OR, CRASH
AND BURN...................................
CONTENTS
WHY
EVERYONE NEEDS A SOCIAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
LOSS
OF THE ABILITY TO THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY
THE
CURRENT STATE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
WHAT
A SOCIAL SCIENCE EDUCATION SHOULD BE
THE
NEED TO CRITIQUE SOCIAL SCIENCE
LEVEL
OF INSTRUCTION AND COURSE MATERIALS
COURSE
DESCRIPTIONS
COURSE
CATALOG
SIGN
UP FOR A COURSE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE TECHNICIAN DEGREE REQUIREMENTS
In general, Americans tend to be politically passive. They do not attempt to exert the full control over their lives that they are entitled to. Even those who participate in politics and who are relatively interested in politics don't fully exercise their power as citizens. This is primarily due to the fact that many simply do not have the knowledge that is necessary to participate in a more meaningful way. By and large, most Americans lack a high degree of what political scientists call "efficacy" or a belief in their own ability to be effective, and to change things. This lack of political efficacy is mainly due to a lack of knowledge. Without knowledge, our political world becomes an alien world that is filled with forces which are beyond our understanding or control. As a people, we tend to respond to these forces without being willing or able to control them. Increasingly, our political leaders, and others who occupy the "key power professions" (the bureaucracy, the legal profession, the press, and academia) have become alien forces in our lives which stand over us and against us. These forces are able to dominate us, because most of us don't have the knowledge that is necessary to dominate them. These forces are designed to be our servants, and to reflect our interests, and our wishes. Instead, they have become our alien masters.
The courses offered through SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH are specifically designed to give Americans the essential knowledge they need to begin to take back political control from the key power professions, and restore it to the people where it rightfully belongs. Through the knowledge they gain from SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH, Americans of all walks of life will be better able to exert control over their personal and political destinies, which are currently in the hands of assorted special interest groups, polarized political parties, and members of the key power professions. In addition to providing average Americans with the most essential knowledge in the social sciences, SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH (henceforth, also S.S.T.) will provide a conceptual framework that will make it easier for most people to understand a wide variety of social and political issues in a more comprehensive fashion. This framework for analyzing and understanding social and political life may even make it possible for Americans to reach a new consensus, and develop a new political perspective as a people. As a people, it is ideology and "perspective" that currently divides us. And potentially, it will be a new ideology and a new perspective that will unite us.
Whether they vote or not, all Americans are political actors of some kind. They live in the same communities, they share certain interests in common, and they either respond favorably, unfavorably, or with indifference to the actions of other political actors. Most have political opinions and some conception of how others interests relate to their own. Most have ideas that qualify as "political" in the most basic sense, even if they do not participate in the political process in any formal sense. Most Americans even have some degree of natural interest in political affairs. Unfortunately, the formal study of politics has become out of reach for most Americans. As it is currently practiced in most of our colleges and universities, the study of politics is highly institutionalized and is dominated by an elite group of social scientists. The language that these elites use to explain political phenomena is not familiar to most Americans, and such language can be quite intimidating to the novice. The use of such language to communicate the vital political knowledge that every citizen should know, represents one of the single most difficult obstacles which Americans must overcome in their quest for greater political competency and greater political power.
Aristotle was among the first philosophers to conclude that man is a political animal. A basic understanding of the social sciences is a requirement for meaningful participation in social and political life. This means everyone should gain a basic knowledge of a number of fields, including political philosophy, American politics, social psychology, and economics, at a bare minimum. In a democracy especially, it is incumbent upon every citizen to learn the underlying fundamentals of their political system. If the citizens of a democracy fail to understand the dynamics of their political environment as a whole, they will potentially become pawns for the elites who do understand these dynamics. Without an adequate social science education, you allow others to control your lives. You place your fate in their hands.
A concise and intensive social science education is one of the quickest and most economical ways to understand the social, economic, and political world in which we live. Mankind is a social creature by nature; man is a political animal. And yet, countless millions of people live out their lives without ever understanding the basic fundamentals of their own social existence, or even the sources of their own consciousness. And while most people naturally gain a certain intuitive understanding of their social and political environment in the course of their daily living, this understanding more closely resembles a kind of "folk wisdom." As such, it is no substitute for a more thorough, scientifically based knowledge of the underlying principles which govern the operations of our society, and our lives as social creatures. The main purpose of the S.S.T. educational experience is to make this knowledge widely available at an affordable cost. It is not designed to give you credentials which have purely economic or market value. It is designed to impart the maximum amount of valuable social science knowledge in the most efficient way possible. Necessarily, this process requires that the most important social science knowledge be distilled, and reduced to its bare essentials.
S.S.T. offers what are, in effect, very condensed college courses. Much of the recommended reading material for the courses offered by S.S.T. are actually used in graduate level courses at our major universities. This is the much of the same material that PhDs and other professionals in the social sciences use to get their credentials. S.S.T. makes this knowledge available to you at a fraction of what it costs these professionals. Our view is that you should be exposed to what "they" know. Professionals in the social sciences should not have a monopoly on social science knowledge, because this knowledge is so closely related to the distribution of political power in our country. The saying that knowledge is power, is particularly appropriate to the social sciences.
As a citizen in our democracy, it is your duty to become politically savvy and sophisticated. To achieve a high level of political sophistication requires that you have a basic understanding of how our political institutions evolved, and how they operate. It further requires that you have a basic understanding of a wide range of social and political phenomena. In fact, you should gain enough knowledge to become a quasi-expert in the social sciences yourself. Because, only in this way can you begin to exert greater control over your personal destiny, and over the political destiny of the nation. If you don't gain the knowledge that is necessary to control the elites, the elites will control you. As citizens, it is imperative that we know what makes the elites tick so that we can more easily check their power when it is in our interest to do so. At S.S.T., we make it as easy and inexpensive as possible to get this knowledge.
Without a basic understanding of the fundamentals of our social, economic, and political system, one cannot be expected to make informed political decisions. In actuality, a good basic social science education should be required in order to vote. For you cannot meaningfully participate in politics or in civic life without it. Social scientists are keenly aware of this, and they currently hold a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of much important political information. But, this information should not be the province of the educators alone. It should be easily accessible to everyone at a minimal cost. And that is the primary aim of S.S.T.; to make a high quality social science education available to you at a fraction of what it would cost for you to attend a major university.
