![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nov. 4th, 2003
It is an interesting statement, and the one which theoretically our whole curriculum is based on... or at least the IE part of it.
It is kind of an interesting statement. I can't say I entirely agree with it or think it would be true in all cases, but I can think of specific cases where it certainly does hold. However, sometimes it seems like here at Harvey Mudd College, we are so worried about the divorce of technology and humanity that we leave them in an abserd and fairly meaningless marriage.
We give it some lip service with the IE requirement and with the humanities requirement in general. With our PR done, we can happily go about the rest of our business without giving it any regard. This year we are bringing primarily defense contractors to Mudd for recruiting and no one bats and eye. In our clinic rotation group of four clinics, two of the clinic projects are also for defense contractors working on projects which, while they have some benign uses, will probably also be used to kill people. In economics, Prag always insists on keeping his "soft science" well divorced from humanity.
So what exactly are they trying to teach us? I'm getting a very strong mixed message here. Wouldn't they teach us better by being better role models? It is kind of nice that they are trying to undo the damage they've done, but it feels like it is just a way for us to all pretend that we are better people than we really are. I already have to deal with the fact that all those high paying jobs that I was promised are morally objectionable--and now I have to pay another $5000 so you guys can rub in just how stupid I was. And people wonder why I'm so bitter...
Well you'd be bitter too if you were almost done spending over $130,000 of your parents' money on an education to qualify you to do ethically objectionable work. Why didn't anyone tell me before I came here?
It is kind of an interesting statement. I can't say I entirely agree with it or think it would be true in all cases, but I can think of specific cases where it certainly does hold. However, sometimes it seems like here at Harvey Mudd College, we are so worried about the divorce of technology and humanity that we leave them in an abserd and fairly meaningless marriage.
We give it some lip service with the IE requirement and with the humanities requirement in general. With our PR done, we can happily go about the rest of our business without giving it any regard. This year we are bringing primarily defense contractors to Mudd for recruiting and no one bats and eye. In our clinic rotation group of four clinics, two of the clinic projects are also for defense contractors working on projects which, while they have some benign uses, will probably also be used to kill people. In economics, Prag always insists on keeping his "soft science" well divorced from humanity.
So what exactly are they trying to teach us? I'm getting a very strong mixed message here. Wouldn't they teach us better by being better role models? It is kind of nice that they are trying to undo the damage they've done, but it feels like it is just a way for us to all pretend that we are better people than we really are. I already have to deal with the fact that all those high paying jobs that I was promised are morally objectionable--and now I have to pay another $5000 so you guys can rub in just how stupid I was. And people wonder why I'm so bitter...
Well you'd be bitter too if you were almost done spending over $130,000 of your parents' money on an education to qualify you to do ethically objectionable work. Why didn't anyone tell me before I came here?
