Unvielded Ignorance
I am not often compelled to air out matters of a private nature (while I know some other of my peers are more than willing to stoop to such lows). On this occasion, however, I believe there is a strong public impetus to reveal the content of a private Facebook group containing current and former students of a particular interdisciplinary bachelor degree (with honours).
My motivation is twofold. The first reason for my public commentary concerns the post’s utility for prospective students. While I have deep concerns with some of the original poster’s (OP) choices, the general framework and its content do provide clarity and accessibility on both academic and social facets of the degree in question. As such, speaking publicly on the matter enables future students insight into the stereotypes associated with the degree’s majors (or lack thereof) and its student body representatives in the form of its society.
However, more pertinently, my second reason for commentary is that the content of the post constitutes a blasphemy to the academic prowess of the OP’s peers. While I agree with many of the OP’s assertions, there are a few critical points that demonstrate such dull-wittedness that it demands public refutation. Those in the group should be thankful for me taking up this mantle in their name.
See below the post in question:
It would of course be remiss of me to not allow the OP an opportunity to defend their work. As such, the following is a justificatory statement from the OP:
“Pop stars, Populists and Economics: An explanation and defence of my PPE Celebrity Cohort
Whoever still has doubts about the utility of university education has never met a Politics, Philosophy and Economics student.
The assignment was straightforward: attempt to organise the biggest current celebrities into a fictional cohort of my own design. The rationale for the assignment was complex.
A post-modern commentary on the increasingly para-social relationships we have with the famous figures in our lives? A critique of the arbitrary divisions within the degree, that end up mostly aesthetic in both study and in the literal aesthetics of having your chosen major being a footnote on your certificate? It’s all related to neoliberalism somehow.
The method I used was inspired by the rigorously scientific method of the classical political economists: Adam Smith, Malthus and Marx. I simply created a model, based on my own personal notions about the world, and codified it by constructing a diagram.
The first step was identifying where the major players lay.
There has been some controversy over the decision to place Taylor Swift in the “No Major” section. Let me be clear. It was not a choice I made carelessly. It was a choice, as is par for the course with all difficult decisions it was made with deliberation and delicacy.
At a quick draw, it may be easy to fire off and proclaim Swift as a textbook Economics Major: calculated, numbers obsessed, dominant. Despite this, I took a moment to reflect. Taylor Swift is a cultural force, akin to the Beatles, genre hopping and undefinable and would innately desire the ability to define herself on her terms. Her own version.
The eureka, lightbulb moment, illuminated and solved the entire pathway for me.
Naturally, Lana del Ray, Billie Eilish and Ethel Cain made up the Philosophy student body. Their ruminating, piercing body work speaks to questions on what it means to be human, to experience heartbreak, loss and tragedy.
I envisioned Eilish as the most studious of the trio; Cain more preoccupied with Theological studies to fully commit to the humdrum of compulsory philosophy courses and del Ray doing the degree more to appease her parents than any true academic desires.
The politics group was easiest. Olivia Rodrigo, Chappel Roan and SZA are some of the most politically active of their peers with their defence of reproductive, LGBTIQ+ and African American rights. Roan, to me, opted for the project as to dedicate more time to their true passions, outside of the university.
No Major was the hardest, as is expected from an undefinable field. Lorde and her musings on indecision and adolescent angst struck me as someone who would feel overwhelmed by committing to one path for her future. The perpetually laid-back student personified Phoebe Bridges could never restrict herself to studying one discipline, approaching each with the wistfulness of a romantic.
The addition of Mitski was to honour the realities of our fallen comrades, gone far too soon from the degree, and whom we see every once in a while, in the Law Library.
Taylor Swift would rise to the role of president, as is natural of a charming figure with mass appeal. Charli XcX would take time out of making fun of the BAFE students in her Econometrics classes to try and organise the wildest events in the university. Her continual campaigning for society endorsed warehouse rave gets shot down in every meeting, much Dua Lipa’s annoyance when she must explain that the budget can’t accommodate venue hire. Olivia Rodrigo would be valedictorian.
I now want the government to invest more into Physics research for the express purpose of generating a method to travel to the alternate universe where this is a reality.
And they said a University Education was useless.”
Wow, a justification nearly as pithy as the original post. While I was obliged to include these remarks, it is clear that they do little to quell my concerns. As such I will march on. Before doing so, I will provide some brief commentary to outline the so-called good aspects of the post.
Whether it be recycling old essays or insisting on using Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ (WPR) approach for the fourth time, you can always count on a POLS major to cut corners and remain in their comfort zone.
The most redeemable aspect of this post are the insights it provides into the positions of each discipline, society role, and choice of final PPE course. There is certainly analytical utility to the post by taking either the pop girlies music, individual character, or both, as the analogous characterisation. In particular, its ability to contextualise and demystify gives those who may be unfamiliar with the degree an insight into the stereotypes associated with each position.
