libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i knew that my trusty 3-year subscription to the london review of books would come in handy...
whilst slowly working through a 3-month backlog today at home, leisurely reading away, i came across this article by Stefan Collini, which is without doubt the best analysis and evaluation of the entire change that i have read since the media took hold of it. extremely astute observation and a good consideration of the concrete, solid facts-- no rhetorical bullshit, no media frenzies around 'anarchist riots' or 'thug violence, etc. a real in-depth thought on what the changes really mean. what i am most struck by is the way that Collini also considers the fundamental change and the worrying erosion of principles of education, in turn for market-dictated privitization.
if you have 10 minutes spare and still care about this issue, do give it a read. the london review is always top-notch writing.
whilst slowly working through a 3-month backlog today at home, leisurely reading away, i came across this article by Stefan Collini, which is without doubt the best analysis and evaluation of the entire change that i have read since the media took hold of it. extremely astute observation and a good consideration of the concrete, solid facts-- no rhetorical bullshit, no media frenzies around 'anarchist riots' or 'thug violence, etc. a real in-depth thought on what the changes really mean. what i am most struck by is the way that Collini also considers the fundamental change and the worrying erosion of principles of education, in turn for market-dictated privitization.
if you have 10 minutes spare and still care about this issue, do give it a read. the london review is always top-notch writing.
[cont in link]Much of the initial response to the Browne Report seems to have missed the point. Its proposals have been discussed almost entirely in terms of ‘a rise in fees’. Analysis has largely concentrated on the amount graduates might pay and on which social groups may gain or lose by comparison with the present system. In other words, the discussion has focused narrowly on the potential financial implications for the individual student, and here it should be recognised that some of the details of Browne’s proposed system of graduate contributions to the cost of fees are, if his premises are granted, an improvement on the present patchwork arrangements.
It is difficult to estimate – though some reports suggest it may be difficult to exaggerate – the damage that may be done to British universities in the short term by the abolition of the block grant and the wild hope that its functions will be taken over by some kind of market mechanism run by university applicants. At present, the block grant is the tangible expression of the public interest in the provision of good quality education across the system, and the means for universities to make informed intellectual choices about the subjects they teach. But before Liberal Democrat MPs sell their souls in the division lobbies, they need to consider the longer-term consequences for British education and culture more generally of implementing the kind of reasoning on which this report is based. What is at stake here is not primarily the question of whether this or that group of graduates will pay a little more or a little less towards the costs of their education, even though that may seem (particularly to those in marginal seats) to be the most potent element electorally. What is at stake is whether universities in the future are to be thought of as having a public cultural role partly sustained by public support, or whether we move further towards redefining them in terms of a purely economistic calculation of value and a wholly individualist conception of ‘consumer satisfaction’.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-01-03 12:26:41)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
One thing I'll give your system credit for in comparison to ours is that you seem to have a public system in place that minimizes the influence of for-profit schools that are mostly just scams.
In America, there is a growing market for private for-profit schools that basically produce useless degrees that don't even have cultural value. The reason for this is two-fold.
1) The Pell Grant system here isn't restricted to use with reputable schools.
2) We seem to have a lot of people who don't really have a clue when it comes to recognizing what a reputable school is versus a scam. In particular, these scams prey on poor people and immigrants.
With a system more like yours, there is more inclusion for all groups, and public funds are generally restricted to reputable schools.
I do wish we had that level of accountability here when it comes to Pell Grants.
In America, there is a growing market for private for-profit schools that basically produce useless degrees that don't even have cultural value. The reason for this is two-fold.
1) The Pell Grant system here isn't restricted to use with reputable schools.
2) We seem to have a lot of people who don't really have a clue when it comes to recognizing what a reputable school is versus a scam. In particular, these scams prey on poor people and immigrants.
With a system more like yours, there is more inclusion for all groups, and public funds are generally restricted to reputable schools.