After taking our courses, you may ultimately decide to
pursue a social science degree from a major university, in order to get
the credentials that you will need to enter one of the social science fields
yourself. But, the basics of the social sciences will remain the same,
whether you learn them from S.S.T., or from a major university. Consequently,
if it is mainly knowledge that you seek, rather than elite credentials,
you should not expect to learn significantly more about the social sciences
from the educational experience you will get by attending a major university.
Again, our aim is to offer you the same high quality knowledge that is
available to social science professionals, or to show you the means of
obtaining that knowledge, at a fraction of what it would cost you to get
a college or university degree.
The capacity to think critically, reflectively, and philosophically is available to virtually all Americans who are willing to make the effort. Despite their busy lifestyles, most Americans would find that they had the time required to learn the basics of the social sciences, if this information were made more easily available to them on the one hand; and if they made more practical use of their time on the other. If most Americans would set aside just 50% of the time they now spend on the consumption of a decadent and destructive popular culture, this is all the time that most people would require to become more politically competent and powerful. Moreover, this is all that most people would find necessary in order to begin to think about their social and political world in more critical, reflective, and philosophical ways. Today, largely under the influence of a busy lifestyle and diversions which tend to forestall the development of higher forms of consciousness, most of us have lost or have failed to develop this capacity. But, with better use of our time, we can get back, or we can develop, the capacity to think philosophically.
Exactly how Americans have lost or failed to develop the capacity to think critically, reflectively, and philosophically is certainly no mystery. Most of our jobs and lifestyles call upon us to quickly manipulate relatively simple ideas, as opposed to the slow manipulation of complex ideas. Purely from the standpoint of the practical need to make a living, the ability to think in relatively fast, reflexive, and simple terms is a necessity. But, in adopting this mode of thinking, we tend to lose the ability to think more deeply and philosophically. For most purposes of day to day living, the kind of slow thinking required of in depth political and philosophical thought is just too time consuming, and would seem to require too much effort.
The environment with which we typically interact demands that we make countless of instant judgments. Necessarily, most of us tend to make a lot of mistakes. This is especially true in forming our political judgments. And yet, this frequency of mistake making is not a built in feature of our natural thought processes. On average, we are capable of so much more, if environmental pressures are not taking their toll on our thought processes. When time allows, virtually all of us have the natural ability to temporarily shift gears, and to adopt the deeper and more reflective way of thinking that political and philosophical thought requires, even as we find it necessary to return to the more simple and reflexive mode of thinking in the course of our normal daily routines.
Without the ability to think more critically, reflectively, and philosophically, many of us resort to the use of "heuristics" or conceptual shortcuts, to aid in thinking about complex things in a fast and efficient way. This is especially true when we attempt to understand the complexities of our social and political environment. The heuristics which Americans most frequently employ to help them better understand their political world, and their own interests in relation to that world, are the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism. Both of these ideologies may be used to shed light on certain aspects of truth. But, neither of these polar ideologies is adequate for understanding society, or our long term interests, in any truly comprehensive sense.
In the process of using conceptual shortcuts, such as the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism, we fail to see many comprehensive truths about society, though we may be better able to see elements of truth that pertain to our personal interests. The ideologies of liberalism and conservatism are inadequate for gaining an in depth understanding of our social and political world. For the subject of politics, by its very abstract nature, demands a more slow, thoughtful, and methodical approach, at least initially. The subjects of politics and philosophy do not readily lend themselves to the kind of fast paced, cursory thinking that may be more appropriate for most purposes of day to day living. Consequently, when we attempt to apply the mode of thinking which we normally employ in our lives, to the study of politics and philosophy, something tends to get lost in the process. We may gain knowledge enough to get by with, but we do not typically get much in the way of a deeper understanding. Neither of the "polar ideologies" are adequate for understanding the more complete truth of society.
This should not be taken as a recommendation that we should abandon all ideology merely because it is ideology. Quite the reverse. We should have an ideology to help us better understand our political world, and our own interests in relation to this world. But, this ideology should be as broad and comprehensive as possible. In fact, it should be so broad and comprehensive that it defies many of the criteria that we normally associate with ideology. In short, it should be the ideology that has the most truth content, when compared with all other ideologies. In order to better understand society as a whole, we need a more overarching and inclusive paradigm. For this purpose, the "Xenophyte" perspective is indispensable.
As the truth tends to be scattered about the ideological spectrum, and depending on the issue, may be closer to the right or to the left, our ideology must be synthetic. It must encompass and account for the arguments on both the political left, and the political right, on every issue. The most functional ideology, or the ideology that promises to best serve the long term interests of the United States, involves the construction of a carefully crafted synthesis of liberal and conservative policy stands. It is a major goal of S.S.T. to provide Americans with the core social science knowledge that they will need in order to adopt a synthetic perspective, as an alternative to the polar ideologies of the political left and the political right.
The initial barriers to the adoption of a synthetic mode of political analysis are higher than for the polar ideologies. But, once certain minimal knowledge requirements have been met, it actually becomes easier to analyze the social and political world using the synthetic mode, than it is to use either of the polar ideologies exclusively. For being monolithic, a polar ideology must make convincing arguments against the truths which the opposing polar ideology is able to claim. Once your knowledge base has been adequately established, it actually becomes easier, and in fact, quite natural, to think efficiently in deeper, more philosophical, and more synthetic terms. It becomes easier to see the various truths about society contained in arguments on both sides of the political spectrum.
Because ideologies involve heuristics, or short hand ways
of dealing with all the complexities which much political information entails,
most politically interested people adopt ideologies. Many end up siding
with either the political left or the political right across virtually
all issues. In effect, these people become polar ideologues, otherwise
known as liberals and conservatives. To these people, the adoption of liberal
or conservative ideologies is simply easier than the alternative of synthetic
thinking. The synthetic thinker, or the "synthesist", at least initially,
must master the essentials of both polar ideologies, or both modes of thought,
and then he must attempt to reconcile the two in a way that promises to
better serve the public interest over the longer term. The adoption of
a polar ideology such as liberalism or conservatism simply requires less
work, "initially", than does the adoption of a more complex and synthetic
ideology or belief system. At S.S.T., our goal is to make it easier for
you to get the knowledge that you need to go beyond these simplistic polar
ideologies, when thinking about your social and political world.
