I want to learn about everything. If there were a single phrase that could sum up my personality, it would probably be the preceding. As a budding scholar, this would seem to be an appropriate way of approaching the world. However, in my case it’s a distinct possibility that without some proper counterbalance, this love of learning will get in the way of being a successful scholar and useful member of society.
Why is this, you ask? Tim, one of my mentors and professors who’s known me since I applied to Indiana University, warned me of the trap that “smart people like [me], who are able to master many subjects with relative ease, sometimes fall into”, learning field after field before applying that information to solving problems or creating new knowledge. The problem lies herein: there’s so much to learn, more knowledge by far than one could ever hope to acquire in a single lifetime; and thus those people never actually become productive scholars.
I’m not sure that I really should be categorized with such polymaths, but I certainly see the danger in being swept up in the rapturous ecstasy of learning. The prospect of spending the next several decades of my life reading for a PhD in Bioengineering, going to Medical School, getting a PhD in Mathematics, attending Law School, etc. is so very tempting. However, I came to the (perhaps somewhat foolish) realization that I want to “make a difference” of some kind, and being a perpetual student could be a hindrance.
Having said that, my solution to this pretty quandary isn’t to disavow learning, but rather instead to make the distinction between learning and formal education. I don’t need to get a degree in every field to learn the topics involved. However, my problem now is trying to figure out for what fields I do need formal training. How much of mathematics or computer science am I really a strong enough student to pick up on my own? I don’t know the answer yet, but of all the things I’ve set forth to learning this year, I dare say this is of paramount importance. Well, I suppose only time will tell.
~William~
Definitely, there is a distinction. Is there an action you can take that cannot be characterized as a process of learning? It seems to me that if you exploit upon the knowledge you’ve gained to act in a way that is intended to “make a difference,” the experience will nonetheless be an exploration, an empirical trial that will lead to new facts or modifications of prior frameworks.
I think it is tolerable to delve directly into the application stage in almost all fields, and to derive an understanding from within, with or without formal training. For instance, to create a dichotomy out of religion that is not real (certainly there is more nuance than this and more than two options), consider the difference between coming to an understanding of God by contemplating text, or by doing God’s work. In Hinduism these are two particular forms of yoga, Jnana Yoga and Karma Yoga, both of which are two of four valid paths to an enlightened understanding (the others involving ritual devotion or meditation). Or a difference that there seems to be between learning formal logic and doing some forms of computer programming; the former delivers absolute truths, but the latter delivers that plus a worm game, or an etch-a-sketch, or a spreadsheet program.
May as well kill two birds with one stone as often as you can. Timidity is for the immortals.