over one that is utterly two-faced about the same lack of standards.