降低近视眼：
每天喝龙眼茶，一千度近视降到只有两百度！
此方的提供者是一名执业中的中医师兼教授，他的爸爸也是中医师。
有一天一起泡茶聊天时，聊到了这一道药方。
他的外甥曾经近视一千度，他就叫他煮用以上这道药方，每天喝。八个月后外甥的近视降到只有两百度。
所以这是一个经过亲身体验而成功过的药方。
药方：龙眼肉+龙眼核（即带核的龙眼）、枸杞。
煮法：以上叁味适量，加水煮成茶，龙眼核不必打碎.
服法：就当一般茶来喝就好，每天喝，至少连喝两个月。（没效可放弃不再喝，有效而还不满意，则应续喝。）
疗效：一切跟眼睛的水晶体不正常有关的眼睛问题，包括近视，远视，散光等等。
重点：一定要用龙眼核，只用龙眼肉，则效果折半。
建议：请饭后喝，效果最佳。（因为病在头部，而饭后喝会使药性发挥在头部较多，也就是此方的目的。
书可以读得完吗
世界上的书那么多，想全读完简直是痴心妄想，但梁文道讲演的题目就叫《书读完了》。这不是他的发明，而是借用了金克木先生遗著的名字。金先生回忆说，陈寅恪年轻的时候去看望史学前辈夏曾佑，夏曾佑感慨自己不懂洋文，只会看中文书，结果把中文书都读完了。陈先生当时还觉得不可思议，等他到了晚年，也感到书是可以读得完的。金克木认为，两位大学者所说的并不是所有的书，而是那些最精粹、最根本的，就像一棵树的主干。拿中国文化来说，四书五经、《四库全书》中最重要的那些书都应归为此类。
梁文道把金克木的观点发挥了一下，认为西方的书也可以这么读。像柏拉图、亚里士多德的著作、《圣经》等都是名著中的名著，也确实有人读完过。著名学者布鲁姆写了《西方经典》，可以看出这些书他几乎全都读过了。如果把书只限定为“经典”，那的确是有望读得完的。
进入35岁之后，梁文道开始思考自己或许需要一个书单。因为年轻人的未来不可限量，而老人的时间是倒数的。进入中年以后，他也开始感受到生命的压力，生活的道路开始缩减，不再有那么多的可能性。因此他认为，与其给年轻人开书单，还不如开给老年人。
梁文道还有一个新观点，不要给青少年看太多的励志书、名人传记，反而应该给他们看一些“黑暗”点的书，描绘社会和人性的阴暗面。把他们推到悬崖边上，让他们看到下面的深渊。
梁文道观察过身边的人，感觉只看励志类书的人容易盲目自信，永远觉得自己是对的，只知道往前冲，这未必是好事。还有一个问题，如果只看正面的书，长大以后却接触到很多负面的东西，会给他们带来巨大的打击，甚至怀疑一切，现在社会上就有不少这样的人。梁文道说：“我始终相信一些东西，也有自己的理想，但我知道这些理想可能会失败，我相信的东西可能会背叛我，我有心理准备。”他认为中国的父母习惯于把不好的东西挡在外面，给孩子营造一个好的小环境，但孩子将来总要到社会上去的。如果父母能放开一些，孩子可能会生活得更开心、更健康。
知识面丰富、见解深刻，很多人对梁文道都有这样的评价。其实他小时候并不是个“好学生”，中学六年，他有五年都在班里排倒数前三名，但是他看了很多书。他经常去逛书店、图书馆，把它们当作“冒险乐园”，因为随时都可能有意外的收获。读书最大的乐趣就在于意外之得，灵光一闪的快乐。他说自己很幸运，能把读书当作自己的工作，不管是教书还是上电视。他幽默地说：“电视上帅哥美女那么多，我又不能卖样子，只能多读书了。”
梁文道说自己并不是记忆力特好的人，关键是看得多，反复看就记住了。同一个历史事件，多看一些相关的书，就能在脑海中编一张网，零散的材料就有了组织，而且牢不可破。他看的书有很多种，有些是自己重视的要慢慢看，有些是出于工作需要，睡觉前看文学性的书，洗手间里放些杂书。甚至洗澡的时候他都看书，在淋浴的花洒下面做了一个架子，放些消遣的杂书，一边冲凉一边看。
梁文道：我的灵魂我的书（深圳图书馆演讲）
一个人的书房，一个人看什么书，一个人拥有哪些书，其实就是一个人的全部，就是这个人，所以我常常很好奇。我不知道平常大家看什么样的杂志，但我会常常看很多香港的流行杂志，像一些周刊、八卦杂志、娱乐杂志我都很爱看。这些杂志里面通常每一期都会有一些固定栏目，介绍一些名人、家居。例如，介绍一些出自名师设计、特别雅致、特别好的那种房子，这些介绍中的房子内部，永远是干干净净、非常漂亮；家具也非常昂贵，意大利、德国名师设计；如果是名人的家，照片上的这些名人都是很骄傲地坐在沙发上，并且呵呵地笑。
我们接下来再看时间上的问题。书如果在空间上面体现出一个人的灵魂，他的兴趣、他的嗜好、他要隐藏的东西都在里面。那么对他来讲这些书有没有时间纵深的角度呢？我觉得这也是一个很值得探讨的话题。所谓时间纵深的角度，可以这样来理解——不知道大家有没有这个习惯，买了一本书回来可能会签名，签名的旁边还会有日期，我相信有些人会有这样的习惯。有的人甚至会连什么时候看了这本书也记下来。甚至有人更特殊，这本书可能买回来的时候签了名，写了购买的日期，后来看书的时候又写了日期，而且可能一下子看不完，可能过几个月拿出来又看，于是又记下日期。这本书就变成了一本日记，历年来你读它的轨迹都留在上面。如果你不是刻意这样做的话，你也可能会夹一些书签、证件、名片一大堆东西塞进去，塞进去之后，这些东西都是你生命中某个过程的记录，都保留在这书里面。书不只是表达、承载一个内容的载具，书本身也有历史，有被阅读的历史、有被翻开的历史、有被购买的历史、有被转卖的历史，你会在每一本书看到历史的记录，你什么时候看过它？你什么时候翻开它？特别是图书馆的书更是如此。
我以前在大学里有一个非常坏的习惯，完全不值得学习，尤其当我在深圳图书馆讲这个事情的时候。什么习惯？就是我喜欢在图书馆的书上面划线做笔记（很抱歉），为什么要干这样的事呢？当时有同学问我：“梁文道，你怎么这么做呢？”我当时很自豪：“哼！你懂什么？我要指示重点给人看，我是为了其他的读者好。”我在书上面写了“眉批”，第二个读者看了以后就会知道这本书好不好，值不值得看。
其实很多人都知道我刚刚说的那些道理，一个人的书房、每一本书里面有什么记号，都会展示你的生命历程和这些书的关系。如果是这样的话，我们能不能想象到有人会伪装？——绝对可能！怎么样伪装呢？大家有没有看到有些人家里面放一整套很漂亮的百科全书，百科全书基本上是没有人会看的人——除了像王云五先生，他是立志把大英百科全书看完的——基本上没有其他人看百科全书的。有些人专门买这些书放在家里面，也不看，就是为了炫耀，但是这种炫耀通常被人认为是很没有品味的。香港的富豪想用书来炫耀的想法是没有的，所以没有这个问题。很多地方的富豪想过得要有品位、有文化，就用书来炫耀，成为笑柄。比如说莎士比亚全集、鲁迅全集等等，你买来后肯定是不看的。因此英国这么一家公司提供特种服务。什么服务？就是几个小伙子专门负责替人买书和整理书架，好显示出主人卓越的品位，他们会看出你是什么样的人。比如说看到你的眼神有一点忧郁、有一点神秘，于是他会专门帮你买一些占星术的书籍，找一些中古、有神秘异教思想的思想家（通常都是被火刑架上烧死的那种）的著作来装扮你的家。但是这还不够，书绝对不能凑一套，比如别人买莎士比亚，你也可以买，但是买莎士比亚一整套就很笨。这家公司很会买，怎么买？不买一整套，就买八本。这八本里面另外有三本是重复的。这个重复是怎么回事呢？因为有几本的区别在于版本不同，然后在不同的版本里面有几位专家帮你在上面划线，表示你看过，还模仿出一些好似不经意的褶口。仿佛有些人夏天喜欢穿麻西装——麻西装烫得很直、很漂亮不好看，烫得有点皱，太皱又不行，怎么办？——出门之前，烫一下，烫完之后洒点水、捏一捏，这样穿起来更潇洒。书也是这样，故意褶一褶，然后又不经意地塞进一两张伦敦高文花园歌剧音乐会的门票，这表示你买这本书、或者看这本书的时候你正在看歌剧。你想想看，假如你拥有这样一个书房，然后你请一个朋友上门来——假设是位异性朋友，你就和她说：“您慢慢坐，我去弄杯咖啡。”然后一弄就弄很久，弄个20分钟。你出来的时候，发现她正在翻你的书，一脸叹服的表情。你就微微一笑——呵呵，这就得手了。接下来就是另外一个章节的故事了。
