next »

[dellaroux]

Actually, I'd be happy to be as close as Provence to Paris.

D'outre-mer sums my situation up better at the moment.

7000 gend'armes, though, wow....Nothing like First Night in Boston.

[verafrance]

Oh, I thought you were on this side of the pond as well! Boston is a very nice city too (even without 7000 policemen for New Year's!)

[verafrance]

The answer to your first question is in Thomas Cushman's article.

For the rest, Alain Finkielkraut explains everything much better than I ever could :

http://www.akadem.org/sommaire/themes/liturgie/7/2/module_2285.php

Thanks for the links, there is no free access to the Cushman article, I could only see the first page, but I imagine it's along the same lines as the Le Monde one.

Alain is a wonderful intellectual and speaker and I found many of his observations very sharp. One of my favorite moments was his discussion of the magazine cover and modernity.

The issue is the American system is not designed to be a tyranny of whining, immature, ignorant students, and, when you start to have problems in that sense, as it was pointed out in the articles mentioned in our thread, this problem is an outcome of much more profound transformations in society. If higher education institutions  are to be a glossy mask for cash cow businesses with no higher aim than cheap profit, the students themselves have only a partial blame in this game, and even less can we blame any little evaluation they fill out at the end of a course.

"Student-centered" teaching, however, does not equate to this in the least. "Student-centered" goes to the core of the question, "pour qui, pour quoi?" in education. An education system will fail if it is a tyranny of irresponsible, unscrupulous faculty, based not on merit, but on cronyism, who have carte blanche for any and all kinds of abuses. It is my impression that the Latin countries in Europe (Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy) all have problems in the latter sense. Highly authoritarian, displaying  extreme power concentration, no rights for the students, no accountability concerning administration or faculty. People simply submit to it no matter how bad it is. The power is too concentrated to allow any changes, and any transformation will essentially take away power and privilege from those who have it, so it is resisted to the maximum. Historically, this is the way it has always been, so the populace can't even dream it could be radically different in any way (much less for the better).  I can't imagine that moving about in any past royal European court would have presented less challenges in terms of politicking and power hierarchies than what we see in many universities here today.
 
In addition, there is an interesting contradiction in the existence of an ideological group from the left, who dominates an entire university system, but employs a mode of operation that is profoundly rooted in the authoritarian, hierarchical Catholic institution model of education, which in turn is obviously modeled after the religious Church hierarchy structure and praxis. As we know, there is a de jure separation of church and state in all of these Latin European countries, and a de facto separation concerning the control of education, but the essential modus operandus in lay higher ed institutions remains almost intact. Perhaps the only major "innovation" being student strikes. And as we know, the left supposedly abhors the Catholic Church for all its evil ways. All except one, or two, or three. Or maybe four, five, six...

Furthermore, "student-centered" is also at the core of the question concerning what is the best way to teach. If the mission, or one of the main missions of higher ed is to teach, and it's a little uncanny that we have to consider that in a higher ed system, teaching would be a secondary or tangential mission, then thinking about the best way to reach a student and how  to best teach them is fundamental.

Perhaps the only serious point where I radically disagreed with Finkielkraut is where he talked about shame. This seems quite pathological to me, and I wondered if it wasn't a translation issue from the original Greek. In any case, if the meaning is the one we currently employ for the word, I would substitute it for respect. No learning system can function properly if students have no respect for their teachers. At the same time, no system can function adequately if teachers demand respect without deserving it.

Apparently we define "student-centered" in very different ways.

[verafrance]

Frenchdoc,

Did you see this?

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2009/01/14/les-enseignants-chercheurs-seront-evalues-tous-les-quatre-ans_1141536_3224.html

"La réforme du statut des enseignants-chercheurs va-t-elle enfin aboutir? Jeudi 15 janvier, la ministre de l'enseignement supérieur, Valérie Pécresse, devrait présenter la dernière mouture d'un décret qui bouleverse la carrière des universitaires, régie par des textes qui n'avaient pas été modifiés depuis 1984.

Les universités, désormais responsables de la gestion des carrières des personnels, pourront moduler le temps de service des enseignants entre enseignement, recherche, et tâches administratives. Un enseignant pourra donc faire davantage d'heures de cours si la qualité de ses recherches est jugée insuffisante. A l'inverse, un chercheur jugé excellent pourra être dispensé d'heures d'enseignement.
 
Autre nouveauté, les maîtres de conférence et les professeurs d'université seront évalués tous les quatre ans. Actuellement, ils ne le sont que lorsqu'ils demandent un changement de grade."

I agree with the fundamental idea espoused above, for the very simple reason that you should try to match what people are most talented in with their daily tasks. In practice, however,  it could always backfire in a variety of ways, and become a system where privileges are heaped on certain individuals simply because of power brokerage or politicking, not because on merit. But that's what we have at the moment, so, I can't see how it could get much worse. Then again, never underestimate the power of a civil servant system to make things worse than you could have dreamed possible. Just like television, porn, and pop culture, when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does.

[frenchdoctor]

Sorry for late answers. No time. I'm too busy managing other minor tasks, like overthrowing the government.