Considering the uses to which their social science knowledge will be put, most people want as much knowledge for as little pain and effort as possible. Simply stated, human beings tend to be cognitive misers. They like to economize the use they make of their brains. All that a majority of people seek is the most essential knowledge in a particular area. For most practical purposes, and unless they are seeking professional credentials in one of the social sciences themselves, this is all that most people need to know about social science.
Until now, a quality social science education has been beyond the reach of most people. Such an education simply required too much of an investment in time, money, and effort. But, this need not be the case. Many of the barriers to learning the basics in the social sciences are not natural, but are artificially created and maintained by "professionals" in the social sciences themselves. These barriers serve important institutional purposes for the social science professions.
In addition to being grossly inefficient, the social science education you receive from most colleges and universities is designed with a certain level of built in difficulty. This difficulty is not a natural quality of social science subject matter itself. For most of the core knowledge in the social sciences tends to be rather straight forward. And, when compared to nuclear physics, or higher mathematics, it is easy to learn. But, as social science is taught in most colleges and universities, difficulty is built into its instruction, for several reasons.
First, a certain level of difficulty is built into social science course work to present you with intellectual obstacles which you must overcome. This artificial level of difficulty is partly designed as a barrier to entry into the social science professions. It helps members of these professions to boost the economic value of their own credentials. If the process of obtaining credentials in the social sciences was not made intentionally difficult, the market value of these credentials would be diminished. In addition to boosting the monetary awards that accrue to the social science professions, the artificial level of difficulty that is built into social science course work tends to increase the prestige of the social science professions.
A certain level of difficulty is also built into the social science course work at most colleges and universities, purely as an exercise that is designed to make you think. By and large, social science education today is partly designed for the purpose of cultivating communication skills and abstract reasoning skills. In other words, it is not designed to dispense the greatest amount of knowledge in the most efficient and cost effective manner. This form of instruction is especially tailored to help young people acquire the intellectual skills that they will need to manipulate abstract ideas, and to potentially become professionals in these fields themselves.
As social science is taught in most colleges and universities, much instruction time is taken up by classroom discussions. These discussions allow students the opportunity to express themselves in public in order to develop their communication skills. For the person who merely wants the greatest amount of knowledge and the fewest obstacles, this method of instruction tends to be very wasteful and inefficient. But, for people who haven't yet learned how to think on a relatively high level of abstraction, as many young people have not, it is in fact very useful, and some would say, it is indispensable. However, such "thought training" is unnecessary for people who can already conceptualize their social and political environment in relatively abstract terms. It is unnecessary for the person who simply wants to be exposed to the greatest amount of important core social science knowledge at the least expense. It is unnecessary for the person who has a thirst for knowledge, but who detests the rigors, costs, institutionalized obstacles, and other inconveniences associated with most higher education programs. The S.S.T. Degree educational experience is primarily designed for such people. We presume that you already know how to think, and that if you are able to read and understand this website without undue difficulty, that you can read at or above the college level.
Most colleges and universities continue to dispense social science knowledge is an extremely inefficient manner. And, there are clear signs that the methods they use to dispense knowledge are becoming more inefficient, not less so. In particular, most colleges and universities have converted from the quarter system to the semester system. The key argument for this transition is that a longer course session under the semester system allows scholars and graduate students more time to conduct in depth research. The conversion from the quarter system to the semester system represents a shift in priorities from teaching and disseminating knowledge to the research interests and career ambitions of upper level graduate students and instructors, for the following reasons.
Purely from the standpoint of teaching the greatest amount of information in the least amount of time, the quarter system was superior to the semester system. The time constraints of shorter sessions under the quarter system placed greater demands on both instructors and students alike. The quarter system was simply a more intensive and efficient educational experience, even if it wasn't best suited to the research aims of graduate students and professors.
If education is not conducted in the most efficient manner possible, it represents a waste of scarce public resources, and it ultimately does an injustice to the community. The semester system is not as conducive to the rapid, efficient dissemination of knowledge as was the quarter system. Admittedly, the semester system does better serve other priorities, such as providing more time to conduct research and to prepare publications for scholarly journals. Nonetheless, it represents a shift in priorities from the interests of undergraduate students to the interests of graduate students and professors.
Why Social Science Education is Such a Medieval
Experience
As social science education is conducted in most of our
colleges and universities, it shares certain things in common with the
guild system of medieval Europe. Under the guild system, access to the
knowledge and the skills required to enter certain professions was tightly
controlled by members of those professions. By tightly controlling access
to their professions, and by carefully guarding their "trade secrets,"
guild members could limit their competition and could artificially inflate
the prices they charged for the goods and services they provided. In terms
of controlling access to knowledge, and in terms of its gate keeping functions,
the guild system operated in much the same way as do the social sciences
today.
By tightly controlling access to the knowledge and skills required to provide certain goods and services, the guild system served important economic and institutional purposes for guild members, even as it defeated the principle of economic competition, and hurt the interests of others in society. If all of the knowledge which the guilds controlled had been made more freely available to everyone instead, it would have reduced the economic rewards that accrued to the guild professions. Over the short term, removing institutionalized barriers to knowledge would have hurt the economic interests of the guild members themselves. But, over the longer term, it would have meant greater benefits for everyone in European society.
If the artificial barriers to knowledge maintained by the guilds had been removed sooner, it would have increased economic competition, stimulated technological innovation, and fueled economic activity in European society more generally; even as it would have tended to depress wages in the guild professions themselves. By fueling competition, and by accelerated the pace of technological development, European society would have been able to enjoy the benefits of the industrial revolution much sooner than it did.
