Slashdot Mirror
University offers 'Simpsons' as Philosophy Class
joestump98 writes "I ran accross a story at CNN that says a local Michigan college, Siena Heights, is offering a philosophy class on our favorite cartoon - The Simpsons. The Catholic school says the class is about religion and philosphy in popular culture." And I thought Rocks for Jocks was a hilarious concept in wasting a college education. That said, I'd take that class. Have to make sure to watch my homework tonight.
dun dun dun,dun dun dun dun, dundundundundun, dundundundund, dund dun dun dun
me fail
english, thats umpossible
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows - Bart Simpson
Hopefully this will make more people consider philosophy classes. If everyone had a few philosophy classes under their belt when they finish whatever it is they are studying, there would be a lot less dumb sheep in this world.
I was going to just mod you down as troll. Then I read your sig. While I still think this is a troll, I'll bite:
In all likelyhood, they're the equivalent of the underwater soap-carving courses that engineering students take to "satisfy" the arts requirement component of their curriculum.
I'm assuming you haven't taken this class, and you likely don't know the class' content other than seeing "The Simpsons" in the title. After 4 years at a university, I can tell you that you never know what a class is going to be like until you take it.
In the story, who's speaking up about the course? A biology major -- a geek who is apparently too dim to recognize that a broad education is valuable, and has chosen to take a flakey course to satisfy a requisite with minimum effort.
Again, you have no idea if the course is "flakey", or the intentions of the student. And isn't taking a philosophy class broadening his education?
Why on earth are the universities catering to this sort of limited, lazy thinking?
If you think all education that incorperates aspects of popular culture (especially intelligent, witty aspects) are "limited" and "lazy", I hope you enjoy living in your ivory tower, cut off from the rest of the world.
The job of the university should be to create a graduation class of people who are going to lead the advancement of the arts and sciences. To do so, these people are going to require a broad education, one that has challenged them on all fronts and forced them to think creatively and thoughtfully. They need to be people who are eternally curious, doggedly determined, and, above all, brilliant.
Actually, my point in going to college was to learn new things. I got a broad education, and learned a lot. I think I'm a better person for having gone to college, though I don't think I was necessarly meant to "lead the advancement of the arts and sciences". Regardless, a class on The Simpsons and Philosophy hardly brings down the system.
Serving up Simpsons swill as some sort of philosophy substitute is not doing anyone a favour.
It's not meant as a substitute; the university education is varied when you look deeply at a specific major course of study and the classes involved. Just because the simpsons is newer than some of your classical philosophers doesn't mean it doesn't belong as part of a wider course. I doubt this class is replacing one on something more "important".
Perhaps the standards have dropped too low. Maybe you don't have to be particularly smart to enter university any more: you just have to have money.
Anymore? You never needed to be particularly smart at many schools (including some ivy league schools). Money could, and still does, buy your way in. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is something new.
Perhaps there's too much emphasis in the job market on post-secondary degrees.
True.
And the past three decade's emphasis on sciences as the be-all and end-all goal of education is certainly at fault: we need more technically-trained people (ie. college-level job training) than we need science/structure-trained people.
Now you're just making things up. The liberal arts education has gotten more flack in the last 30 years than anything else on the university level. A science education is still largely seen as a "true" education.
"The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer," indeed. Next up: "An Overview of Political Philosophies: The Travels of Xena, Warrior Princess."
When I was in college, I created and taught a class on "Star Trek and Popular Culuture" as my exit requirement. You know what? The educational foundation of the school didn't crumble. There's room for the inclusion of pop culture in a university education.
There have also been:
The Films of John Carpenter (A literature class)
The Gothic Imagination (Gothic literature through the ages)
TV Culture and Society
Science Fiction in Multicultural America
Also the class I taught in Winter 2000:
Kresge 80: Star Trek and Popular Culture.
Beyond the interesting classes, students are also given the opportunity to create their own study programs (with help and support of the faculty), and choose equally challanging exit requirements to fill in for a thesis or seminar. I chose to teach a class. UCSC is a great place to go if you realize real life doesn't mean sticking exclusivly to classics and hard sciences.
Because their entertainment was more meaningful than ours.
Because their entertainment was based upon a richer and more interesting culture than ours.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
In the episode where they show Bart and Lisa as babies who always called Homer "Homer", the last scene is Maggie saying "Daddy".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
More clearly than anything, it represents a real crisis in North American universities today: people think of them as valuable only insofar as they provide job training and a career boost. Departments like History, English, Religion and Philosophy once used to put undergraduates through serious courses that required them to struggle through real scholarship. They resented it at first, but came away with a substantial understanding of our intellectual roots, and of certain timeless questions, along with history's most elligible answers to those questions.
Fast forward to now, and you'll see core departments struggling to attract students in universities that are increasingly asking the departments to compete with one another for students and funding. The cheapest way to win that competition is not to hire an outstanding faculty, provide your students with individual attention, and make demanding courses which require lots of writing. The cheapest way is to pack a huge lecture hall using provocative course titles. Unfortunately, the students don't complain when the course itself is a half-baked piece of crap, designed primarily to stroke the ego of an aging professor trying to overcome his insecurity that he might no longer be "with it." They don't complain when the exams are on bubble sheets; "electronic grading" is, according to their insecure professor, the new, hip thing. The reason why they don't complain is because they don't know what they're missing. Once one department at a university resorts to this strategy, the other departments must respond in kind. It doesn't take long for things to get all fucked up. I've seen this first hand.
Please, students: if you actually want to learn something in college, do your research on a course before enrolling. Sadly, many of your options today are courses that will amuse you, but leave you just as ignorant as you were when the course began. One warning sign that you might be in for mere amusement is: an overly up-to-date or hip course title and topic.
When I was an undergraduate getting my degree in physics, my most important courses were in philosophy. I had to know Kant and Quine and Nietzche inside out, and there was nothing more intellectually rewarding than that. If you take philosophy classes, take some real ones. Only after that should you consider doing something philosophically frivolous like the Philosophy of the Simpsons.
But by all means, watch the Simpsons! It's about to start in 15 minutes! Spork