A) Note : Alain Finkielkraut teaches philosophy at the Ecole Polytechnique. Frankly, I think that when he talks about shame, he means nothing more than respect, as you say. But this speech was given during a jewish conference meeting, which probably explains his use of a theological vocabulary.

Like Lafforgue (*) and Pierre Jourde (**), Finkielkraut states that the french right wing (the one we call "libérale" and that could be translated by "capitalist" or "consumerist") hijacked the leftist discourse on knowledge and culture.

Bourdieu theorized the fact that culture was a tool used by the upper-class to segregate and control the People. Today's right wing (Bush, Sarkozy, Berlusconi...) accepts that point of view, except they take it backward. They say : "culture is evil, it's a instrument of oppression... but look at me, I'm not cultured at all. Actually, I hate culture. Therefore, I'm not a dominant. I'm dumb, so I'm with the People". 

So the culture is hated by the left and the right alike. The left-wing intellectuals, for reasons that completely escape me, still consider Bourdieu's theories as legit : culture is evil because it's something that concerns only the "bourgeois". The right wing answers : you're right here ! let's destroy culture and replace it with dumb commercials and stupid TV shows ! Everyone is equal !

That's what Finkielkraut says when he talks about shame. Maybe the word "awe" would be better, albeit too strong. We don't respect culture anymore, we don't consider it's something worth being cherished, we don't think that great creations have an universal value. In other words, we are ashamed of our culture.

Maybe you noticed how easily pop culture references enter the conversations even on these forums. The CHE should be, is probably, the most educated forum on the internet worldwide. And yet, we quote "South Park" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" way more often than Shakespeare and Voltaire. Why ? Because we are ashamed of our culture. We don't want to show it, we don't want to share it, because it would prove that we are "bourgeois." We're afraid that it could symbolically certify us as the elitist members of a dominant class.

In others words, academic shame has switched side. A few decades ago, you had to know high culture to be respected. Today, you have to prove that you're more or less unconcerned by this culture. That you take it with irony, as something not completely real or not very important. That Bach, to you, is not more important than a MTV clip, that Molière isn't better than South Park, that they are nothing more than mere cultural products among many others. As Lafforgue would say, we let sociologic matters destroy the idea of beauty.

I think Finkielkraut, here, when he talks about "shame," is more concerned by the relationship the teachers have whith culture and knowledge than by students' behaviour. We can't ask students to respect culture (and therofore respect us) if we consider it as something unimportant, backward and discriminatory. 


B) I'm really busy, so I'll just give this link :

http://petitions.alter.eu.org/index.php?petition=1



-----------------
(*) who is roman catholic. The inter-religious dialogues with Finkielkraut are always very interesting. They're good buddies, as far as I know.

(**) http://bibliobs.nouvelobs.com/20090109/9827/manuel-de-destruction-culturelle-chapitre-1-luniversite

[dellaroux]

I saw an example of this while visiting with a French family whose daughter I had met at a nearby university a few years ago.

The daughter played renaissance recorder, spoke French and Russian (one parent from each place, she'd been raised bilingually) as well as English (her dad, a professor, had a two-year stint in the US, which was also why she returned here for college.) She hosted a world music program on her school's radio station.  She "knew" culture, the world, and her siblings were likewise in the arts and humanities areas in their own work.

Yet, when they took me, another US friend/traveling companion, and their son to a nearby late Renaissance/early Baroque palace, the daughter carried her chemistry book with her to read as we walked around the palace. She was very clearly disdainful of "this royalist culture" that had built and paid for the decoration of the place, and very dismissive of our admiration for certain well-known painters' contributions to its decor.

I understood where the political commentary was coming from, and that one can't expect self-aware consistency, even in a late, well-schooled adolescent.

But it was decidedly odd. We enjoyed the palace, in any case.

[verafrance]

Sorry for late answers. No time. I'm too busy managing other minor tasks, like overthrowing the government.

Keep us posted. If you'd like someone to fill in as the Empress, I'll be more than glad to help out.

[dellaroux]

Yeah, those high-waisted redingotes are even still "in" this year...

[frenchdoctor]

Sorry for the number of typos in the precedent message. That's internet. We're always in a hurry.

It is not only a lack of historic culture. It's a lack of awareness of what history is. History isn't good or evil. History happens, that's all. Thus, the idea that you can enjoy a good book from the 17th century without being monarchist is becoming more difficult to defend every year. That's crazy. People don't enjoy book, don't read books anymore, don't dream with books, but imagine all kind of psycho-social theories about what readers are supposed to secretly think about the book they read. You read Racine, you're monarchist. You read Bossuet, you're a religious zealot. You read Saint John Perse, you're a colonialist. You read Proust, you're bourgeois (or gay, or probably secretly want to grow a moustache). In all cases, you're an elitist. The Bourdieu theory of "habitus" grew to ludicrous proportions.