The barriers of the modern day credentialization process in the social sciences function in much the same way as the guilds did. Keeping barriers to knowledge artificially high serves the important institutional purpose of keeping the numbers of people who are "qualified" to teach in the social sciences down to a certain level. Restricting the number of people who can get social science credentials increases the market value and the prestige attached to certain social science degrees. Academics in the social sciences have few incentives to reduce the barriers to obtaining knowledge in their fields of expertise, for their livelihoods and social status depend upon keeping these barriers to knowledge artificially high. As it is currently conducted in most colleges and universities, social science education functions in much the same way as the guild system functioned in medieval Europe.
Imposing such barriers to knowledge serves other important institutional purposes as well. The gate keeping functions insure that the most determined and competent members of the social science professions end up in teaching positions in our leading colleges and universities. But, from the sanctuary of their ivory towers, they are not able to insure that the larger population has the knowledge which it needs to become "politically sophisticated" or even to become politically competent. And this is among the foremost goals of S.S.T.
The institutional barriers to the core knowledge of the social sciences are artificial and unnecessary. At S.S.T., we break down these barriers and make an affordable social science education widely available. We make it possible for you to learn the greater part of what most professionals in the social sciences know themselves, without having to undergo the monotonous, time consuming, and expensive process that they had to undergo. The social sciences are inherently fascinating subjects. Once you have read a few truly enlightening studies about your fellow human beings, if you have any appreciable level of intellectual curiosity at all, you'll be hooked.
Unique Problems With the Study of Social Science
Considering the ethereal nature of its subject matter,
there is considerable doubt in some minds as to whether the social sciences
deserve to be called sciences at all. By comparison with the physical sciences,
the social sciences remain "soft" and are subject to many different interpretations.
In many cases, there is little consensus as to what constitutes "knowledge"
in the social sciences. To illustrate this point, I cite one of my own
graduate school experiences. While taking my written exams for the Ph.D.
in political science at a major university, an examiner read one of my
answers and flunked it outright. Another examiner read the same answer
and commented in the margins: "I regard this as a solid answer." What is
one to think?
This personal experience illustrates the kinds of uncertainties and disagreements which are endemic to the social sciences. As it is currently understood, social science tends to be much more of an art than a science. Yet, potentially, if the social science knowledge base was distilled, and if it could be reduced to its most fundamental and reliable elements; much of the uncertainty that currently surrounds the social sciences could be removed. In effect, the social sciences could become "technical", in much the same way the physical sciences have become.
The way that the social sciences are currently constituted, it serves the career interests of many professionals in these fields to communicate "knowledge" using highly abstract, arcane language. Such language readily lends itself to subterfuge, and allows one to hide behind abstractions in order to escape concrete criticisms. This kind of language is frequently subject to a variety of interpretations. These different interpretations serve as the justification for different "schools of thought" within the professions themselves. In turn, the existence of these various schools of thought serve as the vehicles for professionals in the social sciences to advance their careers.
The presence of competing schools of thought fuels "scholarly"
debates in the social sciences. In turn, these scholarly debates provide
scholars with much of the raw materials they need to write books and journal
articles. Social science scholars advance their careers principally by
means of these publications.
In particular, a solid publication track record is often
considered necessary to obtain tenure. Being driven by such dynamics, the
literature in the social sciences is replete with novel and conflicting
interpretations on many issues.
Social scientists tend to deal with the real world in terms of abstractions. These abstractions are manipulated in new and creative ways to make "useful" contributions to social science literature. This creative manipulation of abstractions frequently does not translate into any substantive or concrete improvements of the human condition. And though many well meaning social scientists feel that they are making a useful contribution to human society through their work, more often than not their contributions to scholarly journals represent a criminal waste of trees.
Despite a proliferation of junk in many social science journals, there is much information that is reliable and important. The problem is being able to distinguish the truly landmark works from the junk, and being able to teach these works in a way that is interesting. The subject matter of the social sciences can be inherently interesting. It is the way that the subject matter tends to be taught in our colleges and universities that makes it boring. Once, again, the time and expense associated with obtaining a social science degree from a college or university serves important gate keeping functions. Professionals in the social sciences will tell you that it is a valuable part of the professional socialization process to attend a world class university. Well, take it from some one who has firsthand knowledge of this experience. Bull! I could have much more easily learned the vast majority of what I learned in graduate school without ever setting foot in a university!
The Risks of Getting An Expensive Social Science
Education
If you are not able to pass yourself off as one of the
best and the brightest in a particular field of social science, or even
if you don't have a solid publication track record, you are virtually assured
of not getting a permanent job in the field. So before you embark on an
expensive college or university education in the social sciences, ask yourself
a few questions. Do you want to pursue a social science degree because
you actually value the knowledge that the social sciences have to offer?
Do you want a social science degree from a major college or university
in order to have a chance of entering one of the more exclusive social
science professions? If you answered yes to either or both of these questions,
then you should find the courses offered towards the S.S.T. Degree helpful.
At least initially, and before deciding to pursue a profession
in the social sciences, you should approach the social sciences from the
standpoint of a pastime. For although the subject matter of the social
sciences can be just as inherently fascinating as the physical sciences,
it is not without its own brand of difficulty. You should attempt to discover
this difficulty by reading some of the more highly respected and sought
after works in the social sciences. If your have a high need for
cognition, or a high level of intellectual curiosity, and especially if
you want to learn more about what makes human beings tick, you should have
a high aptitude for the study of social science. But, if you don't have
the aptitude or the interest, you will find that the rewards which come
from the "formal" study of social science will not justify the expenditure
of time, money and effort. So before you spend what may turn out to be
tens of thousands of dollars on an expensive college or university degree
in one of the social sciences, why not test your aptitude for social science
study by taking one or more of the courses offered towards the S.S.T. DEGREE.
While you prepare for this degree, you can work at your own pace, and in
the privacy of your own home. This is where most learning takes place anyway,
even at the university level.
The methods of teaching social science used at most colleges and universities are simply too inefficient and time consuming for most people to afford. And besides, most people just want to learn the essential core knowledge that these fields have to offer. For these people especially, S.S.T. offers an affordable alternative social science education that boils down the social sciences into the core essentials of what everyone needs to know.
