Arriving at the end of orientation week and jumping into classes, I find myself fighting to contain my excitement -- the introduction to new courses, interesting professors, and the incredible academic and social community of the campus; all have engendered a feeling among most freshmen that borders on "irrational exuberance," in the words of Alan Greenspan. However, a recent article in the Dartmouth, welcoming our class, had a disturbing message below the greeting. In the article ["Welcome, Class of 2001!," September 24] (written by Kenji Hosokawa '98), it is proposed that studying math is the only guarantee to future success at Dartmouth and in life; that The Economist and Wall Street Journal are the primary sources for enhancing our math and finance-intensive futures; that virtually all fields in the social sciences are worthless, and should not even be considered; and finally, that students dead-set on pre-law or pre-med tracks are misguided. Well, in this humble 'shmen's opinion, I would contend that the author takes a rather narrow view of the campus, and that there is nothing wrong with following absolutely none of the advice offered in the article.
The author's first major point is that "academia ... gets left behind" in the throes of our current technological revolution. However, there are at least two flaws in this argument. First, the onset of the "information superhighway" and such innovations are not exclusive to the world of high finance, or the physical and applied sciences. It seems to me that these advances can only enhance all fields of study. For example, computer programs in my German course available over network services can aid my studies and increase my mastery of the language. News wires such as Reuters, in cooperation with online services like America Online, can raise awareness about current events, new technologies, or perhaps just the weather. The point is that academia hasn't been left behind, it's been caught up in the wave of knowledge brought about by these various advances. New opportunities are to be had in all fields due to these recent leaps forward.
Secondly, the author recommends that The Economist and The Wall Street Journal should be on everyone's reading list for future success. Now, I've read these publications before, and I don't think they alone were responsible for my fortunate admission to this college; similarly, I don't think reading them will occupy a major portion of my resume when applying for a job after my years here. While I also feel that the Wall Street Journal is probably the best daily newspaper to provide a good balance between finance and politics, and that the mentioned publications are informative, the argument presented can be made for a variety of journals, on all topics. The real goal, in my opinion, is to be informed , in a general sense. In other words, absorb as much information on all the varied topics one can, creating a well-rounded awareness for the world around us. That seems to serve the best purpose in both intellectual and (the author's) financial terms.
The rest of the article engages in, it seems, a broad generalization about many of the most popular departments on campus, and indicts the plethora of students with "childhood dreams" about pre-med or pre-law tracks in college. Well, take a step back -- the argument presented is littered with a severe bias towards making money; specifically, making LOTS of money on Wall Street. However, there are three problems with this general argument that underlies the entire article. Initially, one should note that if everyone were to take this advice, the flood of people entering the "recommended professions" would crush the "profit potential" of the careers just as easily as the focus on pre-med and pre-law may have in the past. Secondly, take a look around -- this is DARTMOUTH, and although I may just be a silly first-year, I believe that the large majority of pre-med and pre-law students should have their pick of jobs upon leaving here, in comparison with about any other college in the nation. Finally, simply, not everyone wants to make money, at the cost of their happiness or sacrifice of their intellectual pursuits. Ultimately, the author's argument is correct, with one slight alteration. He states, "Your future promises to be exciting only if you choose the right path. . ." Indeed, good advice; but please, choose the right path for you, be it Wall Street, advanced math and computer science, or your unique vision for an individually defined college education.