再说回这些书，它的历史本身是那么有趣，记录了人生命的轨迹，这个时候我们逐渐接近了一个更加核心的问题——在阅读的那一刹那，我的生命如何受到影响？如何被改变？如何和它发生关系的呢？到底什么叫做阅读呢？其实所谓的阅读我可以借用法国思想家布朗基的话：所谓的阅读，就是让人得到自由，让作品得到自由。为什么？我们每个人读书的时候几乎都有这样的经历，你会发现，有些书是读不懂的，很难接近、很难进入。我觉得这是真正意义上、严格意义上的阅读。如果一个人一辈子只看他看得懂的书，那表示他其实没看过书。为什么呢？你想想看，我们从小学习认字的时候，看第一本书的时候都是困难的，我们都是一步一步爬过来的。为什么十几岁之后，我们突然之间就不需要困难了，就只看一些我能看得懂的东西。看一些你能看懂的东西，等于是重温一遍你已经知道的东西，这种做法很傻的。我奉劝各位要带着审慎的眼光去看坊间很多的畅销书，特别是那些非虚构的、非文学性的畅销书。比如说最近有一本书很红，我曾经写过一篇书评去讲这本书，那本书就是《世界是平的》，大家知道这本书对不对？是《纽约时报》很红、很有名的专栏作家弗里德曼写的，这本书是最典型的、非虚构的畅销书，它具备了最成功的畅销书的特点。第一它会用一个耸动的标题、理论或概念，比如“世界是平的”。“世界是圆的”大家都知道，但是他说“世界是平的”，世界为什么是平的呢？他说因为今天的全球化已经把全世界放在平面上面，中国、印度、美国本来是那么遥远的国度，但是现在这三个地方在某些行业上面是能够竞争的。一个软体工程师在美国干得好好的，但是他现在的工作随便被转移到印度和中国去，这就是所谓世界是平的。这个概念坦白讲，其实我们大家都知道，我们天天看新闻、看报纸，都知道全球化。这只是全球化其中的一个面相，很简单的道理。但是这个作者懂得用很好的名字把它写出来，就是《世界是平的》，让你吓一跳。你觉得你在看一个很新鲜的东西。看完之后，你觉得他很有道理，说得很对，他说得那么新鲜的东西我竟然觉得很有道理，而且我都看得懂，这个时候你就很愉快。为什么？因为你知道你学到一些你不知道的东西，但为什么你看得懂呢？其实他说的事情你早就知道了，他换一种说法说，于是你以为你过去不知道。你那么容易地、轻快地就看到一些你以为你过去不知道的事情，所以你特别骄傲、而且自豪——哼，我也是聪明人！内心深处、潜意识里面觉得自己是明智的、精明的、优秀的、熟练的读者。所以我们总结一下，畅销书的规律有三个：
第一个规律就是把你已经知道的事情用你不知道的说法说一遍；第二个规律就是把刚刚的说法重复一遍，再举一些例子；第三个规律是再重复一遍进行总结，就成功了——这就是畅销书。
因此，对我来说这不是真正严格意义上的阅读，真正严格意义上的阅读总是困难的。困难在于我们会发现一本作品无论是虚构还是非虚构的，还是哲学的理论经典——比如康德的《纯粹理性批判》，或者是伟大的文学著作《追忆似水年华》。我们在阅读这些作品的时候，希望把它们组织成有机的东西，读出一个意义来，读出一个我能理解、掌握的世界。但是你发现这个作品在抗拒你的这种欲望和要求，整个阅读的过程其实是个角力，你想把一个东西套上去，让它成为可理解的、给它一种框架、一个格式、一种格局，但是它一直在抗拒。你刚刚修建一个城堡，有完整建筑的结构，墙角那一面又开始生出了蔓藤，然后慢慢地攻掠了城墙 ——阅读总是应该这样。在这个时候你就发现，阅读无非是让我们发现了我们自己的顽强意志以及作品本身的不可征服。作品是自由的，在于在阅读过程中你发现它不能被驯服；你也是自由的，因为你充分地意识到自己的意志、自己灵魂的存在。你读完一本很困难的书，你不能说自己都懂了，但是你的深度被拓展了，仿佛经过了一场漫长的斗争，这样的斗争就像做了一种很剧烈的体育运动——精神上的体育操练，使得你这个人被转化了。
希腊罗马时期的哲学家很强调阅读。他们用了一个词，就是“操练”。大家有空的时候，可以看一下《柏拉图对话录》，甚至是被认为很系统的著作 ——亚里士多德的著作《尼各马可伦理学》等等。你会发现这些作品表面似乎很系统，但是实际上不是。它甚至有很多内在的矛盾，就是因为作者在书写的过程中，已经有隐含的对话者，不断和读者对话。所谓精心的阅读就是你和这部作品进行对话，在对话的过程中你不能征服它，它不能征服你，然后你和这个作品共同达到一个高度，然后你慢慢被改变——书总会改变人。书会让人变化，会不会变得更好呢？我非常的有疑问。前几个月我在报纸上看到墨西哥有一个城市，这个城市的警察过去是出了名的“混帐”，聚赌、喝酒、不干事，贪污汇款等等，不象话。当地的政府就要改革警察，怎么改革？就搞了一个警察阅读计划，指定了一批书。每个警察都要领几本书回去，要好好看书。墨西哥讲西班牙文，当然是看一些西班牙文学的典，比如《唐吉柯德》等。据报纸说，当地的政府表示这个计划非常成功。这些警察原来都是大老粗，但看了一年的书之后，都变得气质高雅，而且执行公务的时候不偏不倚，非常优秀。比如说一个交警，过去在路上拦你车的时候就直接说：“把证件拿出来。”现在就会这样说：“这位先生，打扰您一下，我知道你赶时间，但是您能给我看一看你的证件吗？”——读书之后就会有这样的效果。因此我们常常鼓励人读书，因为我们相信读书会让一个人变好。古语有云：腹有诗书气自华。虽然我非常怀疑，因为我们看过更多的人是越读书越坏。但是读书的确会转化人，可以让你变得更加邪恶，也说不定会让你变得更善良，所以不一定。一些作品在思想上、灵性上的深度使得读书变得很危险，因为它让一个读书人可能比一个不读书的人更邪恶。因此我们尝试把阅读驯服为一种很简单的东西。
鼓励大家读书还有个原因就是希望读书让大家更有文化、人变得更好、社会更和谐，但是我觉得这个不一定会发生，这种愿望往往会落空的，因此我很讨厌开书单。在香港我有一些写书评的朋友每年都被媒体要求：开书单吧，暑假了，给学生一点好建议。我觉得书单是不能开的。为什么？因为我们相信所有真正的好书、严肃的书、都能起到改变人的作用。一份书单其实是在规划你成长的目标，你的人生变化的方向，所以它也是人生的计划。你想想，我们凭什么就将一份人生的计划、人生的进程，给一些我不认识的读者？我觉得那是不负责的。我凭什么告诉一些年轻人你应该怎么做人？你应该变成什么样的人？我能介绍一些我喜欢的书，但是我一定会强调我喜欢的书绝对不是每个人都适合。我人生的方向、我的规划绝对不可能适用于所有的人，那是不可能的。
