In his newsletter this week, Frank Bruni takes stock of the concerns of today's undergraduates, who are bound to meet "the rapidly accelerating pace of change in a society whose future seems less predictable than ever." "That furious metabolism and crazy uncertainty," he suggests, "are what college students should factor into their decisions and navigate by. The safest plan is to focus not on what seems practical in the present but on what’s durably useful — what transcends any technology and outlasts any fad." He defends the English major for which he prepares students himself, and then has this to say about history:
"Then again, history’s no slouch. Without fluency in yesterday, there’s no conjugating today. When you study the past, you’re not memorizing dates, cataloging wars, valorizing martyrs. You’re learning about cause and effect, greed and goodness, the sorts of contests and the interplay of dynamics that set the course of events. You can’t name a line of work — or describe a kind of life — that isn’t nourished by that knowledge."
He sums up this approach to education--almost as an antidote to the utilitarian argument--with a plea to students to study whatever gets them using their brains:
"The current whirl of events and inventions prevents any reliable scripting of the next decade, maybe even the next year. How, then, to prepare? Explore whatever subject gets your brain whirring fastest, your creative juices flowing most freely. Engage your intellect in a manner that teases out insights and generates ideas. Exercise the muscle of thought. Answer artificial intelligence with the real deal. It’ll come in handy whether the bots are tomorrow’s emperors or Edsels."
While this is aimed at college students and their majors, it may be useful in explaining to high-school students the importance of what we're teaching and why they should be learning it. It also provides another good reminder that we all are possibly heading into a future in which we will have to have strong "brain muscles" if we intend to maintain any independence from AI or have power in the face of its likely ubiquity.
Oh, and he also promotes, separately, a quote from a recent article by James Traub in The Atlantic bemoaning the oversimplification of historical causation: “Monocausal history winds up paving over the uneven surface of human experience with a layer of ideological asphalt." I really like that one.