Monday, November 22, 2004
I’m so bored of this Charles saga. Had anyone else said what he wrote in his memo, the din would have subsided long before now. Of course he’s a ridiculous old anachronism, but look at his words:
“Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?"
Anything particularly controversial here? It’s hardly a ridiculous question, although he’s loading spud guns and handing them out to anyone who fancies a pop at him. But again, forget who he is. Is there nothing at all in his point? I don’t think that there’s necessarily anything recent about this phenomenon, but you can make a case: people are in more credit than ever before, and certainly one explanation is that there is a feeling that one deserves a certain lifestyle, regardless of income. Whether he’s right or not is a preposterous question. How would we know if he was? There’s not an answer book somewhere that we can check up with. Much more pertinent is, “is this a valid hypothesis?” I would suggest that it’s an argument that can be made with some foundation. Argue with it if you don’t agree with him: put some evidence up yourself. Of course you can’t though. What are you going to say, “I don’t think that people do think that they can do things they’re obviously unqualified for.” Okay. That’s that then.
"This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability.”
Even if we accept his proposition, I think he misses a hand-hold here. I’m not sure that the education system has much to do with it, if there is a “me-now-all” culture then schools are easy to blame. But this was an internal memo, not a broadcast to the people: a few lapses of intellectual rigour may be forgiven. Equally stern standards should be applied to the columnists who ply their trade by laying into this easiest target of all, and furthermore for what he *is* not for what he *says*. If I could be bothered then I’d do it myself, but as I said at the top, I’m weary of this phoney controversy and tired of defending the jug-eared nincompoop.
But hey, why worry? We are all beautiful snowflakes, and we can be whatever we want to be. Can’t we? Can’t we?!
|
“Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?"
Anything particularly controversial here? It’s hardly a ridiculous question, although he’s loading spud guns and handing them out to anyone who fancies a pop at him. But again, forget who he is. Is there nothing at all in his point? I don’t think that there’s necessarily anything recent about this phenomenon, but you can make a case: people are in more credit than ever before, and certainly one explanation is that there is a feeling that one deserves a certain lifestyle, regardless of income. Whether he’s right or not is a preposterous question. How would we know if he was? There’s not an answer book somewhere that we can check up with. Much more pertinent is, “is this a valid hypothesis?” I would suggest that it’s an argument that can be made with some foundation. Argue with it if you don’t agree with him: put some evidence up yourself. Of course you can’t though. What are you going to say, “I don’t think that people do think that they can do things they’re obviously unqualified for.” Okay. That’s that then.
"This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability.”
Even if we accept his proposition, I think he misses a hand-hold here. I’m not sure that the education system has much to do with it, if there is a “me-now-all” culture then schools are easy to blame. But this was an internal memo, not a broadcast to the people: a few lapses of intellectual rigour may be forgiven. Equally stern standards should be applied to the columnists who ply their trade by laying into this easiest target of all, and furthermore for what he *is* not for what he *says*. If I could be bothered then I’d do it myself, but as I said at the top, I’m weary of this phoney controversy and tired of defending the jug-eared nincompoop.
But hey, why worry? We are all beautiful snowflakes, and we can be whatever we want to be. Can’t we? Can’t we?!
|