Sarkozy did some buzz by stating (in his usual fake-joe-six-pack style) that students in public administration should not been given lessons about, as an example, the 17th century novel "La Princesse de Clèves". He said this was "moronic" and "sadistic". That's what Jourde is refering to in his article. Rather smartly, Sarkozy is pushing the left-wing intellectuals in their own trap. You say culture is discriminatory ? It is ! Let's get rid of it. Let's fire the teachers in the humanities now !

In other words, self hatred (or guilty class consciousness) of french intellectuals is now working against them. In 68, some wanted to work in factories. They didn't stay there for long. Bourdieu, Barthes, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty... were at the College de France or the ENS, not in factories. At this time,  no one took their empty communist saber-rattling seriously. Today, Sarkozy does take the liberals seriously. You distrust culture ? Ok : you're fired. See you. Bye.

It could be fun if it wasn't synonymous with the death of the humanities.

[verafrance]

B) I'm really busy, so I'll just give this link :

http://petitions.alter.eu.org/index.php?petition=1

The issue is that French academia hates accountability with a passion. There is none now and that is what they wish to maintain. Although Sarkozy's proposals may usher in all kinds of problems, his critics have nothing to offer that is good as an alternative. If a professor does a horrible job teaching or supervising students, nothing happens. You are not concerned with this, you are only concerned with faculty privileges, but I think this is a completely unbalanced and problematic attitude towards higher education.

[frenchdoctor]

It's not accountability in itself, it's the people who decide. Academics are sick of being told what to do, what to teach and how to teach it by bureaucrats at the ministery. As bad as they are, US administrators are on campus, you have people to shout at talk to, and they are as concerned as you are when things turn bad. But bureaucrats at the ministery don't know anything about research. For most of them, they have never put a single feet in an university. The're completely unqualified to decide if X is a better researcher than Y (and can't even tell either if X is a better teacher than Y).

And yes, I believe in the privileges of the faculties. We are not employees of the university. We are the university.

[dellaroux]

I've been reading "La Princesse de Clèves". It would seem to me that teaching it would allow for a fascinating mix of analytical stances, since the plot and the characters are so tangled.

The historical attitudes and events could also lend themselves to good classroom discussions--if taught with an openness to divergent opinions.

And given its (sometimes alleged) stance as (one of)/the/first (French) novels written, I would think a literary analysis, including a discussion of the term "novel," itself, would be in order.

But I'll bet, when it was taught (if it was), there was a required <explication de texte> that took only one stance and a set of expected conclusions that students were to learn to draw from the book. And that students memorized what they were supposed to learn from it, not given the opportunity to discuss or decide about how to think of it, because of the standardized tests they'd have to take.

I think that may be where the differences lie: Teaching a book like that could be an adventure, but if all the maps and signposts have all been set out and all the treasure found, it becomes dull and the excitement is leveled out of it.

Not sure where to go further with the theory on that, but that's what occurs to me in thinking about your comment, Frenchdoctor.

I'm off to go dancing--if anyone's in the region of the Caveau de la Huchette, have a dance or two there for me...

[frenchdoctor]

Dellaroux, Sarkozy doesn't discuss the way we should teach the humanities as a minor. He says that humanities as a minor are useless and must be eliminated from all cursus (*). I understand your concerns about the difficulties to teach them efficiently, especially regarding standardized tests. But don't forget Sarkozy is both clever and brutal. When intellectuals show some second-thoughts about the value of culture, or express some difficulties to teach it, his answer is : "difficulties ? No difficulty : get rid of them all !".

Come to think of it, 68' intellectuals were very lucky to face someone like De Gaulle, who had deep respect for culture. I can imagine the situation with Sarkozy in charge.

- Merleau-Ponty :
Comrads intellectuals ! Let's get rid of our bourgeois ways ! We are nothing but the members of a decadent caste ! We must rejenuvate ourvelves through the redeeming contact of the proletarian masses ! Let's go to the factories, let's work with our brothers !

- Sarkozy :
You're right. Here is your new contract with Renault. You start tomorrow, 8 am. Sheet-metal workshop.

- Merleau-Ponty : Err. Actually, I was talking, err, like, metaphorically speaking, you know. It's just philosophy. I didn't mean to imply that...

- Sarkozy :
The CGT is ok. They have a special program of redemption for you. They'll accept you as one of their own. They'll shelter you in Billancourt.

- Merleau-Ponty :
But the College de France is more comfy ! I mean, it's decadent allright, but we, heroes of the People, also need to live among the bourgeois, so we can subvert them. That's right ! Subvertion, here is the strategy ! I keep my wages, keep my cosy appartment in Saint-Germain des Prés, because these are strategic places from where I can (safely) overthrow the bourgeois way of life.

- Sarkozy :
No, no, I offer you an opportunity to live according to your philosophical dream. You can't refuse it. From now on, your life is sheet-metal workshop 40 hours a week. Bye.


-----------------
(*) let's repeat the french HE system is centralized and that the ministery has the power to suppress some courses, or academic fields, in the whole country.

[dellaroux]

Sounds a bit like the "re-education" camps in China under the "Great Leap Forward."

[secretweapon]

Hilarious, Frenchdoctor!  Too, too  funny.