Here's another piece of advice for the class of 2001: Learn how to read.
You may question my seriousness in advancing this proposition. After all, didn't we learn this skill in elementary school?
I once thought so. But, unfortunately, I often encounter incidents that convince me otherwise. The letter to the Editor written by Lou Spelios '95 [The Dartmouth, September 30] is one such example.
Now, I have always been open-minded to all meaningful criticisms directed against my many controversial arguments. One respectable criticism of this nature is that of Aaron Grotas '98 [The Dartmouth, September 26], who attacked my reading of Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" treatise. Apparently, he and I have arrived at different interpretations of this challenging philosophical text. Although I still believe as largely correct the interpretation that Fukuyama projects an implosion of the world's liberal democracies -- an interpretation first endorsed by Won Joon Choe '97, a brilliant student political philosopher -- I also accept that my opinion is not shared by many scholars. Consequently, I understand why Grotas would be disturbed by my central claim, building on my reading of Fukuyama's argument, that "money is the primacy of [humans'] existence."
However, a criticism is effective only if it is directed against an argument that was ACTUALLY MADE. This is where knowing how to read becomes important -- an ability Spelios should improve upon, for he aggressively rebuts an argument that was never made.
First of all, Spelios writes that an individual, according to my injunctions, would not need any knowledge of Gingrich's leadership -- a possible topic of a discussion with another Wall Street investor. I cannot fathom why he would make such an astonishing accusation, for I write clearly, as part of my second injunction, "Your ability to make money heavily depends on your understanding of the world's political conditions." This means one must incessantly study the global trends, reflected, for example, in Hashimoto's promise for a "big bang," Mahathir's denigration of Western capitalism, Blair's reconsideration of Great Britain's position with respect to the EMU -- as well as, of course, "Gingrich's continuing efficacy as a leader." As the United States will continue to dominate the world for a foreseeable time, one should never lose touch with American politics.
Secondly, Spelios claims that I propose "trading securities" as the path to wealth. Last time I checked, "trading securities" or "speculating" is synonymous with neither "derivatives" nor "mutual funds" -- two fields I suggested would generate tremendous profits. If anyone doubts my claim, he or she should contact Wall Street giants like Bloomberg or Credit Suisse to learn how quickly one can make an inordinate sum of money by mastering quantitative analysis of such instruments as swaps. An endeavor in the mutual funds industry is slightly more difficult, particularly in the highly competitive United States, but opportunities abroad are boundless. As developed countries seek ways to avoid social security crises, their policymakers will scramble for alternative social safety nets, including uses of mutual funds.
Spelios further points out that there are "surer ways" than being a Wall Street player to make $300,000+ -- a career in medicine or law being one such example. However, he fails to see that I never argued for a life founded on stable and comfortable income. I introduced a new mode of life by which one seeks financial glory, epitomized by the great achievements of such figures as Craig McCaw and Bill Gates. Anyone who has glanced at Forbes magazine's latest list of America's richest people should realize that only one lawyer and no doctor qualified for the rankings, while the technology gurus and world-class investors were listed in unprecedented numbers. The attainment of such greatness entails risk, but the road to glory is only for those with the courage to confront obstacles. Spelios thus not only grossly misreads my column but makes a completely unfounded observation that the "ability to synthesize complex algorithms may pay, but reasoned and intelligent expression simply pays more."
So, I reiterate: Learn how to read! The intellectual discourse at Dartmouth would enhance significantly if everyone followed my message.
As a footnote, I would also like to comment that Dartmouth College's liberal arts education fails even according to what Spelios thinks is its critical benefit -- the learning of effective means of communication. This became clear to me in a conversation with Dan Hogins '98, editor of the undergraduate academic journal Disquisitions. He told me that after reviewing over 30 submissions for its spring issue, most of which were presumably writings that had received good grades, he was shocked to find most of them to be "very sloppy." And you think that History and Government majors graduate Dartmouth, equipped with the ability to communicate? Absolutely not -- which lends further credence to my belief that "liberal learning" is an euphemism for hollow learning.
