Best Book I've Read This Year

My new intellectual crush has got to be Jonah Lehrer, author of Proust Was a Neuroscientist. The book provides a sweeping multi-disciplinary look at modern artists (visual, literature, even food) and how their art anticipated truths that would later be discovered by science or, in some cases, expressed a more whole truth than science is currently capable of. It sounds ambitious and difficult, but it's actually quite an easy read.

The reason I enjoyed the book so much is that this is the sort of cross-referenced education I wish we could all receive in school. I hated that, though taken in the same year, my American Lit course did not keep pace with my American History class, so that I lacked the full context in which these novels were created. In fact, history class, itself was a mess of silos. In World History, we marched forward in time through the traditional "western" history track of Greece to Rome to Renaissance to Reformation to America. Our textbook ignored the rich history of the Byzantine Empire in favor of the bleak Dark Ages and frequently had to circle back to suddenly explain things like "Who are these Ottomans?" and "What's been going on over in Japan all this time?"

But beyond the sheer pleasure of reading a book crafted by a mind knowledgeable enough to divine these previously overlooked connections, I also enjoyed reading it as a call to arms to bring science and humanities together. Lehrer doesn't state this goal until the final chapter, though he talked it up while promoting the book, including the On Point appearance that inspired me to go out and buy it. And it isn't a hard conclusion to come to on your own. As you read through the book and see how scientific advancements of the day inspired Middlemarch or how modern visual art inspired writers to seek the same abstractions in literature, it's not a far leap to wonder how much more quickly science could have arrived at the same conclusions, if only it were open to the influence of art.

I will admit that the Virgina Woolf chapter on the Emergent Self, the Ghost in our Machine, made me a bit uncomfortable. It's the first example where science has not yet proved the "truth" in the art, unless you count the possibility that science has proved that it can not prove that the Self (or soul or whatever you choose to call it, yourself) has a physical neurological correlate because it hasn't got one. But this is just an example of the whole point of the book. My discomfort arises because I was brought up to believe that if science can't prove it, it must not be real and this is exactly the attitude that closes the door on true cross-disciplinary collaboration. And maybe, as Lehrer points out in the Coda chapter, there are some things that science will never be able to help us know.

College may be Expensive, but it's Still Valuable

On this week's edition of Radio Boston, the topic was the (un)affordability of college. Many good points were raised, but one guest said a few things that really raised my hackles (unfortunately, I came in in the middle and didn't catch who it was).

First, he practically called a college degree irrelevant, citing the fact that so many Fortune 500 CEOs either never graduated from or never even attended college or university. This is such a misleading use of statistics. Sure, these exceptional men had the ambition and vision and intelligence to make tremendous successes of themselves without the aid of formal eductaion. However, this does not apply to most of us. Most people who do not attend or graduate from college earn about $30,000 a year, while Bachelors holders average around $50,000. And though a remarkably high percentage of these high-powered businessmen did not attain a college degree, a remarkably low percentage of those without a college education ever reach anywhere close to such heights of success.

Someone piped up about what a shame it was that trade school education was in decline, and I think this is another case entirely and often does hold more value than a liberal arts or university degree.

The second statement he made that I think is a lie, doing a disservice to a lot of young people, is that it doesn't matter if you attend a "name brand" school, that's just marketing hype. As the adage goes, it's not where you go, but what you do when you get there. Well, sort of. I think this is important to keep in mind in terms of gracefully accepting what you can't change, but it's only true to a point. Again, exceptional people will excell no matter what, but elite colleges provide students with so much more than academics. Alumni networks alone can make a world of difference, not to mention all the enhanced extracurricular activities a fat endowment can provide.

This may come out sounding like a fairly elitist post, but it really isn't. I realize that the economy is only getting worse and only a very small portion of the population (many, thanks to the advanatage of a family name and an elite prep school training) are fortunate enough to be able to attend the top schools. I think being realistic is important. However, I think it's also important to continue to push people to get as much of the best education they can. Both these statements come from a kernel of truth and the desire to soften a sometimes harsh reality. But it seemed to me that, in this context, these statments (especially taken together) are mutating into some sort of common wisdom that higher education is no longer important. That is outright false and harmful.