next »

[systeme_d_]

Csguy,  the distinction is not between the names "Religion" and "Religious Studies" (or "Comparative Religion," for that matter), but between R/RS/CR and "Theology" or "Religion and Theology."

Vassar College, for instance, has a "Religion" department that does not attract many folks interested in ministry.  The "Religion" department at Emory, however, does.  The "Religious Studies" department at Stanford does not attract aspirants to ministry.  The "Religious Studies" department at Siena College does.

As the examples above hint toward, some R/RS departments in religiously-affiliated schools are de facto Theology departments.

Just FYI, I guess.

[csguy]

Csguy,  the distinction is not between the names "Religion" and "Religious Studies" (or "Comparative Religion," for that matter), but between R/RS/CR and "Theology" or "Religion and Theology."

Vassar College, for instance, has a "Religion" department that does not attract many folks interested in ministry.  The "Religion" department at Emory, however, does.  The "Religious Studies" department at Stanford does not attract aspirants to ministry.  The "Religious Studies" department at Siena College does.

As the examples above hint toward, some R/RS departments in religiously-affiliated schools are de facto Theology departments.

Just FYI, I guess.

Thanks -- we're religiously affiliated so our Religion department does Theology.

[tee_bee]

This is the best thread ever. I am glad to hear that Taylor is the A$$klown I suspected he was. Quel dope. Taking advice on The Problems of Higher Ed from a Columbia religion professor makes as much sense as hiring as your national security advisor the former provost of Stanford, with a background the Czechoslovak army, to fight the Global War on Terrorism(tm).

[kedves]

...or hiring the man who profited from running a giant university endowment into the ground from heading our economic recovery, maybe, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Taylor seems to be out of touch about what actually goes on in universities, including collaboration among scholars from different disciplines--despite, in many cases, lack of institutional support.  But as someone whose work is interdisciplinary, I like his idea about an across-disciplines model that would be less permanent and vulnerable to budget cuts than a program or department, but more long-term than a conference.

[cjjdncb]

Hey everyone.

I wrote a reaction piece to the Taylor article, which you can find linked here:

http://www.whyweworry.com/blog/2009/06/25/restructuring-humanities/

Short version: Coming from a political/economic standpoint, I think Taylor is largely misguided.  He analyzes the woes of the university quite well, but then he treats it like a failing factory that needs free market prescriptions.  Making departments meet benchmarks, mandating retirement, cutting tenure -- those are solutions for corporations, and they would fit quite well in an IMF/World Bank structural adjustment plan.  That said, the idea of networking departments is an interesting one, worthy of more discussion.

[daurousseau]

Here's the best part: 

This policy [abolishing tenure] would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills.

See how "colleges and universities...reward" the good people! As if colleges and universities were people, and capable of making judgements.

What it really means is let a bunch of administrators, who may not have tenure and thus live in fear of those who control their jobs, in turn control the faculty and pass on whatever pressures are generated by the state legistators, trustees, newspaper owners, talk radio jocks and other representatives of the parasite class.

[cityprof]

Bumping this up for discussion of Taylor's recent interview with the Chronicle. Not sure if this link will work for free, but:

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Mark-Taylor-Wants-to/48214/

The fundamental shift that I'm talking about is a shift from a model of grids to a model of networks. Grids divide and separate; networks connect and relate. Grids are closed; networks are open. Everything in higher education should be open.

For some reason this makes me think of Kramer from Seinfeld: "It's all levels..."

[august]

Cannot get to the free link, is anyone else having success?

August

[unspoiled]

Cannot get to the free link, is anyone else having success?
August

It's one of those that will not work  unless you've purchased a web pass for yourself, or your university purchased a print or online subscription, in which case access to the full text it should work fine regardless of the technical setbacks on the CHE forums.  

If it helps, it's David Glenn's Q& A column "Why Mark Taylor Wants to Abolish Your Department" and apparently it carries a further link to an essay Taylor published in the New York Times.  The NYT archives should be free to search and browse once you create an account there.

[august]

In summary.  It was good.

Somehow, I doubt this. 

[malcha]

In summary.  It was good.

Somehow, I doubt this. 

Hey, maybe he really reached out to that important spammer demographic.  Maybe the spammers even got the free link.

[grasshopper]

In summary.  It was good.

Mark? Is that you?

[kedves]

In summary.  It was good.

Mark? Is that you?

Mark Taylor has a list of work-at-home jobs that you can do off the grid!  Pass it on!

[mountainguy]

Sadly, a lot more academics would be turning to spamming if Taylor ever got his way. He's a buffoon of the highest order.

[systeme_d_]

Sadly, a lot more academics would be turning to spamming if Taylor ever got his way. He's a buffoon of the highest order.

I have the best secret minion.