Letters to the Editor: Jan. 9, 2009

Experts aren't gone, but they are judged differently

Regarding 'The end of experts,' (Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009):

Adam Bradlow '11's column delves into the current state of popular culture and offers an intriguing interpretation of events; that "our generation no longer believes in the power of expertise." On the contrary, I feel like today we embrace expertise more readily than ever before.

If society were to entrust physicians to put out fires, that would be the end of experts. For that matter, if society were to entrust any physician to perform surgery, that might be the end of experts. But the reality is that specialization has integrated itself very extensively within the ranks of our work place: Even a toothpaste factory will have a separate tube filler and top screwer.

My point is that Barack Obama, Andrew Sullivan and Neel Kashkari have been appointed to their respective posts because of their expertise, not their sleek physique or random card-counting talent. The phenomenon that you highlight is not an anti-expertise revolution. It is merely our generation's stricter standards in evaluating expertise. Sullivan's journalistic reputation does not come from anything but his compelling blog posts.

This does not make our Princeton education any less important. Now we only have to take our learning that much more seriously because our diplomas alone no longer warrant our acceptance. We have to prove our expertise.

The bottom line is that long resumes and extensive experience never guaranteed expertise, and our generation has simply begun to demand quality over quantity in credentials. Lately, experts may have been wrong about everything, but they still base their conjectures on the most solid and cogent reasonings. This time around, the books, the math and even human brilliance all just happened to be muddled by the misguided tide of optimism derived from the housing bubble.

David Lee '12

Pell '40 was also a pioneer for expanding graduate education

Regarding 'Founder of Pell Grants dies at 90,' (Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009):

Your article about Sen. Claiborne Pell '40 described his continuing impact on undergraduate education through the Pell Grants that he championed and noted his leadership role in creating the National Endowment for the Arts.

But you did not mention another of his enduring legacies, which has continuing impact on graduate education, at Princeton and throughout the country. Sen. Pell was the driving force behind what is now known as the Jacob Javits Fellowship program (named for Pell's close ally and fellow senator from New York), which supports graduate students in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

In the early 1980s, Princeton talked with Sen. Pell about the importance of providing federal support and recognition for exceptional graduate students in these fields. We proposed that the government study the need for such a program. He asked why we needed a study if we knew the need existed and proposed instead that we draft legislation to create such a program. We did, and then he took the lead in getting the legislation incorporated into the Higher Education Act, and then ensuring the program was enacted and funded.

The Javits program does not have a lot of visibility, and Sen. Pell's role is largely lost to history. But every time a fellowship is awarded, it provides welcome support to graduate students and extends further the educational legacy of a senator who served his country and this University exceedingly well over many years.

Robert Durkee '69, Vice President and Secretary