next »

[qrypt]

What makes it utterly and completely galling is that it is apparently all intended to "sweeten the pill" of increased fees.  It's possible to hypothesize that Mandelson doesn't actually believe this will make for better universities -- it's simply necessary as a means for ramming through the fees increase.  Now, I have no difficulty accepting that Mandelson *is* stupid enough to believe that it will make for better universities -- so what I'm saying is that I think he's worse than that, he's not only stupid he's also an evil motherfvcker for playing the game this way. 

[frenchdoctor]

Maybe that's just me, but I'd prefer the "we must raise fees because money is rare these days". At least it would be honest, even if unpleasant. On the other hand, the "we must privatize everything because free market will redeem our souls" kind of speech seems awfully ideological to me. Pragmatism is always better than ideology. I don't know about Lord Mandy, but I'm almost certain the EU bureaucrats aren't playing tricks. They believe in what they say. They're convinced that a free, consumer centered market will make the world -- including education -- better. They trust the market blindly, exactly the same way communists used to trust central planning. Blessed are their simple minds : they have found the one, only and ultimate solution to every problem that ever existed and will ever exist.   

Now, I'm far from being an opponent of free enteprise. If someone can describe me in convincing term, for example, what exactly is the "free market of classics," the "free market of medieval studies" or the "free market of poetry," I'd be glad to listen. I keep asking the question, but no one answered so far. I'm afraid we are ruled by philistines.

Even worse, in the case of the EU commissions, we are ruled by philistines we don't even vote for (or against).

[scotia]

I wonder just how much engagement with employers Lord M experienced while studying PPE at Oxford? Maybe his argument is that his education left him so patently unsuited to make a contribution to society that we should completely revise the whole ethos of Higher Education.

I concur completely with wegie about the label 'teacher'. I am a researcher and lecturer, and I have no problem with elitism if it means that we develop capable human beings who make the world a better place. Instead we seem to be moving to an education system that develops a malleable mediocrity. Today I had two excellent sessions with engaged and eager students. The other 50% of the classes sat there not having done the reading, and thought they understood the discussion despite their inability to articulate meaningful ideas or contribute to the debate. I worry about a Brave New World in which it is the second group of consumers who will dictate that I spoon feed them with what is needed to pass the test rather than the first group of students, who have a genuine desire to learn, and to develop their problem solving and processing skills beyond "will this be in the exam?".

[wegie]

I wonder just how much engagement with employers Lord M experienced while studying PPE at Oxford?

He was almost certainly one of the people who turned up when an investment bank or law firm stuck the credit card behind the bar during the milk round.

[frenchdoctor]

For the French readers, Pierre Jourde wrote a funny, but sad, article about how administrators now control academia :

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2008/12/JOURDE/16610

You have bureaucrats with Phd's in "management of innovative educational excellence," or some other goofy degree, who give orders to the most brilliant minds of the country. It leads to farcical situations where unread managers, who don't know anything about culture and possess no understanting of science at all, give motivational speeches to members of the Collège de France. A few decades ago, such morons would have been laughed at. Today, they're in charge.

And, of course, you can't say anything. If you'd react, you'd be considered as an elitist, if not as a dangerous reactionary who uses bourgeois culture as an instrument to humiliate the meek.

This to say that people at major institutions aren't safe. In France, scholars at the Collège or the ENS thought their prestige would protect them. They were wrong : they, too, are now petty employees under the authority of incompetent managers. In the UK, I hope that scholars at Oxbridge and the like don't feel safe, because they aren't.

Maybe we have been too nice. A friend of mine talks about "le respect de l'autre con." He means that respect for the other has led academics to accept just anything, even the most stupid, comical or self-destructive ideas. "Don't be negative" is our ultimate motto. Of course, nobody wants to be coined as a bitter misanthrope. Nonetheless, if we don't want to be ruled by fools, showing a little bit of intellectual pride might prove necessary.

[alleyoxenfree]

Yes, my theory is that this began in the U.S. with the rise of "Educational Leadership" degrees at all levels - for advisors, for administrators.  It has now become the go-to degree for department chairs who can't get into Ph.D. programs in their fields or can't be bothered with the rigor.  The entrance and exit requirements are easier, and it allows administrators to claim a higher degree without that degree actually being in their field.  As the attorney on another thread interested in crossing to student affairs area nots, the courses are make-work rather than substantive and the dissertations seem to be written on topics such as "Chairing the Department: Strategies for Success." 

I would like to respect their idea that one could study such things but everyone I have met with these degrees seems of the type you describe.  Nevertheless, because they hire their own (so as to further legitimate their own degrees), and because those in power often encourage their cronies to go get this degree so as to seem more qualified and promotable, they are more in power at many institutions.  I now judge institutions I interview at by how many people actually have substantive degrees and how many these, because they seem to be good predictors of the climate.  Does the counseling center have people with MAs and Ph.Ds in psychology and counseling?  Or in "student leadership?"  It's my observation - waiting for the study - that such programs are usually established by right-wing businessmen and donors, which seems no coincidence.

[wegie]

Aaaah. Thank you A. C. Grayling for saying it so much more eloquently than I ever could.

[lorelei]

Aaaah. Thank you A. C. Grayling for saying it so much more eloquently than I ever could.

I agree with him up to this point:

"University education should be provided free of charge to all those suitably qualified for it, as a national investment that goes far beyond its benefit to the offices and factories of the land. Perhaps it is not surprising that bad attitudes start to flow from our no longer being prepared to pay through collective taxation for the higher education of our best and brightest."

And therein lies the rub. Who are the "suitably qualified"? Is this the target of 50% of the population attending university? It's no longer the "best and brightest" but pretty well any 18 year old who can spell their own name and maintain a pulse is offered a university place somewhere.
And "no longer being prepared to pay" - when was this golden age when people who had no opportunity to attend university themselves joyfully contributed to the education of doctors and lawyers?