The first thing to say is that it would be unfair to take a few words out of context and pretend that they epitomized the whole argument. I am not pretending to do this. There is nuance in Norton's column, though Carroll, with whom (I should acknowledge from the start) I am in substantial sympathy, gives the impression of having no time at all for the man to whom he is responding, implying with his title that he is a "barbarian."
The second thing to say is that no one goes into academia to make a lot of money, so most of my colleagues are probably going to agree with Carroll. Even so, however, there is no contradiction between applauding Princeton for having the so-called liberal arts at its core and at the same time noticing that the difference between S and M - that is to say, between COS and COM - is reported to be nearly a factor of two. Does this mean comp lit majors are masochists?
There is no space here to follow most of the lines of inquiry that suggest themselves, for example, the ease with which anyone can manipulate figures to tell all sorts of stories. I, for one, would love to know what exactly lies behind the figure $67,143, which is (according to data released after Norton wrote his column) the unexpectedly high average salary for classics majors in the Class of 2008. I'd also be interested in hearing the administration spell out publicly why it is that professors in certain departments seem to be worth more than others (it is no secret that salaries and perks are to some extent impersonal, being based as much on the perceived value of the discipline as on an individual's scholarly standing).
Here's a story from my past. When I was a senior in college, I received handsome offers from management consulting firms to jump straight into one or the other job for which I had no obvious qualifications. Instead of accepting, I headed off to Oxford to read comparative philology, and it is only recently that my salary as a professor has risen above what I was offered all those years ago.
The points of this story, like the points of so many stories, are mixed. On the one hand, it suggests that privileged students with what Norton calls "esoteric" interests are indeed able to "succeed in the workforce." ("Workforce": what a dehumanizing word, as bad as "human resources"!) This can hardly count as news: Every year some of my favorite students in departments like Comparative Literature graduate to jobs at Google (or go to New Haven for law school - in which case, not incidentally, their "average starting salary" is $0, though presumably Norton imagines that this goose egg is ultimately golden). But on the other hand, one has to wonder what sort of world will pay more to an inexperienced 21-year-old to guess whether the offices of some corporation should be painted white or off-white than to this young man's highly educated, very distinguished teachers. So did I make the wrong choice and thwart my chances of true success by going to graduate school? Surely not, and if Norton ever takes one of my classes, as I hope he will, maybe he will see why I am happier - and more useful to society - in front of a blackboard than white walls.
What about your present and future? There is plenty of controversy over the relationship between money and happiness, and I have been following the resurgent debate over the so-called Easterlin Paradox with interest. For some of you, following your heart will also mean following your wallet. That's great. But if you find yourself having to choose, I suggest that long-term good - your own, your family's and the world's - is more likely to come from the heart.
Joshua Katz is a professor in the Department of Classics, the Director of the Program in Linguistics and a Forbes faculty adviser. He can be reached at jtkatz@princeton.edu.
Read More
Calls for VP Calhoun's resignation mislead on free expression
Bill Hewitt“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
“In joining a letter so firmly based on a questionable factual narrative, some 10 percent of Princeton faculty have rushed to condemn Vice President Calhoun for a “lie” and to demand her ouster.”
Deciding disciplinary matters by popular vote of the faculty sets a harmful precedent
Jonathan Mummolo"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
"In short, fairness demands that all members of the Princeton community be subject to a common set of rules and procedures. We are all meant to be granted equal protection under these rules. Our established procedures for disciplinary matters do not call for a full faculty vote."
Princeton, practice what you preach: SPIA graduate students on protest and dialogue
Guest Contributors"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
"As policy students, we are appalled by the blatant hypocrisy of the University administration, which has relied on fear-mongering and false narratives to discredit student protestors. We are increasingly disillusioned with the dissonance of what we are taught in our classrooms and the University’s actions."