The method of instruction employed by S.S.T. gives you a relatively quick, comprehensive, and painless introduction to the course material, and then points you in the direction of more in depth knowledge, if you feel you need it. This method of instruction provides you with a comprehensive overview of the essential core knowledge in a number of social science fields. You won't know everything that a college professor knows from taking our courses, or even by obtaining the S.S.T. DEGREE. But, you will know much of what a college professor knows. And, you will not have had to undergo the tedious, painful, and expensive process that is entailed in getting a social science degree at most colleges and universities.
At S.S.T., we distill the bare essence of each social science field into its fundamental core essentials. We then make these core essentials easily available to you at minimal cost. We don't want you to have to go through hoops to serve some artificial institutional purposes. We presume that what you primarily want is the greatest amount of valuable social science knowledge for the least amount of effort, and at the lowest cost. Our principal aim is to disseminate core social science knowledge in the most efficient and cost effective way possible. It is not our aim to teach you to think. We expect that you have already learned how to think in relatively complex and abstract terms, as a natural consequence of living in a complex world.
At S.S.T., we do not promise that our credentials will have any economic value, now, or in the future. We do promise that the material which you will learn from completing our degree program will make you a better political participant; and that it will give you valuable insights which you might not otherwise have the opportunity to learn. This knowledge will not only make you a more politically savvy citizen, but it will also provide you with a solid intellectual foundation in the social sciences, if you should decide to undergo the rigors of an "institutional" education. In fact, our courses are highly recommended as college prep for anyone who has serious plans of getting a social science education from a college or university.
In the form of detailed course notes and study materials,
we offer you the same kinds of guidance and insights that you would get
from taking college or university courses. Most of the notes for our courses
are taken straight out of university lectures. If you successfully complete
all the courses in the S.S.T. curriculum, you will be well equipped to
understand the essentials of the social, political, and economic world
in which you live, without having to endure a long, monotonous, and expensive
education.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the kind of institutional education which you receive at most colleges and universities. First of all, by its very nature, an institutional education is one in which you submit yourself to "institutional confinement" for the purpose of rigorous instruction. The educators involved in the process will tell you that such an environment is "intellectually stimulating" and that it is a haven of "free expression." Actually, there tends to be a subtle, or in some cases, a pervasive orthodoxy at work in this environment. When you become a student of social science at a college or a university, you are expected to arrive at certain standard conclusions which your instructor leads you to. It is a feature of virtually all types of education to lead you in the direction of forming "correct" conclusions. These conclusions most commonly reflect the "orthodox" or the "standard" interpretation within a particular field. Social science is no different from any other field of study in this regard.
In taking social science classes at either the undergraduate or the graduate level, one quickly gains a sense of the prevailing orthodoxy and of the "politically correct" views which one should hold in order to have a successful career in one of the social sciences. Any sophisticated participants in this process will quickly learn that they are only to speak in terms of certain values and attitudes which are deemed "acceptable" within the social science professions. These values and attitudes, along with standard interpretations of important social science texts, comprise the prevailing orthodoxy within the social sciences.
Because what constitutes "knowledge" in the social sciences is less certain than in the physical sciences, there is a greater tendency in the social sciences to impose an orthodoxy by means of a "subtle compulsion." To the extent that the majority of the academics in a field of social science can agree on the orthodoxy which they are to impose, and to the extent that such orthodoxy facilitates the emergence of "standard interpretations" of important texts, the social sciences may be better served than if no orthodoxy were imposed at all. But, the fact that the underlying consensus within the social sciences tends to be so weakly formed to begin with, and the fact that it must be held together by compulsion, highlights the need for a powerful social science critique. However, it should be recognized that it is not the object of such a critique to completely destroy the prevailing orthodoxy, or to turn standard interpretations of important social science texts on their heads. For these standard interpretations are by far better than the clearly "radical" interpretations which one is apt to encounter in the more obscure and poorly lit corners of some of our leading academic institutions. What is needed is to simply neutralize the biases of the prevailing orthodoxy. And, this is the aim of the social science critique, as it is conducted by S.S.T. We simply attempt to purge the prevailing orthodoxy of ideological bias, while leaving much of the standard interpretations of important texts (particularly works in classical political philosophy) largely in tact.
It should be recognized that there is nothing wrong with orthodoxy per se. In fact, you cannot have a profession without a certain level of orthodoxy, or a certain level of underlying agreement as to what constitutes core knowledge within a field. But, when this orthodoxy is skewed, or when a field of study becomes polarized by a "sub optimal" ideology, then the field is in need of a critique to purge it of bias. The only orthodoxy which is legitimate is that which is based upon the most comprehensive truth. In the case of the social sciences, this means the most comprehensive truth about society. Unfortunately for the social sciences, as they are currently constituted, there is not typically a high level of agreement as to what constitutes truth, or even what constitutes the most essential core knowledge in a given field.
In addition to being ideologically biased, as they are currently constituted, the social sciences are excessively Balkanized, or fragmented. And, depending on which university you attend, or even which professors you take courses from within the same university department, you may get a completely different picture of what social science is. And yet, among more traditional scholars who are more concerned with preserving a particular body of knowledge than they are with trying to push any particular political agenda, there tends to be a standard interpretation of important works. This standard interpretation serves as the basis for the modest level of consensus which does exist in the social sciences. In turn, this consensus points in the direction of "core knowledge" in a given field
It should be among the foremost aims of social science to distinguish "core knowledge" from the many volumes of less essential information which occupy the greater part of most book shelves. Once the most essential core knowledge of the social sciences has been identified, this knowledge can be subjected to a powerful critique, in order to purge it of its prevailing biases. From this point, the various fields of social science can be unified within a single overarching theoretical framework. To date, the social sciences have not accomplished any of these goals in a convincing way. Consequently, these tasks fall to S.S.T.
S.S.T. provides a theoretical framework to help one gain a comprehensive and unified understanding of the social sciences. At S.S.T. we identify the core knowledge that you should be exposed to, we critique this knowledge, and then we place it within a single framework to give it unity, meaning, and purpose.