所以列一些书单出去推广是很霸道的行为，我是反对开书单的。另外还有一点，也是大家平时很容易有的俗见，就是认为读书应该读一些引人向上的书、励志的书籍。例如推荐看一些名人的传记，看看这些人怎么奋发向上、努力向前，最后成为一代伟人等等——我很反对年轻人看太多这种书。为什么？我发现一个人读励志的书籍多了都会变成傻子，就是立志立过头了。无论遇到任何困难、任何问题，他就想到要勇往直前、排除万难、不怕牺牲。他没有考虑到，是不是自己错了，是不是一开始自己的决定就有些问题。他不管，反正他从头到尾就是立志，志气高昂。一个志气太过高昂、太过自信、人生观非常正面的人其实都有一点傻，他会变得对世界的看法很单向、单调，对人生的看法也很单一，就是只从正面看问题。他从来不知道世界的复杂，人生的阴暗。所以我认为一个人在年轻的时候，有机会就要看一些“邪恶”的书。我心目中最伟大的邪恶作品就有几本。《金瓶梅》也有这种效果，但是《金瓶梅》还不够邪恶。大家有没有听过法国的萨德侯爵，今天我们讲性虐待的“SM”，那个“S”就是来自他，因为他是个性虐待大王。他写的书充满着各种不堪入目的情节：人吃人、吃排泄物、轮奸、虐杀，种种你能想象到的最黑暗、可怕的东西他的书里全部都有了，所以他被判精神病，后来死在监狱里。但是20世纪中期之后，有很多世界级的思想家都非常关注这个人，有很多著名的导演拍他的电影，有人研究他的作品。这个萨德侯爵写书的年代就是法国大革命时期，法国大革命是个什么样的年代？就是全社会都很讲理性，大家知道当时最激进的革命派讲理性讲到什么地步么？他们认为月份的划分应该是十进制的，即十天是一个礼拜，因为七天作为一个礼拜显得不够理性、不科学，十天才是科学的。他们认为世界的一切都应该是理性的。那么就在这样一个力求理性的年代里面，法国大革命血流成河，人间能够想到的残酷和暴力都在这个最理性的时代同时发生了。这个时代有伏尔泰、卢梭这些伟大思想家的强调理性的作品流传，但是同时也有萨德侯爵写的那么可怕的书出来，这表明什么呢？理性是有它的黑暗面的，崇高的理想背后往往就是无尽的血和肉组成的深渊——欲望的深渊。所以，你如果读完启蒙思想家的作品再去看萨德侯爵，你将看到启蒙的黑暗面。如同站在一个悬崖边上，旁边是光芒灿烂的日出，但是退一步就是万丈深渊，深不见底，而且充满着诱惑。有时候我们看到一些深不见底的东西会很害怕，但是你又很想知道下面到底有什么？你觉得它在把你拉下去，那是罪恶的。
如果一个人很早的时候就意识到人性里面的阴暗、邪恶，知道自己控制不了那种欲望、那种动力，你就会明白人生很不简单、很复杂，世界很可怕、有很多意外、很多我们不能控制的东西。然后你有可能变成性格比较平和的人，至少你不会再犯傻。所以阅读是一种精神操练，阅读能够改变我们自己，读书不是让人变坏，而是让我们对人性有一个纵深的理解。
因此，我们应该主动去读困难的东西；我们应该不计较、不避讳一些所谓可怕的书；我们不要去认为精神操练就是让人变好的东西，这不一定。精神操练只是让我们有所变化，让你成为另外一种人，每个人一生的阅读过程都是应该不断变化的。有人说读书防老，我觉得说得很对。读书真的可以养老。什么意思呢？老人最可怕的就是他没有什么机会改变自己，变化自己。如果一个人上了年纪依然很开放、而且是以严肃的态度去阅读、容纳一个作品，挑战自己、改变自己、扭曲自己的话，他就还有变化的可能。每天睡眠之前的最后一刻，是一本书在陪伴我，今天的最后一刻和我对话的就是这本书，它在不断地改变我，直到临睡前我都在被改变。于是第二天早上起来的时候，我是一个新的人，和昨天不一样，就因为昨天晚上的阅读。
有一个很有名的意大利作家，患了癌症，很痛苦。在临死前，他要求护士念书给他听，直到他咽气。他抱着这样的想法：我可能会死、会咽气，但是在这一刻我仍然不放弃。所以我们大家请开放自己，让阅读、读书去改变自己，让自己变成另外一种人。我们随时随地都还有这种可能：尽管我们未必会变成更好的人，但是改变本身就已是人生的目标。我暂时先说到这，谢谢！
梁文道：将读书视为“志业” （第一财经日报）
梁文道背负诸多身份：凤凰卫视特约观察员、香港数家电台的栏目主持、香港牛棚书院院长、多家报纸专栏作者、出版社合伙人……但他视为“志业”的，却是“职业读书人”，是“知识分子”。匆匆忙忙的上海三日，梁文道只睡了10个小时，每天却匀出一二小时阅读。如果在正常情况下，他每天固定读书四到五个小时——这位大忙人如今每周要为凤凰卫视录制《锵锵三人行》、《凤凰大视野》、《开卷八分钟》三档节目，写约十篇专栏，编辑出版杂志书籍，此外还有数不清的社会文化活动等着他。
在上海参加会议间隙，他熟稔地掏出烟丝，边走边卷起一根烟，对记者解释说：“我总是很疲倦，所以，总是要抽烟。”但采访凡涉及读书，他几乎来者不拒。就像他在港岛，有关读书的演讲活动哪怕听众再少，他也毫不介意，“我将自己定位为‘买办’，把高层知识分子的东西翻译出来给其他人。”
读书方面一向“老成”
“小学二三年级，长辈到家里见面，外公向我介绍，我就说：‘久仰久仰！’他们看到我的书柜，觉得不错，我就说：‘哪里哪里，您多指教。’”这是少年时的梁文道，一个老气横秋的孩子。老气横秋，“可能和读书有点关系”，以至于从小就没人把他当小孩看。
和多数男孩小时候一样，梁文道也想做科学家，于是少儿科普书便成了他的入门读物。但梁文道的兴趣，很快转向历史和传记。“我有一个癖好，喜欢画地图。读到春秋战国，我很想知道春秋战国是什么样，当时不知道有历史地图这回事，就根据书里的描述，自己画。画出来之后，才发现历史地图和我所画的完全不一样。于是就很迷各种各样的地图，一边看地图，一边与书对照。”
确实，在读书方面，梁文道一向“老成”。1988年，读高三的梁文道已经先人一步，开始书评、书话写作，正式走上了他的“职业化读书”道路。“写稿要主动思维，你要主动吐一些内容出来。那会促使你养成一个习惯：主动读书、带着问题读书。我不会平白无故地翻开一本书被动地看，我一定会想：这本书主要想说什么、想怎样达到它想达到的目的？其中有脉络，读书就像掌握一棵树那样读。”
“‘职业化读书’和休闲读书完全不同，书读得越多，就阅读得越快。”梁文道认为自己的“临界点”出现在大学毕业那年，此后，他能非常容易地进入图书的读者角色。“每一本书都假设了你是什么样的读者，我看一本书，很快就能知道它希望我是什么样的读者，然后进入那个角色。”一般看惯小说的人很难读懂理论，因为它们语言表述方法不同，在梁文道看来，这如同方言的不同腔调，“要摸懂那个腔。读多了，就会培养出这个能力。”
目前梁文道见诸报端的专栏文章中，书话、书评已不再是重头，社会评论成了梁文道涉足最多的领域。“但对我来说，写稿从来离不开书。谈论某个问题会需要那些方面的书。我大约知道我将来要写什么东西，就会留意这些书。我是职业化地、为了工作而读书。”
梁文道本人将读书视为“志业”。忙碌的他，承认要实现志业“确实会有困难”，但，“如果你很坚定地说，我要做一个读书人，其实能够做得到。”为此他不惜牺牲睡眠时间，甚至，真所谓“死而无憾”，他逢人常说：“我觉得我会死得很早，因为要做的事情太多。”
《第一财经日报》：对于自己的知识分子身份，你是否也常常反思，一日三省？
梁文道：我常常觉得《浮士德》是关于西方知识分子的最伟大的作品之一。你看到一个知识分子无穷的求知欲望，那很可怕，会让你出卖灵魂。我觉得经常需要这个形象让自己提高警惕。
但我真觉得，有时自己就会像浮士德那样，知道有一件事情自己不懂，就觉得可惜，很想把它弄懂。我衡量一件事懂不懂的标准就是我能不能把它写出来。目前我正在克服的理论是财经，它是现代全球秩序里一个很重要的环节，我正在努力学习。
《 第一财经日报》：哪些书是你特别关注的？
梁文道：我的书杂七杂八，但有几类书是我兴趣所在，我特别看准要收藏的：一是关于书的书，就是书的历史、出版史；二是谈知识分子问题的书；还有一类是关于希腊、罗马哲学文化历史的书。
有一个法国的中国学学者，他本来研究古希腊，后来转向研究中国，他认为，古代中国无论时间上、空间上都和他的世界完全不同。我喜欢古希腊、罗马也是同样的理由，那是跟中国如此不同的世界，也是和现代西方如此不同的世界。而这种陌生，我觉得很重要。
这和我读书的观念有关。譬如说读历史，我不是要鉴古知今，恰恰相反，我要读出古人跟今天不同的地方，譬如说，古代人对生死的看法与今天不同，古代人对清洁卫生的看法也与今天不同。然后反过来你会发现，很多我们今天视之为天然的东西，都是从历史中演变而来的。我们今天觉得最自然的东西，其实都是在历史中形成的，当你从历史中发现这一点的时候，你就能够就解放，表示我们能从现在的体制、社会事件中解放出来，看到一条宽阔的前路。
梁文道：洗脚安全，读书冒险，你选哪个？（杭州日报）
给你半小时时间，你会用来洗脚还是读书，洗脚是个安全的满足方式，因为你预先知道了这洗脚的感觉有多爽。读书就是个冒险的方式，翻开这页纸，你无法预计到会带来怎样的心灵体验。你会选择怎样的方式？
在城市西郊旮旯头的书店二楼，没有空调，除了现搭的椅子就是白刷刷的墙。地上放着两块冰，两只落地小风扇，数百人在里头桑拿着。楼下是枫林晚书店，有墨香味，二楼是梁文道的讲座，满是汗臭味。
坊间热火朝天地讨论着“都市没有读书人”，结果人家梁文道一来，不怎么宣传，大夏天照样有这么多人如饥似渴地奔过来。
汗流浃背站两个多小时，就为听传说中的道长唠唠嗑。道长桌上有两杯星巴克咖啡两杯杭州龙井，他顺手拿起哪杯就喝哪杯，交替啜两口，然后抹掉脸上的汗珠，讲一个挺单纯的话题——就是“读书”。
开场白滔滔半小时，很长。他考问着在座的人，“你读书干吗？”
这个问题，在他小学入校门那会被问过，现在跨进校门的小学生还继续需要回答。这基本属于一个设问句，答案无非是：“我读书要学知识以后要当老总当老师……”这和“书中自有黄金屋”是一个道理，说到底，读书是用来做事的。
不好意思，在梁文道的眼中，在宋代朱熹陆象山的眼中，在罗马皇帝奥勒留（《沉思录》作者）眼中，这个答案忒错了。
读书是用来做人的。
好书得用背的，刻在心里，反复在脑袋里拿出来念念，推敲出点活着的名堂。这有点像修炼，念诵顿悟然后得道成仙。
荷马史诗中，特洛伊王子赫克托尔与勇将阿喀琉斯作战身死，特洛伊国王普利安姆哀求讨回赫克托尔的尸体，举行葬礼。梁文道的读法是这样的：阿喀琉斯为敌人哭了，因为他知道敌人今天的战死也是他明天的宿命，“人类悲剧性的命运无可逆转。”哭完，阿喀琉斯说吃饭了。这莫名其妙地承接里，他读到人类的本性，“再巨大的悲痛也无法阻止人要吃的欲望。”
“一个几句话的故事，每个字都在挑战你。不是你在读它，而是它在读你，它在读你是个什么样的人。你看着经典心领会神甚至手舞足蹈，因为你在别人的笔下发现了自己，原来你是这样想的，你是这样的人。”——这就是梁文道的读书方法，翻页那刻，人和书的角度互换了，今天我们依然在看《荷马史诗》，只是看肌肉男的战争故事，阅读何其渺小。
我英语挺差的，读高中那会是英语学校，我烂到不行。那种从头开始的英语教育书肯定是不适合我的。所以我找到学英文的新方法，就是看哲学书。我不是挺喜欢看哲学书吗？于是就跑书店里找了当代西方大哲写的英文书，砖头一样厚，还没出中译版的，只能硬着头皮看。然后我就开始看，每个字都查字典，从头到尾查。这不是很难懂的哲学书吗？每个单词我都查出中文意思，从头读到尾我还是看不懂。但感觉好好玩，怎么会有那么难的东西？好爽。我就是这么慢慢看会外文经典的。
梁文道谈书论道 把兴趣变成工作（凤凰卫视）
阅读是让人得到自由，也让书得到自由，让人们发现了自己的顽强意志跟作品本身的不可征服。
除了教人发财的书我什么都看
记者：您藏书万册，写书评，主持《开卷8分钟》，那么您对哪类书有特别的偏好，您觉得书有好、坏标准吗？
梁文道：偏好的书很多，一类是古希腊哲学、文化、历史方面的图书；一类是与知识分子相关的，比如说传记；还有一种与书有关，比如研究图书馆、藏书楼的书。除了教人发财的书，我什么都看。我觉得好书的标准有很多，坏书长得都很像。我对坏书的定义标准--一本书让我觉得它的出版社，它的编辑，它的校对、印刷、设计、作者，大家都不认真的书，就是坏书。这种例子很多，就是它有一些常识性的错误。
记者：阅读应该是一种爱好，但当这种爱好变为工作的时候，还有享受的感觉吗？
梁文道：我承认现在读的书并不都是我最想读的，这种状况很久了，20年来我都把兴趣变成了工作。我喜欢看电影，后来我写影评；我喜欢艺术，就写艺术评论；喜欢吃喝又开始写饮食文化的东西……不过我尽量让自己轻松面对，而且一定会留些时间给自己，留一个后花园给自己，不能全部拿出去"卖"。
记者：您一直以来都关注弱势群体，还参加各种社区工作、反战运动等等，您内心里有英雄主义倾向吗？
梁文道：小时候有，我曾经想当神父，想拯救世界，但后来关注弱势群体是因为他们很多就生活在我身边，我爱他们，觉得他们不应该受到那样的经历和对待，就这么简单。
现在到了确认自己是留在地上的年龄了
记者：您觉得自己达到人生现阶段的预期值了吗？您对未来有什么规划？
梁文道：我之前没有预期，可能有的人会认为我有名有利，可我可以坦白我到现在还没买房子，而"名"有时候也是一种负担。只能说我可以做一些自己想做的事，善用所谓的"名"。至于未来，我没有规划。有一句话是"我们曾经都想飞，但到了最后我们都留在地上"，我现在到了确认自己是留在地上的年龄了，顺其自然就好。
记者：请您向大学生推荐一本（或几本）书。
梁文道：向大学生推荐读的书，我已经提到过《论语》；此外，就是最为基础的逻辑书。我觉得我们最为欠缺的不是国学，而是逻辑。我们需要最基本的思考事情的能力和判断力，并不需要多深。所以我建议，大学生可以找到一本入门性的逻辑书来读。
《出版商务周报》：我觉得，注意逻辑可能和您受过的哲学教育有关。能不能说一下您在大学的时候读过哪些影响到您的哲学书？
梁文道：哲学对我产生过很大的影响。比如罗尔斯的《正义论》、马克思的《资本论》、亚里士多德的《尼各马可伦理学》、福柯的《疯癫与文明》和《性史》、德里达的《书写与差异》、伽达默尔的《真理与方法》，当然还有海德格尔的《存在与时间》；此外还有笛卡尔的《方法引谈》、康德的《纯粹理性批判》、斯宾诺莎的《神学政治论》等。我们那时候都是上一学期的课专门读这些书。
《出版商务周报》：香港的阅读氛围与内地读者有什么不同吗？如果有差异，差别在哪里？
梁文道：还是有差异的。大体上，香港的读者偏向工具性的图书，读的书实用性比较强。比如，香港的很多书是教你怎么在股市上赚到第一桶金。当然，内地也越来越如此了。相对而言，内地的历史文化的图书要多些，比较流行。我觉得内地的历史文化名人传记有一种危险倾向，在于其中宣扬一些谋略的东西，比如讲曾国藩的谋略，讲厚黑，好像历史就是一个谋略宝库。
梁文道：古代的书为什么没有标点符号
中文原来是没有标点符号的，所以要读书先要学句读，自己去给文章加标点符号。这个任务是读者的，而不是作者的。不只中文是这样，英文、法文、拉丁文、希腊文也都没有标点符号。看来，不只中国，全世界的作者都喜欢折磨他的读者们。
大家有没有想过古人为什么要这么折磨读者？古代书的产量是很低的，市面能找到的书的种类也很少。罗马帝国时代一年只能出产一两百种书。中世纪末期有个欧洲最博学的学者——他一辈子也只看过800多本书，所以古人的博识与今天是不一样的。大家都说孔子很博学，但那时候有几本书呢？古人讲究的博学是深读，用英文说就是Intensive Reading。一两百本书放在你面前，可能是你一生要读的书了，所以要慢慢读、一个字一个字读，读完再读，一遍遍体会字里行间的意思——很快读完，以后没得读岂不很痛苦？
古代为什么没有标点符号？因为他不需要读那么快。标点符号的流行只是近两三百年间的事情。标点符号是怎么诞生的呢？它其实是一个商业行为的结果。五六百年前，欧洲出现了古登堡印刷术，书籍出现并成为最古老的工业产品，进入市场成了商品。出于成本考虑，印刷商也就是书商就想做大量印刷来摊薄成本，于是他们发明了标点符号，让书变得更容易读、读得更快。这还不够，还要分段。
古人的书是没有分段的，也没有章节。今天我们看《论语》，一篇与另一篇之间是没有关系的，卷只是物质上的单位，竹简不够了，再换一卷继续写。中国古代的书是这样，印度、阿拉伯、欧洲的书也是这样。印刷术出来之后，出版商才开始给书籍做段落篇幅的划分。
分段产生了很大的影响。以前欧洲人读不分段的《圣经》每次都老老实实从开篇读起，《圣经》分段以后，人们开始认为不同的段落重要程度不同，分歧就产生了。所以英国大哲学家约翰•洛克说：“《圣经》分段印刷是无耻商人酿制的悲剧，他们为了让《圣经》更畅销强行分段，分段以后我们的信仰将四分五裂。”后来的结果被洛克不幸言中——基督教分裂成一大堆教派、教会。所以怎么印实在很重要，印刷术的产生令我们离开精读，开始泛读。
很多人问我，如何读得快一点，但其实如何读得好更重要。古人是怎样读书的呢？他们不是看，是反复地读，慢慢地读，读出声音来。朗读能让人沉浸到书里面去，这样一个沉浸的状态会产生一个重要的效果——这就是修炼的效果。
我手中是一本《沉思录》，这本书现在在中国很热，因为温家宝总理在看，克林顿、布什、密特朗都看过。奥勒留并不是为出版而写的，他是写给自己读的 ——不断研读，修身养性。这本书最有趣的地方就在于它是一本修行集，他的写作本身就是修行，之后的不断研读也是。写作，在英文里面就叫Spiritual Writing，所以它的读者也要把它当作一个精神修炼来读，不断地读、反复地读。这些领导人一遍遍地读《沉思录》，就是在做精神修炼。古人读《论语》也是这样。所以读书是为了改变自己，变化人格，变成另外一个人。这一点古人都是知道的。
很多人一辈子读《红楼梦》，每次都看到不一样的意思，古人反复读为的不是这个，他是每次都读到同一个意思。他是要不断地再三地提醒自己，比如，“当一个人对你做错事情之后，你不要愤怒，你反而要去想他为善或为恶的理由，然后你就不会愤怒了”，容不容易懂？做不做得到？这种书不是要你明白它的意思，是要你去做。所以真正读书读得好的人都会被某一本书变成另外一个人。古代读书人一定要是一个好人，如果不是一个好人证明书没有读好。所以读书是一种修炼，一种transformation(转变)。
我为什么讲这个？因为我发现今天大家只是把读书当做一个工具，通过它拿到什么东西。读书其实是一种精神操练，是我们已经失落的一个传统，我们每个人都可以恢复它，找一本书去修炼自己，追求自己的变化。
梁文道：一个国家的圣书
用一本书去代表整个国家，这是所有政治家的终极诱惑。
英国评论杂志《展望》（Prospect）七月份的封面专辑是《戈登・布朗:知识分子》。很夸张的标题，所以连这个专辑里的好几个特约作者都怀疑这位爱丁堡大学的政治学博士究竟算不算英国几十年来第一个知识分子首相。为了说明此言不虚，他的一个前助手出来见证，表示当年亲眼见过布朗与名满天下的哈佛商学院教授波特（Michael Porter）会面，聊他那著名的《国家比较优势》理论。一场长谈下来，波特教授赫然发现这个英国财相对这套理论的细节掌握得竟比自己还好。而这类会面，正是布朗最喜欢的活动之一，他总是定期约见各个领域的大牌学者，向他们当面讨教自己的读书心得。
不过有一点很奇怪，虽然布朗深受亚当・斯密及大卫・休谟等苏格兰启蒙思想家的影响，但他对美国的保守主义却情有独钟，甚至还想召集手下合写一本大书，“一本可以描述整个英国的书”，因为他很羡慕“美国是个能够用一本书去代表它所有价值观和所有理念的国家”。我说这个想法古怪，是因为它很不英国，英国从来就不是一个需要奠基文件的国家，也不可能有哪一本书总结得了它那纷杂、自由和散漫的思维习惯与社会传统。
而美国的独特，就在于它身为一个民主国家，却活像一支“圣书的子民”（People of the Book），已经两百多年了，它的大人物还动不动就要回到建国初期，引述先贤圣言来支持自己的言行，就和伊斯兰国家的领袖老把先知挂在嘴上一样。布朗钦羡的，大概就是这种把整个国家建立在一个由书与文献构成的磐石上的传统吧。
竞逐美国民主党总统候选人的奥巴马（Barack Obama），他学问或许不如布朗大，但好歹做过芝加哥大学的法律教授，所以写起书来一点也不含糊。其近著《希望的无畏》（The Audacity of Hope）在一票职业政客的业余写作中真可说是出类拔萃，备受好评。看他这本书，你就能感到《独立宣言》、《联邦论》和美国宪法等奠基性文件在美国政治生活中的重要了。奥巴马谈任何话题，都不忘向这些“圣书”频频致意，似乎离了它们，美国人民的希望就不知该要着落何处了。
对奥巴马而言，这个圣书传统是迷人的。“我们坚持这些真理是不证自明的，所有人生而平等，创造者赋予人类不可剥夺的权利，尤其是生命、自由与对幸福的追求”，他说：“《独立宣言》里这简单的几句话是我们美国人的原点；它们不只描述了我们政府的基础，更是我们共同信念的实质”。更迷人的是落实和追寻这个信念的方法：他曾为了选举穿州过省，去过乡村教堂，去过平凡人家的厨房，去过某个小镇十字路口旁的商店；听一个母亲对战场上儿子的思念，听一个墨西哥移民工人想进大学的愿望，听一个快要退休的白领对未来日子的担忧；而奥巴马似乎真心相信，在美国“圣书”的引领之下，这一切都将找到答案。
用一本书去代表整个国家，这是所有政治家的终极诱惑，因为它看起来如此优美而简单，就像早年的科学家想用一条公式去说明整个宇宙的诞生和演化。差别在于你用什么方法去验证这本书的真理，又用什么手段去说服别人支持它。与利比亚等国家比较起来，要不是美国政客比较蠢，就是美国宪法还不够说服力。你看奥巴马还要跑遍全国，从底层由下而上，才能总结出美国宪法的永恒与伟大；其他人则根本只要好好地站在那里说话就行了，全国上下自然会以欢呼声证明“绿皮书”之类的真理。
至于中国，历史长远，当也不乏在一本书里构想一个国家的努力。古往今来，不知有多少英雄领袖想把王朝建立在最正确的圣典之上，又有多少文人想要把治乱兴衰的原理总结在一本可作帝王宝鉴的名山巨业里。可惜我最想看的，却是一个亡国之君的不传之书：“徽宗在金，尝得春秋，披览不倦，凡理乱兴废之迹，贤君忠臣之行，莫不采摭其华实，探涉其源流，钩纂枢要而编节之，改岁钥而成书”（俞樾《九九消夏录》卷六）。
Why Do Harvard Kids Head to Wall Street?
By James Kwak
That's the title of a post a couple weeks ago by Ezra Klein, in which he interviewed a friend of his who went to Wall Street after Harvard. Having seen this phenomenon from a couple of different angles, I'd say the interview is right on. This is how Klein summarizes the central theme:
"The impression of the Ivy-to-Wall Street pipeline is that it's all about the money. You're saying that it's actually more that Wall Street has constructed a very intelligent recruiting program that speaks to the anxieties of the students and makes them an offer that there's almost no reason to refuse."
When I graduated from college, I had no interest in investment banking or its close cousin, management consulting. I went to McKinsey for reasons that were only slightly different than those of the typical Ivy League undergrad; after getting a Ph.D. in history, I discovered that I was unlikely to get a good academic job and was pretty much unqualified for anything else, and McKinsey was one of the few places that would hire me into a "good" job with no discernible qualifications (other than academic pedigree). Now that I'm at Yale Law School, where maybe 15% of students (my wild guess) come in wanting to be corporate lawyers but 75% end up at corporate law firms (first job after law school, not counting clerkships), I'm seeing it again.
The typical Harvard undergraduate, like the typical YLS student, is someone who: (a) is very good at school; (b) has been very successful by conventional standards for his entire life; (c) has little or no experience of the "real world" outside of school or school-like settings; (d) feels either the ambition or the duty to have a positive impact on the world (not well defined); and (e) is driven more by fear of not being a success than by a concrete desire to do anything in particular. (Yes, I know this is a stereotype; that's why I said "typical.") Their (our) decisions are motivated by two main decision rules: (1) close down as few options as possible; and (2) only do things that increase the possibility of future overachievement. Money is far down the list; at this point in their lives, if you asked them, many of these people would probably say that they only need to be middle or upper-middle class, and assume that they will be.
The recruiting processes of Wall Street firms (and consulting firms, and corporate law firms) exploit these (faulty) decision rules perfectly. The primary selling point of Goldman Sachs or McKinsey is that it leaves open the possibility of future greatness. The main pitch is, "Do this for two years, and afterward you can do anything (like be treasury secretary)." The idea is that you will get some kind of generic business training that equips you to do anything (this in a society that assumes the private sector can do no wrong and the public sector can do no right), and that you will get the resume credentials and connections you need to go on and do whatever you want. And to some extent it's true, because these names look good on your resume, and very few potential future employers will wonder why you decided to go there. (Whether the training is good for much other than being a banker or a consultant is another question.)
The second selling point is that they make it easy. Yes, there is competition for jobs at these firms. But the process is easy. They come to campus and hold receptions with open bars. They tell you when and how to apply. They provide interview coaching. They have nice people who went to your school bond with you over the recruiting period. If you get an offer, they find out what your other options are and have partners call you to explain that those are great options, but Goldman/McKinsey is better, and you can do that other thing later, anyway. For people who don't know how to get a job in the open economy, and who have ended each phase of their lives by taking the test to do the most prestigious thing possible in the next phase, all of this comes naturally. (Graduate schools, which also have well-defined recruiting processes, are the other big path to take.) The fact that most companies don't want new college graduates makes it easier to go to one of the few that do.
The third selling point — not the top one, but it's there — is the money. Or, more accurately, the lifestyle. The glossy brochures never say how much money you can make. But they make it clear that you will be part of the well-dressed, well-fed, jet-setting elite. When people walk into those offices, with fresh flowers and all-glass walls and free food and modern technology everywhere, they get seduced. Last summer one person wrote to my school's email list about how wonderful his office was, with its view of Central Park. I mentioned this to an old friend who used to work at McKinsey, and he said, "he fell for the office.*
The same factors are also largely true for top law school graduates, although for them the money is more important. Law school costs close to $200,000 for three years, and I believe the average graduate has about $100,000 in debt. So another major inducement is the idea that you will work at a corporate law firm for three or four years, pay off your debt, and then go work for legal aid or the U.S. attorney's office.
But the other factors are also very important. If you go to Yale Law School, it is simply easier to get a corporate firm job than any other job. They all come to campus at the beginning of your second year, most people can get a job simply by following the interview process, you work there for one summer, and then you get an offer to come back. Even if you don't want to work at a firm, it makes rational sense to do it for that summer to get the offer as Plan B.
By contrast, it's hard to get a public interest job. Most public interest organizations don't have the money to hire a lot of people, and many don't want people right out of law school. So the usual route is you have to apply for a competitive fellowship to work at a public interest organization, and then you have to hope they'll hire you for good after that year. It's hard. And that's how Plan B becomes Plan A. And besides, many prominent corporate lawyers have gone on to important positions in Washington, so there is still the possibility of future greatness.
And once you're in the door, the seduction begins. As Klein's interviewee says,
"When people leave law school with a lot of debt, they figure they'll get some good skills and good money at a top-tier firm before going to save the world. But then you have a great apartment, more responsibilities, kids. You start enjoying it. It's not even all material.
"And I think it's important to point out, that things happen very quickly. Private equity firms were trying to recruit us in the first year of my two-year training program. There's this notion of the accidental banker, people who get caught up in that world and get more and more pay and find it harder to justify leaving. But the cultural effect of all of this — and even with regulatory reform, we need to think about that — is that a lot of people decide to sacrifice much more time than they normally would because the money is so good, and then they believe they deserve extremely high pay because they're giving up so much time. It's not malicious. But there are a lot of unhappy people who end up in that situation."
It's just human nature. Your expenses grow to match your income. As the decades pass and you realize that no, you're not going to save the world, the money becomes a more and more important part of the justification. And when you have kids, you're stuck; it's much easier to deprive yourself of money (and what it buys) than to deprive your children of money.
More importantly, you internalize the rationalizations for the work you are doing. It's easier to think that underwriting new debt offerings really is saving the world than to think that you are underwriting new debt offerings, because of the money, instead of saving the world. And this goes for many walks of life. It's easier for college professors to think that, by training the next generation of young minds (or, even more improbably, writing papers on esoteric subjects), they are changing the world than to think that they are teaching and researching instead of changing the world.
Sure, there are self-parodying, economically delusional, psychotherapy-needing, despicable people on Wall Street, like this one. But there are also a lot of people who went there because it was easy and stayed because they decided they couldn't afford not to and talked themselves into it.
A college student asked me at a book talk what I thought about undergraduates who go work on Wall Street. And individually, I have nothing against them, although I do think they should do their best to keep their expenses down so they will be able to switch careers later. But as a system, it's a bad thing that a small handful of highly profitable firms are able to invest those profits into skimming off some of the top students at American universities — universities that, even if nominally private, are partially funded by taxpayer money in the form of research grants and federal subsidies for student loans –and absorbing them into the banking-consulting-lawyering Borg.
* By the way, I think that even within the elite there is an inverse correlation between pay and quality of office; the banks make the most money and have the shabbiest offices, although that has been changing recently.
Written by James Kwak
May 4, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Posted in Commentary
Tagged with culture, education
« Fake Debate: The Senate Will Not Vote On Big Banks
Download the Blog – New and Improved! »
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
1. Dear Mr. Kwak,
Thank you for this wonderful post. You've hit the nail on the head. So how can we get young people excited about doing things of more social value instead of inventing financial weapons of mass destruction? How do we staunch the Wall St. brain drain? And how can young people like me find the balance between doing well and doing good?
May 4, 2010 at 2:58 pm
2. Heh, the Borg. Vicious. I'm not knowledgeable enough to really say generally, but John Thain kind of refutes your argument a little on offices. And it's hard for me to imagine investment bankers haven't had very good offices since the days Milken (1988??) started setting the world on fire at Drexel with his Hebrew bros, but every once in awhile I read stories about some fastgun who has spartan surroundings.
I think in the end human beings are almost an impossible lot to figure out. I remember reading about Boesky doing spy work or traveling in Iran and thinking in my head how freaking weird that was. When I was like in 8th grade some counselor was already haranguing us about how we needed to take a foreign language or we would be screwed getting into a nice college. But if you look at some very successful people, the way the dots connect is often times odd.
I think if I was a parent I would introduce my kids to as many different ice cream flavors as possible, and then tell them to follow their natural interests. Maybe that's naive though.
May 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm
3. It sounds different from The Firm only in degree. Now that book/movie looks more like satire, not a crime drama.
As for these rackets skimming off much of the best human potential, I've long compared this black hole to something like the Khmer Rouge. What's the difference, really? The "talent" is just as lost to humanity.
May 4, 2010 at 3:34 pm
4. A college student myself, the issue of finding jobs after schooling is…daunting. Everyone wants someone with experience, so I've put off going to grad school for statistics to get work , and I'm focusing on internships instead of extracurriculars. I'm just terrified all my hard work will be for naught if I cant find a job before the grace period on my loans ends.
Plus, I skrewed up afew times. I know a B.S is standard now, but I wonder if Im wasting my time and parents $$.
Why WOULD anyone go to law school? I thought it was an open secret there are too many lawyers. Med school is as bad- you'll pay off those loans when your so old you cant work anymore! My parents got a better deal, heck my siblings too, because they were born decades before me.
Math/stats is reasonable to me because I can get an MS and a job with little debt incurred. But thats it.
Asada
May 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
o Ya – BUT – Math & Stats grunt work can be offshored, jobs are going offshore in everytthing these days. Engineering and computers especially.
You need to sit down and ask yourself, exactly how much money will I make if I get this degree? And what will it cost me to live. And how fast will my salary likely increase. Not easy questions to answer, but try.
Also, there is room for one more lawyer should you choose to be one. Don't let people tell you there are too many. There aren't too many until the grads of your prospective law school aren't getting hired. Look into what lawyers get paid. Look hard. A friend of mine does corporate litigation and does quite well. He also does some free legal work for homeless and less fortunate which is a great way to help people.
Being a Doctor is a truly daunting task, and then you have to specialize to make enough money, more time in school. And who knows where Medicare will be in 10 years – but it pays well now.
Spend a LOT of time researching the pay of your future profession, it will matter to you.
M-F
May 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm
5. "One time I had a job interview….
I took a book out and I started reading.
The guy said 'What the hell are you doing!?!?'
I said 'Let me ask you a question—
If you were in a vehicle and you were traveling at the speed of light, if you turned your lights on, would they do anything??',
He said 'I don't know.'
I said 'Forget it then, I don't wanna work for yuh.'"
o Stephen Wright wrote:
"My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted."
"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot."
Frank Lloyd Wright wrote:
"The truth is more important than the facts."
(1869 – 1959)
Rickk
May 4, 2010 at 4:51 pm
6. Good post, thanks James! Having finished undergrad a few years ago, I was planning on starting law school in the fall. But that chance of ending up in some corporate firm in which I have no interest in sounds miserable.
So instead, I've joined the Peace Corps and plan on leaving this fall/ winter. What better way to get life experience doing good work, and preparing oneself for public interest work! If I want to go to school after, I will be that much more competitive for those cool jobs when I apply for those difficult fellowships. Not to mention, I would say 95% of previous volunteers I've met (quite a few in the DC area), are very inspiring, wise, happy people who I respect. I wonder how many of the Ivy's stuck in their corporate firms hold those same inner qualities?
Nick B from DC
May 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm
7. So sorry guys, but I gotta tell you, I wouldn't piss on your average harvard grad if she was on fire in the street. The kinds of privileged and sanctimonious worms who weave their way through that swamp of debauchery, treason and delusion have no place as leaders in a free republic. I don't care how fast their "processors" spin; Garbage in, garbage out. It's all about the software (AKA Character).
o Soooo True… software and character. Yes Canadians have our own set of deficit character laden people but by experience and media observations the USA appears to be the home of characterless "innovators" praying at the feet of the Almighty Dollar.
ECON
May 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
8. Asada,
There are too many lawyers, and the debt burden is pretty ridiculous. But if you're at the top of the class, you can make a lot of money. Plus, liberal arts majors with no skills (hey, I was one) figure law school is better than the dole.
With med school – I believe a lot of mid-sized and large practices pay off your loans over three or four years.
Ultimately, math is a great way to go.
Joe
May 4, 2010 at 4:03 pm
9. I think we had a bubble not just in housing prices, but in the demand for legal and financial professionals. That temporarily created a world where liberal arts grads with no real-world experience or genuine skills could command massive starting salaries by the simple expedient of spending a couple of years in law or business school. The bubble created the easy job track and irresistible offers that James describes.
The bubble has burst. Large law firms have not just engaged in lay-offs; many of them are eliminating the "non-equity" partnership track altogether, so that very experienced and technically proficient lawyers–often from the best law schools–who have not managed to build their own book of business are finding themselves out on the street and out of luck. I imagine law students and beginning lawyers must be aware of this; the "safe" route of clawing your way up the ladder at a large-law firm is not safe or assured any more. I suspect the end result of the crisis and financial reform will also be far fewer such opportunities on Wall Street.
This is a long way of saying that I think our misallocation of talent may gradually correct itself. There'll certainly be a lot of pain in the process.
EconWatcher
May 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm
10. It's the money stupid>
o ;-)
Rickk
May 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm
11. I'm a mechanical engineer and have no experience or knowledge of wall street or law careers, but I found my own experience of being recruited and seduced by the petroleum industry very similar to what you've described here, and my own justifying rationalizations very similar for while I was there. I was terrified of leaving the management-track job that was making my life miserable, and kept me a part of a very destructive industry.
And I am so glad that I ultimately did.
§ Character. What you did…took character.
Thanks for listening to the Greater Part of Yourself. And honoring.
It makes a difference in the world.
Barbyrah
12. Really interesting post!
Even if it's irrelavant for the point you wanted to make, but how would an experienced (non-typical) YLS student, like you at/after Yale, behave? What's the ideal job for someone, who e.g. was already told how he could do anything after a few years, fell for the shiny lure of McK, and was certainly well paid?
I'm just interested, not polemicizing.
13. Great post, but you really are talking about the creme de la creme of American students. YLS only takes 200 students and is already at the top of the heap of American law schools. Harvard (law and undergrad) is only slightly less selective.
14. Thank you Henry David Thoreau Qwak. "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." Let me add that since you/we and the Ivy Leaguers are doomed to experience "quiet desperation," it is a hell of a lot easier to be desperate and rich, than to be desperate and poor.
o Jessica, you are not "doomed" to anything.
Many paths to choose from. And the one you've currently chosen…can be "unchosen" at any time.
Any time.
Where is your Soul in all of this? You might try and listen, if you are so open…
Best to you.
Barbyrah
May 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm
15. The post doesn't really mention government service. During the Kennedy years and even through Carter, the federal government really did attract a lot of idealistic recent grads. Not only the Peace Corp, but Justice Civil Rights Division, EPA, the FTC, the Consumer Product safety Commission, etc. A big part of the Reagan Revolution was simply to vilify these idealistic people by painting them as irksome meddlers instead of people who actually wanted to serve in the higher interests of the public. As a result, the career civil service became dispirited and increasingly like some sort of clerkship, a place you worked until you could get out in the private sector and do something "useful." When you look at the recent crisis, especially the way it was handled by agencies like the SEC and to some extent DOJ, you can see just how harmful the Reagan (and later) campaigns against career government service as an honorable profession have been. It's really a loss to the nation.
16. Here's your agency. Worthless without support of agency heads and Chairman of FED
SEC. 1023. REVIEW OF BUREAU REGULATIONS.
SEC. 1024. .
(a) Review of Bureau Regulations- On the petition of a member agency of the Council, the Council may set aside a final regulation prescribed by the Bureau, or any provision thereof, if the Council decides, in accordance with subsection (c), that the regulation or provision would put the safety and soundness of the United States banking system or the stability of the financial system of the United States at risk.
anon
May 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm
17. interesting piece.
My story is a variation on this theme. I never went to an ivy league school. But after graduating with a political science degree (from a decent foreign university) I stumbled into a career in finance, having found it virtually impossible to begin a career in my then preferred fields of journalism, public policy or "saving the world".
I managed to get out (at least partially thanks to my move to the US coinciding with a financial sector blow up) but it's not only the money which makes that difficult. Changing careers is extremely hard in this age of HR professionals and impersonal online application forms (that exclude applications without the requisite keywords)
May 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm
o I've been boots-on-the-ground and in the boardroom. I've watched hundreds/thousands of lives traded and extinguished like pieces on a game board for simple monetary gain. The only thing that makes sense anymore is, loyalty to family and friends. Sometimes Darwin is your only friend. Adapt.
Anonymous
May 4, 2010 at 5:08 pm
§ "THEY sent A SLAMHOUND on (Whistleblower's) trail in New Delhi, slotted it to his pheromones and the color of his hair. It caught up with him on a street called Chandni Chauk and came scrambling for his rented BMW through a forest of bare brown legs and pedicab tires. Its core was a kilogram of recrystallized hexogene and flaked TNT.
He didn't see it coming. The last he saw of India was the pink stucco facade of a place called the Khush-Oil Hotel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Zero
Fortunately I'm still dodging mine. I get by with a little help from my friends. :-)
Anonymous
May 4, 2010 at 5:16 pm
§ Anonymous, if adapting means I have to turn into someone with no compassion, no "milk of human kindness", I'll just slit my wrists now, thanks. I not only don't want to BE one of those soulless creatures, I don't want to live in a world they create or dominate.
Sandi
May 4, 2010 at 5:32 pm
18. The only remotely non-financial company doing recruiting when I graduated from Harvard College in 1991 was Trammel Crow real estate from Houston (or was it Dallas) and who wants to go live in Texas? Everything else was management consulting or I-banking. The people that had their heads on straight (who more often than not had taken a few years between high school and college to travel or work) started their own for- or non-profit companies or used daddy's money to become angel investors for internet startups. Law school was filled with people who were programmed their whole lives to seek the path of highest prestige, i.e. the white-shoe law firms in Manhattan or their satellite offices in other cities, or possibly clerkships with famous federal judges.
19. The question isn't why do so many Harvard grads head to Wall Street.
The question is: why does Harvard graduate so many who head to Wall Street to wage economic terrorism on the other 98% of America?
There's a difference between 'earning' money using other people's money, and doing 'whatever it takes' to screw as many people out of as many pennies you can for your own self-enrichment.
What Harvard 'teaches' is that there is nothing ethically wrong with a severe money-addiction, no matter the consequences. And that's why so many grads head to Wall Street – because it's the only place where their uber-greedy-is-good education is considered a marketable skill.
20. This clipped from the anonymous Wall St. screed circulating on the 'Net that James linked to-
—-So now that we're going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we're going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren't going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We're going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours……..
For some time I have been wondering who corporate America planned to sell their products to when they had lowered the pay scale here to pennies through off-shoring, etc., and we were all reduced to $12000 a year.
Free rides on THEIR backs??? Interesting that the cowboys have quite a different take on THEIR jobs disappearing. So they are going to do their own landscaping now, huh? Gee, I guess that will send a few Hispanics back where they came from. In most places I'm aware of, people who do the manual jobs are not highly paid, they often get ripped off by their employers. So, Hot Shot, if you want that job, knock yourself out. We still have a few chicken processing plants in NC – want to sign up to cut up your own boneless/skinless chicken? We in the hinterlands have always done our own, but now more than ever, because we have no choice. Cut our own hair, washed our own cars, cooked our own meals. This is how economies spiral down, is it not? It's not like that trickling down the Wall St. jocks were doing was doing any serious wealth-building on Main St. I doubt they CAN cut their own hair, or even their own grass.
The pain of this economic storm will be worth bearing if it takes those smug windbags down with it.
Sandi
May 4, 2010 at 5:21 pm
21. I tried to change the world but nobody would listen.
22. Excellent Mr. Kwak. I have two quotes, articulating invaluable substance too your post._____(Joeseph Conrad /1857-1916) "All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upwards on the miseries or credulities of mankind"._____(T.S. Eliot/1888-1965) "After such knowledge,what forgiveness? Think now – History has many cunning passages ,contrived corridors – And issues ,deceives with whispering ambitions,- Guides us by vanities". Thankyou :^)
23. I don't know, I graduated pretty close to the top of my class from the School of Labor Relations at Cornell not all that long ago and my experience was rather different from the one James describes here. Through the office of career services I managed to speak with recruiters from a wide range of industries, from Goldman Sachs to the SEIU, and hardly ever felt any pressure go work at some high paid corporate office (it probably helped that tuition at the ILR school, being part of the state system, was only $8,000 a semester). After spending some time working abroad I'm teaching in the NYC public school system now and am pretty happy. I think its a mistake to generalize too much from the experiences of a few students. Most career service offices at major universities give students a great many choices of career paths to follow. Availing themselves of the services of career counselors is hardly too difficult a task for most college graduates. In any case, most graduate and even undergraduate programs offer counseling services for free. I can't see why more students shouldn't be availing themselves of these options if they are confused about their professional future.
24. The full story is a good deal more complicated, not least because we're dealing with people, and if there are 100 people, there are 110 reasons (at least).
Some facts not considered by James Kwak:
1. A disproportionately large percentage of Harvard students come out of what I will call (deliberately disparagingly) the cult of money. Harvard students are far more likely to come from wealthy families than are students at most schools. This is true of all students at Harvard, including those of color.
2. Harvard, more than almost any other university, reproduces the cult of money. The school's quality most emphatically does not match its endowment, which is far and away the largest. To what end has Harvard, for so many years, so to fatten its endowment? It could arguably eliminate tuition altogether. Why not?
3. When we talk about Wall Street and the Harvard connection, it would be more accurate or more meaningful to talk of the Harvard Business School connection. However diverse Harvard undergraduates are, the Business School students are overwhelmingly preoccupied with wealth.
4. There is a broader Harvard (and to a slightly lesser extent, Yale) cult. For example, why is Obama almost exclusively considering Harvard law figures for the Supreme Court nomination? Just as Harvard Business has played a key (and grossly under-reported) role in the financial collapse, so too has Harvard Law played a disproportionate role in the pseudo-justifications for American war crimes and crimes against humanity. (Yale can also take credit on the legal front with the likes of John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith (who has gotten a pass with his not-quite-deathbed conversion), Ruth Wedgwood, et al.)
A complete explanation should tie these observations together. Power, money and the preservation of power in the hands of the Modern American Oligarchs is at the core of such an explanation.
May 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm
25. Bailouts, Bubbles, & Bad Bets
Bailout bill debates aside, immediate congressional action is necessary to inhibit another financial real property bubble in the future. These actions must include rescinding both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts of 1999 and 2000. Congress should then readopt the 1933 Glass-Stegall Act. Those actions would ring fence financial institutions from engaging in this greed driven activity in out years, nipping their RICO ACT conduct in the bud.
Next, all existing sub prime mortgages and trust deeds created and securitized on both residential and commercial real properties since 2000 should be converted to the current thirty year fixed interest rate after the properties is appraised. The new note should reflect the current mark to market value of the property as of the date of the new appraisal.
These actions will require much legislative vetting and in the process of the hearings reveal the real whiners in the country. They will however, if carried out, relieve taxpayers from being saddled with more massive future debt, precipitated by faulty financial math models, fraud, and racketeering by members of the greedy banking industry. The current conduct responsible for this meltdown was conjured up by folks cast from the Ivan Bosky & Michael Milkin molds whose junk bond schemes were responsible for the domestic financial meltdown of the late 1980′s and early 1990′s.
While Commercial and Investment Banks, private and public pension funds, insurance companies such as AIG and wealthy individuals will suffer huge losses, they must accept and be held accountable for the reality that investing in these craftily created securities, Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps was and is gambling. Investing in those instruments is no different than tossing down a bet at gambling table in Central City, Colorado.
Customers slamming back a shot of whiskey at a Bear bar while checking out the local scenery should not be billed for the bad bet by the bumpkins at the blackjack table.
Robert Pike
May 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm
26. Harvard kids go to Wall Street because Wall Street comes to them. Government agencies generally don't recruit (when I did Harvard undergrad recruiting only the TSA and the CIA were there). If tiny consulting firms can gather the resources to recruit, it's obvious that the Department of State, SEC, etc. could as well. Indeed, they should have cleaned house in the most recent years, when financial hiring was depressed. But broadly speaking civic service institutions show no interest in these graduates. The natural thing for students to assume is that they are not particularly wanted in those public service roles.