I do wish we had that level of accountability here when it comes to Pell Grants.
there's inclusion for all groups, yes... but included to what? previously a sort of social-class-intelligence hierarchy... now a competition theory market individualist approach? the first/current certainly has its flaws and inequalities, but the upcoming-proposed one seems to be based on huge economic naivety and a scrapping of all humanist principles.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, I was referring more to the way your system worked before the recent changes.Uzique wrote:
there's inclusion for all groups, yes... but included to what? previously a sort of social-class-intelligence hierarchy... now a competition theory market individualist approach? the first/current certainly has its flaws and inequalities, but the upcoming-proposed one seems to be based on huge economic naivety and a scrapping of all humanist principles.
Even with the changes, your system is more inclusive and seemingly more accountable than ours.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-03 12:51:01)
It's social engineering. Cameron wants the richest and smartest at Unis, and the rest can go fuck themselves.
how exactly will it be the richest and the smartest if the arts, humanities and intellectual or cultural disciplines are culled off by perfect-competition market theory? the way the restructuring and financing works now, with the student as the 'rational' individual consumer making his choice and thus estimating the course's 'value' means that such intellectual luxury subjects will die a slow and painful death of underfunding and consequent deterioration. the most expensive and 'exclusive'- even the most 'elite', in a sense - subjects will be tosh like management and business that is esteemed as a 'high salary earner', and thus will cost more. that's dangerous: you're removing actual education from the university ranking-hierarchy and replacing it with some asinine consumer-value model.
it won't be the richest and smartest at our top universities... it'll be the richest who are most dangerously stupid and uncultured.
it won't be the richest and smartest at our top universities... it'll be the richest who are most dangerously stupid and uncultured.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
They'll still be at uni, just doing worthwhile courses instead, not that the smartest usually pick arts in the first place.how exactly will it be the richest and the smartest if the arts, humanities and intellectual or cultural disciplines are culled off by perfect-competition market theory?
Fuck Israel
but the only requirement for doing a top course at a top uni in the new reformed system is mostly your wealth.
seeing as subjects and their costs are ranked on the bottom-line economic imperative... the academic/educational performance drops off in importance
hence the 'most competitive' courses, place-wise and entry-wise, will be financially determined, not intellectually.
as for your second point... well you don't have one. typical dilbert garbage. you cannot ignore this fundamental restructuring, petty subject-peeves aside.
seeing as subjects and their costs are ranked on the bottom-line economic imperative... the academic/educational performance drops off in importance
hence the 'most competitive' courses, place-wise and entry-wise, will be financially determined, not intellectually.
as for your second point... well you don't have one. typical dilbert garbage. you cannot ignore this fundamental restructuring, petty subject-peeves aside.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Its simple Darwinian selection applied to uni courses - if there is no money at the end of it people won't pay to do the course -> pretty soon the course won't be offered.
There will be a small number of people with rich daddys who continue to pursue pointless subjects, but the clogs to clogs process should eventually remove them from the pool also.
I've never understood why people think they have a right to tax dollars so they can spend three years partying and playing video games.
There will be a small number of people with rich daddys who continue to pursue pointless subjects, but the clogs to clogs process should eventually remove them from the pool also.
I've never understood why people think they have a right to tax dollars so they can spend three years partying and playing video games.
Fuck Israel
hahaha. yeah everytime darwinism has been used economically it has been a great success...
who spends three years partying and playing video games? the gaming society at my university is compsci and physics students, exclusively
guess they have way too much time with their junk degrees
who spends three years partying and playing video games? the gaming society at my university is compsci and physics students, exclusively
guess they have way too much time with their junk degrees
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
There's nothing wrong with a consumer-value model as long as certain regulations are in place, like the ones I hinted at in my previous post.Uzique wrote:
how exactly will it be the richest and the smartest if the arts, humanities and intellectual or cultural disciplines are culled off by perfect-competition market theory? the way the restructuring and financing works now, with the student as the 'rational' individual consumer making his choice and thus estimating the course's 'value' means that such intellectual luxury subjects will die a slow and painful death of underfunding and consequent deterioration. the most expensive and 'exclusive'- even the most 'elite', in a sense - subjects will be tosh like management and business that is esteemed as a 'high salary earner', and thus will cost more. that's dangerous: you're removing actual education from the university ranking-hierarchy and replacing it with some asinine consumer-value model.
it won't be the richest and smartest at our top universities... it'll be the richest who are most dangerously stupid and uncultured.