As they currently exist, the various fields of social science have not yet consolidated in a "synthetic" fashion. They remain fragmented, and lack a unifying theoretical framework. Knowledge of one social science field is commonly not widely studied by professionals in neighboring fields. For instance, an enormous body of literature has evolved in the field of social psychology which is especially applicable to the field of political science. Yet, many political scientists have little knowledge of this literature. Despite its current state of Balkanization, and despite containing a lot of junk, the existing body of social science literature contains all the necessary ingredients to achieve an optimal form, or to constitute a legitimate science. It is only necessary to isolate the conceptual gems of this literature and then refine these gems by means of a powerful critique. Once the essential core knowledge of the social sciences has been isolated and refined, it can then be placed under one theoretical roof. This overarching theoretical framework will facilitate communication between the various social science fields, and it will help cure the Balkanization that now exists in the social sciences.
In addition to being fragmented and Balkanized, each field of social science has its own particular biases. The social science instruction one typically receives at our colleges and universities tends to reflect the prevailing ideological biases within these fields. On top of the biases which may be characteristic of a particular social science field, the social sciences are collectively infused with what may be broadly termed the bias of "humanism."
The Pervasive Influence of Humanism in the Social
Sciences
In the course of their professional socialization, social
scientists would seem to be more capable than many other groups of adopting
a standpoint which is relatively neutral, in terms of the polar ideologies
of liberalism and conservatism. But, as it is commonly practiced and understood
in our major colleges and universities, social science is still heavily
infused with ideological biases. In addition to liberalism and conservatism,
one of the most important of these biases is derived from the ideology
of humanism. As an overarching intellectual approach, and as a sentiment
based mode of thought, humanism is largely the product of Western middle-class
intellectuals. As such, humanism is largely a reflection of the interests
and sentiments of these intellectuals, including social scientists themselves.
In general, Western middle-class intellectuals have interests and sentiments
which are distinctively at odds with the interests and sentiments of humanity
as a whole. And yet, oddly enough, the underlying philosophy and
perspective which these intellectuals hold goes by the name "humanism."
On the basis of their own prevailing sentiments and interests, these intellectuals
claim to speak for the whole of humanity.
As a philosophy, or as an approach to life, humanism is a reflection of the interests and sentiments of particular groups who currently have it within their power to define what it means to be "human." Considering the distinctive material and intellectual interests of the professions which have been most instrumental in its development, it can easily be argued that the philosophy of humanism does not fairly or objectively represent the sentiments or interests of humanity as a whole. In short, the philosophy of humanism, as it is currently understood, is not completely human. It does not adequately synthesize the underlying and potentially opposing aspects of human nature. Nor does it account for human nature in any truly comprehensive sense.
To the extent that this philosophy tends to pervade much of social science knowledge, humanism would seem to render the whole corpus of social science literature suspect. Hence, there is the further need for a powerful critique to purge social science of bias. When and where necessary, the course material made available through S.S.T. is subjected to just such a critique, so that you will be assured of getting the most fair and objective view of social science possible. You are commonly not assured of getting such a view when you take social science courses at many of our leading colleges and universities.
Ideological Biases in the Social Sciences
In addition to the prevailing orthodoxy, and in addition
to a humanistic bias which underlies much of social science education at
our major colleges and universities, there are other more clearly ideological
biases at work in the social sciences. One of the major pitfalls of receiving
a social science education from our leading colleges and universities is
that these institutions continue to employ ideological modes of instruction,
either wittingly, or unwittingly. Ideological distortion of subject
matter is much more easily accomplished in professions like the social
sciences which have not yet consolidated around a core of relatively stable
knowledge. What is considered to be core knowledge in the social sciences
is constantly in question and constantly in flux.
Professors resort to ideologies for the same reasons that most other people do. People in general tend to resort to ideologies because, at least initially, these ideologies tend to reduce the cost of obtaining information. In other words, ideologies reduce the transaction costs we have to pay when we seek information, or when we attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in this information. Ideologies present an internally consistent world view which conforms to a set of polar (one-sided) ideological principles. In order to present such a neat view of the world, the polar ideologies of liberalism and conservatism tend to shut out many inconvenient facts which are not consistent with their particular world views. These polar ideologies make few attempts to reconcile disparate facts or to place these facts within a more comprehensive theoretical framework.
Arguably, all people do not pay the same transaction costs when they seek knowledge. For some people, especially people who have a high need for cognition, knowledge can frequently serve as its own reward. These people seek knowledge mainly for the sake of better understanding the world around them. If any practical benefits happen to follow from their knowledge, then all the better. But this high need for cognition requires a level of interest in politics which most people don't have and which we should not reasonably expect them to cultivate. And yet, the study of politics, philosophy, and of society in general, can be inherently interesting, if the material to be learned is presented in the right way, and if its relevance to the average person can be adequately demonstrated.
At SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH, all of the information that we
give you first undergoes a synthetic analysis. That is to say, where necessary,
it is critiqued and purged of ideological distortions. Or, if it contains
ideological distortions for purposes of illustration, this bias is revealed.
As they are currently taught at most our our leading colleges and universities,
the social sciences are particularly likely to contain either a conservative,
or more frequently, a liberal bias. Conversely, SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH teaches
social science from an ideologically neutral standpoint, or from a "synthetic"
perspective. In this way, you are assured of getting the most accurate
and unbiased information possible. You are assured of getting basic social
science information that is as free as possible from either a liberal or
a conservative bias. You have no such assurances when you take a social
science course at most colleges and universities. In fact, when you take
social science courses at most colleges and universities, it is is imperative
that you be able to quickly pick up on your instructor's own ideological
bias, and that you begin to "mimic" this bias in your own work. Take it
from someone who graduated Magna Cum Laude; this is a useful technique
for getting good grades in many college level social science courses. If
you employ this technique when you attend college, it doesn't mean that
you have to abandon your principles either. By mimicking your instructor's
ideological bias for the duration of a course, you are simply making a
statement that you are capable of seeing things from either a liberal or
a conservative point of view. After you have demonstrated this capability
to your instructor's satisfaction, you are free to return to your "synthetic"
way of thinking. But, at SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH, there is no need to mimic.
