What do you think?
Rate this book
The Thing Itself: Essays on Academics and the State
Michael Munger is a college professor who has taught at Dartmouth, University of Texas, UNC, and now Duke. He describes his experiences with "The Thing," or the politically centralized state, with humor and some mistakes along the way. The title comes from a famous quotation by Edmund Burke, 18th century British statesman and philosopher.
189 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 14, 2015
2 people are currently reading
44 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
September 26, 2020
this is a quick and easy read with some real gems of economic and public policy insight, mixed together with some personal observations and stories from academia. Though of some general insight into economics and politics, it is specifically about the business of higher ed, or more importantly how that business is shaping itself and being shaped as it evolves and deals with modern questions of policy and politics. I enjoy Professor Munger's sensibility and wry take on the world no matter captures his attention so my enthusiasm should be taken in light of that personality alignment.
May 28, 2021
This is a brief set of essays, published in 2015, about the author's experience in working for the State (i.e. Federal government, in the Federal Trade Commission) and the Academy (several universities).
The essays on the political climate in the Academy were the more interesting. One main thesis is that American universities are actually failing students of the left, because they are rewarded for repeating what the teacher wants to hear...rather than having to learn to evaluate both sides of an argument.
June 16, 2019
This book is very stimulating. Munger provides great examples for his points and is rather open-minded about issues. He is also extremely funny which makes this an enjoyable read. Give this a go, and you’ll stop seeing so many unicorns!
Read
December 26, 2017[original blogpost here. I write book reviews every month on the blog :-)]
I was introduced to Michael Munger thanks to Econtalk, so I thought since I liked his talks so much I would probably like his books too. So I picked up The Thing Itself. It is an interesting collection of essays about the state, and how the problems of the state often have no solution within the state, because the problem is _the thing itself_. The essays are half about the state, and half about academics, and while a goodreads reviewer claims they are related, I didn't really see a big connection between the two subjects.
His essays on conservatives in academia were interesting, where he criticizes higher education as being insular and therefore failing the students. The problem is not necessarily that kids are too liberal or professors are too liberal, but rather a problem of a lack of challenge. Universities ought to be driven by education, not ideology, and education is most effective as what he calls "collision with error." Therefore, because liberal views are often accepted without challenge, education systems aren't a problem for conservatives. They are a problem for liberals, since they are never taught how to think and defend their views without a robust counterargument. An analogy he uses is a chess game. The conservative student learns the entire game because his views are often challenged, but the liberal student learns only the first move: the answer to "are you a liberal or a conservative?" He quotes Mill:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
I like that a lot and I deeply agree with Munger. The problem that I have personally with a lot of my views is I have a hard time defending them on good grounds, and even when I see something on facebook or reddit I immediately scoff at, I also often don't understand well the counterarguments and the logic or facts behind my position. As Munger says in his book, "if you don't learn what you stand for and why you'll fall for anything," and a lot of my views feel a bit tenuous. In my experience, however, I think the core curriculum at Columbia does a pretty good job, and even if I accidentally said something right my CC professor Yogesh Chandrani would still fix me with a withering look and tell me to say more.
I also found his thoughts about democracy and majority rule very interesting, summed up nicely here: "Requiring that government actions hinge on the consent of the governed is the ribbon that holds the bundle together, but it is not the bundle itself."
I loved the essay on Transantiago, the bus system in Chile. It was an effective private bus service before, albeit with significant problems (pollution, lots of accidents, etc.) and it was turning a profit, so the Chilean government nationalized it and it became a public bus service. The rest is history and the bus service sucked, turning commutes from 40 minutes to 2 hours. The lessons here are rife, and as I listen to more econ talk podcasts (with Russ, who is a libertarian), I find that I generally agree with Munger and Roberts that market based solutions, with minor government tinkering, is often the best solution to problems. The essay is really interesting, if you read nothing else in the book I would read that essay.
I was introduced to Michael Munger thanks to Econtalk, so I thought since I liked his talks so much I would probably like his books too. So I picked up The Thing Itself. It is an interesting collection of essays about the state, and how the problems of the state often have no solution within the state, because the problem is _the thing itself_. The essays are half about the state, and half about academics, and while a goodreads reviewer claims they are related, I didn't really see a big connection between the two subjects.
His essays on conservatives in academia were interesting, where he criticizes higher education as being insular and therefore failing the students. The problem is not necessarily that kids are too liberal or professors are too liberal, but rather a problem of a lack of challenge. Universities ought to be driven by education, not ideology, and education is most effective as what he calls "collision with error." Therefore, because liberal views are often accepted without challenge, education systems aren't a problem for conservatives. They are a problem for liberals, since they are never taught how to think and defend their views without a robust counterargument. An analogy he uses is a chess game. The conservative student learns the entire game because his views are often challenged, but the liberal student learns only the first move: the answer to "are you a liberal or a conservative?" He quotes Mill:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
I like that a lot and I deeply agree with Munger. The problem that I have personally with a lot of my views is I have a hard time defending them on good grounds, and even when I see something on facebook or reddit I immediately scoff at, I also often don't understand well the counterarguments and the logic or facts behind my position. As Munger says in his book, "if you don't learn what you stand for and why you'll fall for anything," and a lot of my views feel a bit tenuous. In my experience, however, I think the core curriculum at Columbia does a pretty good job, and even if I accidentally said something right my CC professor Yogesh Chandrani would still fix me with a withering look and tell me to say more.
I also found his thoughts about democracy and majority rule very interesting, summed up nicely here: "Requiring that government actions hinge on the consent of the governed is the ribbon that holds the bundle together, but it is not the bundle itself."
I loved the essay on Transantiago, the bus system in Chile. It was an effective private bus service before, albeit with significant problems (pollution, lots of accidents, etc.) and it was turning a profit, so the Chilean government nationalized it and it became a public bus service. The rest is history and the bus service sucked, turning commutes from 40 minutes to 2 hours. The lessons here are rife, and as I listen to more econ talk podcasts (with Russ, who is a libertarian), I find that I generally agree with Munger and Roberts that market based solutions, with minor government tinkering, is often the best solution to problems. The essay is really interesting, if you read nothing else in the book I would read that essay.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews