New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane consulted the NAS for his article, "Scholarly Work, Without All the Footnotes," published yesterday:
Peter W. Wood, an anthropologist who is president of the National Association of Scholars, observes that scholars are filling a rising appetite for science writing in the popular press and that the protocols for giving credit there remain murky. “A scholar-beware label might be needed here,” he said.
And Katherine Kersten exposed the shallowness of most college common reading programs, referencing NAS's comprehensive study:
College is a time to introduce young people to humanity's greatest minds -- to the best that has been thought and said. It is a time for students to transcend the intellectual clichés of the moment and to explore the larger perspectives of philosophy and history. In the process, they should encounter a wide array of answers to questions of how we got where we are and how best to live. Students won't get that opportunity from most of the books on the common text list. That list includes no works of classical antiquity, only a handful of first-class novels, and no historical or scientific classics, as the report points out. In response, the NAS has compiled a list of worthy alternatives, entitled "Read These Instead: Better Books for Next Year's Beaches."