LEVEL OF INSTRUCTION AND COURSE MATERIALS
Level of Instruction
One of the principal aims of S.S.T. is to make the information
that is most essential for understanding our political system inexpensively
available in a form that the average literate reader will not have great
difficulty understanding. We take for granted that with a little extra
time and effort, anyone who can read at the college level can also read
and understand material that is used in upper level graduate courses.
The course material that is made available through S.S.T. is designed to strike a careful balance between the need to be understandable and the need to be sophisticated. For the benefit of individuals who are less familiar with the subject matter, more elemental course material is needed. If the material is too abstract and ethereal, average literate people will not be able to grasp it. Hence, it will not be especially meaningful to large segments of the population. Conversely, if the course material is presented too simplistically, the more politically sophisticated reader will be turned of by its elementary tone. To strike a balance between these conflicting priorities, S.S.T. employs a process of distillation. We reduce the core knowledge of the social sciences down to its bare essentials.
The most important information is distilled from each course and made available to students in the form of course notes and a course study guide, or summary. How much emphasis students choose to place upon these more elementary course materials is entirely up to them. At the same, for the benefit of students who want more detailed knowledge, we provide lists of advanced reading materials with each course. These more advanced reading materials consist chiefly of books and journal articles. These are many of the same books and journal articles that PhDs rely on to get their credentials. By employing this two level strategy, we facilitate the public's access to the core knowledge of the social sciences. S.S.T. makes the core knowledge of the social sciences widely available in a form that is understandable to the novice, as well as interesting to more advanced audiences.
In addition to providing the core knowledge that will enable students to prioritize and to navigate through social science literature, SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH provides our students with a wealth of background information. This background information will help students gain the insights that they will need to better understand the evolution of our political institutions, and the principles upon which these institutions are based. To achieve these aims requires knowledge of the more important works of Western political philosophy. A basic understanding of these works provides the conceptual foundations that one will need to navigate through much social science literature. Because a basic understanding of the material in the philosophy sequence (BLOCKS1-3) is needed to help establish the conceptual foundations for the majority of courses that follow, it is highly recommended that these courses be taken in the proper sequence, beginning with Block1. And though the course materials range from lower level undergraduate courses (in the case of the economics sequence) to upper level graduate courses (in the case of political philosophy and social psychology) there is no need to take the undergraduate level courses first, for the following reasons:
The instructors at most colleges and universities would like you to believe that there is a great deal of difference in the intensity or difficulty between courses taught at the undergraduate level and those taught in graduate school. For, in this way, they are better able to justify extending the educational process out over a number of years. And while the differences between college and graduate school are clearly noticeable, in many cases, they are not profound. There is a lot more digging and busy work entailed in getting a Ph.D. in the social sciences than there is in getting a Bachelors degree. And, the writing requirements for the Ph.D. are substantially more demanding than anything you are likely to face as an undergraduate. But, with the exception of such "busy work" which is designed to weed out less qualified or determined students, as well as increase the skill levels of those who remain in graduate programs, the basics tend to remain the same. And this is our primary purpose at S.S.T., to teach you the basics of social science in a comprehensive and thorough fashion.
As stated earlier, social science education tends to be extremely inefficient and redundant. This inefficiency serves the self interest of the educators themselves, and it serves to reinforce the material in the minds of the more forgetful and generally non attentive students. I can personally recall graduate courses which covered much the same material that was covered in an introductory college 101 philosophy course. The downside of this inefficiency is that it takes students who just want to "learn the basics" much longer to get what they want out of the process. Professors have to make a living, just like anyone else. And, if they can drag out a process than would normally take 6 months, and spread it out over six years, it obviously serves their economic interests to do just that. And this is exactly what happens in the educational process in the the social sciences today.
Description of Course Materials
When you sign up for a course with S.S.T., you will receive
a packet of course materials. The packet will contain a course summary
or study guide, a list of reading materials, and extensive course notes.
The course notes are taken from actual lectures given at major colleges
and universities. Once again, the courses from which these notes were taken
range from lower level undergraduate courses (in the case of the economics
sequence) to upper level graduate courses (in the case of political philosophy
and social psychology). Despite the advanced level of some of these courses,
all the course material should be readily understandable to the average
person who is capable of reading at the college level. The courses offered
in economics will tend to focus on more basic information; for a basic
knowledge in economics is generally sufficient for most "practical" purposes.
Conversely, the political theory courses are somewhat more abstract and
may require substantially more reading and effort to master. Yet, even
here, considerable effort is made to refine the subject matter and
boil it down to its core essentials. Because some of the course work is
cumulative and will build on the course work which has preceded it, it
is highly recommended that you take these courses in proper sequence, beginning
with Block 1 and ending with Block 12.
The course summaries and course notes attempt to go right
to the point, rather than taking a more circuitous route to the truth,
as an exercise that is designed to "make you think." We presume that
you already know how to think, and that what you mainly want is the core
knowledge associated with a particular field of study. If you want widely
accepted credentials in a particular social science field, then you will
have to go through hoops, and you will have to undergo the time consuming
and costly process of obtaining a college or a university degree. There
is simply no way around this. But, if what you mainly want is the core
social science knowledge that is needed to better understand the complexities
of the social and political world that you live in, the knowledge you gain
from taking our courses will prove more than sufficient for this purpose.
We offer you the opportunity to know almost as much as the professionals
in the social sciences know themselves, without having to go through what
they did to get this knowledge.
COURSE TITLE COURSE NUMBER
AMERICAN POLITICS1
BLOCK4
AMERICAN POLITICS2
BLOCK5
AMERICAN POLITICS3
BLOCK6
ECONOMICS1
BLOCK10
ECONOMICS2
BLOCK11
IDEOLOGY
BLOCK9
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY1
BLOCK1
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY2
BLOCK2
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY3
BLOCK3
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY1
BLOCK7
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY2
BLOCK8
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
BLOCK12
BLOCK1: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY1
Block1 is designed to provide students with an introduction
to the origins of Western political thought. This course will begin by
surveying fundamental questions of political philosophy as they began to
take shape in the minds of classical Greek thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.
The course will conclude with a brief look at the political philosophy
of Machiavelli. This course is a must for better understanding the foundations
of Western political philosophy. It is principally from these foundations
that what we know today as social science evolved.