The analytical utility is enhanced by the humour and discussion it elicits from those who are familiar with the stereotypes of the degree. The OP’s post quickly grew in interactions, with current students and alumni chipping in their thoughts. One such observation compared the journey and sudden fame of Chappell Roan to the tendency for some students to remain in the social wilderness of the degree before appearing spontaneously in the final moments and asserting themselves firmly within the social folds.
The placement of Olivia Rodrigo in the Politics major, as well as participating in thesis, permits some fruitful analysis. Take for example critics of her second album ‘Guts’ for being stylistically and topically repetitive of her debut album ‘Sour’. This is reminiscent of Politics major’s tendency to return to that which they have done before. Whether it be recycling old essays or insisting on using Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ (WPR) approach for the fourth time, you can always count on a POLS major to cut corners and remain in their comfort zone. Maintaining the comparison however, ‘Guts’ was a spectacular album much like ‘Sour’. The same is true for each of Statecraft co-chief editor Harry Shakespeare-Davies’s litany of Kahuzi-Biega essays as well as is the reliability of the WPR.
Ironically, the writer of this article has just remembered that Mr. Shakespeare is not a POLS major but rather one of philosophy. This mishap is itself reminiscent of my own major’s (politics) tendency to twist primary data to fit the argumentation retrospectively.
ECON majors in general represent a dearth of creativity and cultural progressivism.
However, the analytical utility is just about where the positives extend. While there are many small negative details that I could harp on about (such as characterising all the individuals within the post as celebrities when they are clearly better described as girlypops), I will only take the most notable in this article.
The first major issue concerns the distribution of artists across the four majoring options (inclusive of no major). In the post, there is an equal distribution of individuals across each major. While this distribution may have arisen out of coincidence, this does nothing to reflect the actual nature of the degree which sees the majority of students majoring in economics, with few electing politics, and near no one willfully condemning themselves to philosophy.
One might argue that the distribution need not reflect the actual distribution of students enrolled in the degree. Instead, it may reflect the speculative preferences of the individuals chosen. To this point I agree; however, it is clear that the OP has failed to accurately speculate on such preferences or else we would not have instances such as Taylor Swift with no major (more on this later), Billie Eilish in Philosophy, or Charli XCX in Economics. Instead, it appears as though the OP has almost haphazardly distributed the artists and then retrospectively justified their position when criticized in the comments of the post.
That’s right, it’s much more brat to be unemployed and far away from the clutches of the market. In this way, Charli belongs to the most critical and unemployable of the disciplines: Philosophy.
Let us take Taylor Swift as the exemplar. In the post she is listed as No Major, president of the society, and completing a thesis. The latter points I am in agreement with given her desire to be number one and the tremendous individual input Swift has in her own song writing. Taylor Swift, the BILLIONAIRE, must be an ECON major. She is certainly not a POLS major given her historically apolitical public stance. And while there is certainly some philosophical depth to her songwriting, Swift herself is nowhere near as obnoxious as PHIL majors tend to be. No, Taylor Swift is definitely an ECON major as, like her ECON major peers, she emphasises the viability, money making, and ‘employability’ of her brand. When this criticism was brought forward to the OP, their response was that Swift “didn’t want to be tied down to one era”. I would retort that her attempts to monopolise the music charts says she has a keen interest in economics and that her diversity of albums is an example of this monopolising tendency.
Almost as dastardly is the placement of Charli xcx as an economics major. Charli’s brand, ever since pioneering hyperpop and its latest evolution in the form of ‘brat’, is undoubtedly for the culture. It is without hesitation that I assert that ECON majors as anything but culturally interesting; rather, ECON majors in general represent a dearth of creativity and cultural progressivism. I needn’t draw on any particular examples, although doing so would be less than strenuous. It is unanimous that the critical lenses provided by politics and philosophy is what gives economics any gravitas that distinguishes this degree from the lifeless cretins of BECON and BAFE. The strongest claim of ECON majors is always its employability; however, nothing kills the relatability and usefulness of Charli’s brand more than its uncritical adoption and appropriation by consulting firms and big business alike. That’s right, it’s much more brat to be unemployed and far away from the clutches of the market. In this way, Charli belongs to the most critical and unemployable of the disciplines: Philosophy.
It is with these misplacements, along with many others, that undermines the analytical utility of the post and thus its relevance both to prospective students and current/alumni’s as well. It would have been a far better practice if the OP had been more considerate in their placements and distributions of the individuals. I must commend the OP however for delivering this post in the first place. If they were to take my suggestion too seriously they may fall into the trap of every conversation students from this degree ever has. It begins with a question which is endlessly analysed to determine its scope and meaning, before never being answered. We are left knowing only more about the terms of the inquiry and nothing about its results. While I disagree with many of the results here, I am happy to see that this degree has finally produced something substantive that we can again endlessly argue over.