As long as the money is going to reputable schools, why not let student demand determine funding?
because most of the subjects will be determined by a transient, passing economic 'phase', i.e. secondary or tertiary industry. this shifts according to time and adds absolutely nothing of public or cultural value to a nation's 'educated': it merely promotes the individualist's selfish wants to the vulgar and gross materialist extreme. also it relies on a naive assumption that an 18 year old student will be rational and thoughtful enough to 'determine' what the best course suitable is in the first place... so the system of valuation that will develop will be misguided and quixotic at best.
just read the article first, you're asking questions that are directly answered in simple, plain prose there.
just read the article first, you're asking questions that are directly answered in simple, plain prose there.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-01-03 15:43:39)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think the real problem is that the 'nob' universities were founded before the industrial revolution and are still teaching subjects which were relevant then but aren't now. (Although by 'relevant' I mean there was demand for them from rich people who wanted a diversion.)
If they have to suffer some pain as part of the process of dragging them into the 19th century then so be it.
If they have to suffer some pain as part of the process of dragging them into the 19th century then so be it.
Fuck Israel
so what you're saying is that vocational degrees tailored specifically for tertiary-sector career paths are the pinnacle of 'modern' education?
2000 years of philosophical pursuit and 300 years of Enlightenment intellectualism... and now we have it!
BUSINESS STUDIES
2000 years of philosophical pursuit and 300 years of Enlightenment intellectualism... and now we have it!
BUSINESS STUDIES
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's not that expensive.Zimmer wrote:
It's social engineering. Cameron wants the richest and smartest at Unis, and the rest can go fuck themselves.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If people don't like it they can pay to study what they like.Uzique wrote:
so what you're saying is that vocational degrees tailored specifically for tertiary-sector career paths are the pinnacle of 'modern' education?
Which is wholly unrelated to the University system, and unrelated to whether the taxpayer funds 18 year olds to study the history of it.Uzique wrote:
2000 years of philosophical pursuit and 300 years of Enlightenment intellectualism...
Fuck Israel
erm, what? the forum, the symposium and the university lecture hall have been the ONLY places for such things throughout history
what are you talking about? and the study of the history of anything is necessary to further the advancement of it
you have this completely misguided impression that arts/humanities/classics degrees just get lost in historical detail and do not progress
"a writer is the engineer of the soul"
i think stalin said that
what are you talking about? and the study of the history of anything is necessary to further the advancement of it
you have this completely misguided impression that arts/humanities/classics degrees just get lost in historical detail and do not progress
"a writer is the engineer of the soul"
i think stalin said that
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The University lecture hall is a distant third, if at all, and please point me to Bachelors, or even Masters, dissertation in the arts which has had any impact in the world other than on the shredder.erm, what? the forum, the symposium and the university lecture hall have been the ONLY places for such things throughout history
For which you don't need, and most writers don't have, a degree."a writer is the engineer of the soul"
Really arts degrees just impose a specific and narrow way of thinking, stultifying original thought - which is why most progress happens away from them.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-03 18:13:39)
Fuck Israel
dilbert i think we've done this "you don't know what you're talking about" thing about 5 times now in this thread...
how cyclical.
a piece of secondary criticism or a new essay/dissertation that has had an impact on the world? are you kidding? wow.
you think there is no benefit to writers, philosophers, critics or any form of cultural producer in arts/humanities degrees? wow.
oh and whether or not you agree with it, nearly all new fiction in the west since the postmodern era, particularly in america, has come out of creative writing programmes and 'instructive' courses. i disagree with them, personally... but it's always nice to correct you when you make blind statements about things you literally have no clue about WHATSOEVER.
how cyclical.
a piece of secondary criticism or a new essay/dissertation that has had an impact on the world? are you kidding? wow.
you think there is no benefit to writers, philosophers, critics or any form of cultural producer in arts/humanities degrees? wow.
oh and whether or not you agree with it, nearly all new fiction in the west since the postmodern era, particularly in america, has come out of creative writing programmes and 'instructive' courses. i disagree with them, personally... but it's always nice to correct you when you make blind statements about things you literally have no clue about WHATSOEVER.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-01-03 18:19:22)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The question is whether there is any benefit to society, and whether society should therefore pay for it.you think there is no benefit to writers, philosophers, critics or any form of cultural producer in arts/humanities degrees?