BLOCK2: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY2
Block2 will survey some of the more important contributions
to Western political thought made by the most important political philosophers
since Machiavelli. The course will primarily focus on the works of Hobbes,
Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche. This course is specifically
designed for those who want to better understand some of the deepest thoughts
of some of the deepest thinkers.
BLOCK3: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY3
This course will focus mainly on the genesis of American
political thought at the time of the founding. Close attention will be
given to how the work of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Wilson contributed
to the development of our political institutions. This course is essential
for better understanding the origins of our political institutions, and
some of the most important features which they retain to this day.
BLOCK4: AMERICAN POLITICS1
This course will include a broad based survey of Congress,
the Courts, and the Presidency. This course will be particularly
helpful for developing a comprehensive picture of our political environment
at the national level. Close attention will be given to decision making
process and to the basic operations of our most important political institutions.
BLOCK5: AMERICAN POLITICS2
This course will focus on electoral behavior. Close attention
will be given to how political attitudes and party allegiances develop,
and how party allegiances frequently serve as proxies for knowledge about
the issues. The course will examine some of the more important works of
Converse, Achen, and others involved in the ideology debate. The course
will also examine a wide variety of literature which is devoted to the
interface between ideology and party politics.
BLOCK6: AMERICAN POLITICS3
This course will focus on political parties and party
politics in the United States. Particular attention will be given to the
structure and functioning of the major political parties. The course will
also examine the role of third parties and the future of the two party
system.
BLOCK 7: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
This course corresponds to an entry level graduate course
in social psychology. The course will survey some of the more important
concepts and studies in social psychology, and will serve as a prerequisite
for the more advanced course in social psychology. This course is specifically
designed to establish the foundations for a better working knowledge of
human social behavior. As such, it is also particularly useful for better
understanding political behavior.
BLOCK 8: ADVANCED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
This course builds upon the first course in social psychology.
It is designed to reveal some of the more interesting details of the psychological
processes underlying complex human social behaviors. The course places
a major emphasis on the formation and functioning of attitudes. You'll
never look at your fellow human beings in quite the same way after taking
this course.
BLOCK9: THE STUDY OF IDEOLOGY
This course surveys the most important literature related
to the formation and functioning of mass belief systems. The evolution
of both secular and transcendental belief systems will be investigated.
In addition, the course will trace the path of the concept of "ideology"
from Destutt de Tracy, to Marx, and ending up with the modern understanding
of ideology in terms of its social psychological functions.
BLOCK10: ECONOMICS1
A basic working knowledge of how the economy works is
needed to make informed political choices. ECONOMICS1 corresponds to an
introductory college course in macroeconomics. This course is a must for
understanding the underlying dynamics of the economy in both the public
and private sectors.
BLOCK11: ECONOMICS2
This course is equivalent to an introductory college
101 course in microeconomics. The course is designed to help you better
understand the basics of market principles which affect businesses and
firms.
BLOCK12: SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
This course will survey the most important theories which
have shaped the development of modern sociology.
SIGN
UP FOR A COURSE
To sign up for a course, send a check for $20 per course,
made payable to A.S.P. to:
SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH
P.O. BOX 40099
AUGUSTA, GA, 30909
Be sure to include the number for the course or courses you are signing up for on your check. Also, note the recommended order in which the courses should be taken.
Your course packet should arrive within two to three weeks
from the time your check is received. The course packet will contain a
course summary (or study guide), course notes, and a list of reading materials.
When you finish studying the course materials, simply request your free
end of course examination by EMAIL. To complete your courses expeditiously,
you should have access to a college or university library. Most college
and university libraries will have the majority of the reading materials
that will be on the reading list for the course. Under copyright laws,
you are allowed to copy portions of books and journal articles for personal
use. Use these laws to their fullest, but without violating them. Take
as long as you like to read the materials. When you think you have achieved
the level of competence that you desire, submit a request for end of course
exam to eoc@sstdegree.com, and list the course number in the subject line.
Your exam should arrive within two weeks of your request. Once you receive
your exam, take as long as you need to complete it and return it to S.S.T.
But remember, if you are using the end of course exams to prepare for the
final comprehensive exam, you will want to limit the time you allow yourself
to complete it. In this way you will be able to simulate the actual conditions
that you will face during the comprehensive exam. Each exam will consist
of from 25 to 50 questions.
To obtain the S.S.T. Degree, you must first pass the final comprehensive exam. The registration fee for the final comprehensive exam is $100. The fee is non-refundable. The final comprehensive exam will be held once a year in both Aspen, Colorado and in Augusta, Georgia. You will be responsible for all of your travel, lodging, and related expenses. You must register at least 2 months prior to the exam. The time of year that the exams will be held will vary, depending on the number of prospective examinees who have requested examination. Registration deadlines will be announced to all prospective examinees.
The comprehensive exam for the S.S.T. Degree consists of multiple choice questions from each of the core areas. The comprehensive exam is designed to test basic knowledge of the relevant fields, not to test composition skills. The criteria used to evaluate essay type examinations tend to be very subjective to begin with. These criteria are made even more subjective due to the nature of the subject matter in the social sciences. On this account alone, the examination process is considerably prone to abuse as it is conducted at most colleges and universities. To avoid such difficulties, we only administer objective, multiple choice tests at S.S.T. In this way you get a neutral and fair evaluation of how much you actually know.
Once you have completed all of the courses listed in the course catalogue, and whether or not you have taken final exams in these courses, you may elect to take the comprehensive exam for the S.S.T. DEGREE. Because the individual course examinations are designed to prepare you for the comprehensive exam, it will be in your interest to take these exams.
The comprehensive exam will last for approximately 4 hours
and will be administered in two, two hour sessions with a one hour break
for lunch. A minimum passing score of 80% is required to be awarded the
S.S.T. DEGREE from SOCIAL SCIENCE TECH. You can take the comprehensive
exam as many times as it takes for you to pass.
THE S.S.T. DEGREE IS YOUR KEY TO LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN:
COPYRIGHT 2000 BY ALEX VAN
ALLEN