Not whether there is any benefit to a closed community of academics.
And again, many writers/philosophers/artists seem to do fine - or better - without an arts degree, suggesting they aren't really needed.
At the undergraduate, or Masters, level - I very much doubt it.a piece of secondary criticism or a new essay/dissertation that has had an impact on the world?
Thenoh and whether or not you agree with it, nearly all new fiction in the west since the postmodern era, particularly in america, has come out of creative writing programmes and 'instructive' courses. i disagree with them, personally... but it's always nice to correct you when you make blind statements about things you literally have no clue about WHATSOEVER
a) You'll have some evidence to back up that statement.
b) If an arts degree leads to success then people will have no issue paying for them themselves.
c) I thought we were talking about intellectual progress, not commercial fiction
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-03 18:27:08)
Fuck Israel
did you just equate postmodernist fiction with 'commercial' fiction?
wow.
this is the most frustrating thread i have ever engaged with you in
wow.
this is the most frustrating thread i have ever engaged with you in
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Your fears are entirely unfounded. Our university system is much more expensive than yours is and we still graduate an inordinate amount of english, psychology, sociology etc majors every year. Our government essentially begs people to go into math and science degrees but people still don't choose them even though the money on the other end is much better. 18-22 year old kids rarely have any real concept of money so the whole 'put x in to get y four years later' thing is alien to them. If you took a group of 100 kids and told them X degree earns $100k, Y degree earns $75k and Z degree earns $50k but that the classes required for X are boring, and those for Z are fun, you'd end up with the majority going for a degree in Z regardless of the economics.Uzique wrote:
because most of the subjects will be determined by a transient, passing economic 'phase', i.e. secondary or tertiary industry. this shifts according to time and adds absolutely nothing of public or cultural value to a nation's 'educated': it merely promotes the individualist's selfish wants to the vulgar and gross materialist extreme. also it relies on a naive assumption that an 18 year old student will be rational and thoughtful enough to 'determine' what the best course suitable is in the first place... so the system of valuation that will develop will be misguided and quixotic at best.
just read the article first, you're asking questions that are directly answered in simple, plain prose there.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You didn't define what you meant by 'fiction', if you meant 'postmodern literature' as opposed to 'nearly all new fiction in the west since the postmodern era' - which by volume is no doubt commercial fiction - you should have said so.
If people wish to write 'postmodern literature' they are free to do so, they don't need to spend years at a university funded by the taxpayer to do so. Since there is zero benefit to society there is no reason for the taxpayer to fund it.
If people wish to write 'postmodern literature' they are free to do so, they don't need to spend years at a university funded by the taxpayer to do so. Since there is zero benefit to society there is no reason for the taxpayer to fund it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-03 19:17:43)
Fuck Israel
Well, here's a basic question that is probably broader and more philosophical than what the article addresses: if student demand shouldn't determine things, what should? I just figured actual demand on the part of consumers themselves is as good a basis as any.Uzique wrote:
because most of the subjects will be determined by a transient, passing economic 'phase', i.e. secondary or tertiary industry. this shifts according to time and adds absolutely nothing of public or cultural value to a nation's 'educated': it merely promotes the individualist's selfish wants to the vulgar and gross materialist extreme. also it relies on a naive assumption that an 18 year old student will be rational and thoughtful enough to 'determine' what the best course suitable is in the first place... so the system of valuation that will develop will be misguided and quixotic at best.
just read the article first, you're asking questions that are directly answered in simple, plain prose there.