A.C. Grayling to establish private humanities university
...with his mates, Richard Dawkins and Niall Ferguson.
Terry Eagleton: AC Grayling's private university is odious
There will, however, be teaching from 14 "star" professors as well, including Linda Colley, Christopher Ricks, Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson and David Cannadine. Somehow it's hard to imagine these guys rolling in at 9am and teaching for 12 to 15 hours a week, which is what you do in the real Oxbridge. Prospective students should talk to these professors' travel agents and insist on obtaining photocopies of their diaries. Students can, however, be fairly relaxed about the prospect of being kicked out. It would be like JK Rowling being kicked out by her publishers.
The master of the college will be public sage and identikit Islington Man, AC Grayling. Many observers, he comments, will be surprised to see a group of "almost pinko" academics pitching in to the project. If Dawkins, Colley, Ricks and Ferguson are pinko, I'm a deep shade of indigo. Anyway, why should anyone be surprised at the prospect of academics signing on for a cushy job at 25% more than the average university salary, with shares in the enterprise to boot?
Nina Power: Boycott the New College of the Humanities
Those of us that work at post-92s have been told repeatedly that Humanities subjects are under threat, that they are unsustainable in such institutions and that subjects such as Philosophy in particular are not part of the vision of the university. We see patterns of closure and attempted closure of the subject across post-92s (Greenwich, London Met, Middlesex…at Roehampton we are currently being asked to work out between the four of us, who work the equivalent of three full-time positions, how to remove half a position. If we don’t work it out among ourselves, the university will simply take .5 from one of us on the basis of our competing self-assessments - a sorry version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma if ever there were one).
But we know, just as well as management does, that subjects such as Philosophy are highly desired and in strong demand from students. The New College of the Humanities bears this insight out - AC Grayling, Simon Blackburn, Peter Singer are all part of the ‘Professoriate’ while Ken Gemes and Naomi Goulder turn up in ‘other teaching staff’ (by the way, I suggest an immediate boycott of all members of staff involved in the college, who have clearly abandoned any sense of working for the common good in favour of money). Prospective students of the college are assured that they ‘won’t be just a number’ and that they’ll get weekly one-on-one tutorials. Students of the new college will apparently ‘use many of the resources of the University of London: the exceptional library in Senate House, the University of London Union with its many societies and sports activities’ - how is this even remotely allowed? If you’re going to set up a private college, at least have the decency to buy your own fucking resources. I suggest that current students at the University of London find a way of protesting in the strongest sense against the private use of their resources. And where will the college itself be based? Parasitic-like on the existing buildings of the UoL, paying top dollar for room rental, perhaps?
Grayling uni faces flood of fake applicationsThe New College of the Humanities is the brainchild of the Oxford don and boasts a faculty that includes Niall Ferguson and Richard Dawkins.
It has been widely criticised this week after it was revealed the college will charge £18,000 tuition fees a year. In the past 48 hours, more than 1,500 people have joined a Facebook event urging immediate direct action.
"It's incredibly easy to apply for a place because it's outside UCAS, so it's a separate pool of applications," said Nicki Kindersley, a 25-year-old PhD student at Durham University who submitted a fake form following the Facebook link. "The idea is just to bombard them," she said. "The staff are going to get deluged with applications."
The Facebook page, created by Oxford students Rachel Elizabeth Fraser and Eloise Stonborough, urges people to "apply to the new college of humanities as if you were a rich idiot!" The blurb continues: "The application form asks how you plan on paying them £54k - tell them you plan on laying golden eggs, extorting leprechaun gold, selling the organs of small children."
'I would like to be given a little bit of credit for trying to do it sincerely'
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10583/
Yes, who are these idiots who see a bunch of self-proclaimed liberals, superstars of the humanities, opting to open a private university well beyond the access of the average family income, let alone the poor. Well argued, good sir!
Or: education is a human right, a universal public good and a pillar of democracy. Any time the elite attempt to wrest this power away from the people, it should be fought tooth and nail. While alleged left-leaning public intellectuals embrace the private, for-profit model of education and betray their students and colleagues, others fight for the principles on which the university was founded. Thank goodness Britain has Nicki Kindersleys willing to do this brave and difficult work.
Nice drive-by ad hominem smear, though. It pairs nicely with your ranting right-winger.
ETA. God, that Spiked "publication" is quite the rag. What vomit-inducing swill.
Yes, who are these idiots who see a bunch of self-proclaimed liberals, superstars of the humanities, opting to open a private university well beyond the access of the average family income, let alone the poor. Well argued, good sir!
Or: education is a human right, a universal public good and a pillar of democracy. Any time the elite attempt to wrest this power away from the people, it should be fought tooth and nail. While alleged left-leaning public intellectuals embrace the private, for-profit model of education and betray their students and colleagues, others fight for the principles on which the university was founded. Thank goodness Britain has Nicki Kindersleys willing to do this brave and difficult work.
Nice drive-by ad hominem smear, though. It pairs nicely with your ranting right-winger.
ETA. God, that Spiked "publication" is quite the rag. What vomit-inducing swill.
If A and B have agreed that A is going to teach B humanities, what business is it of C?
And I am genuinely curious - what is Nicki Kindersley studying?
I don't have an opinion on this yet because I haven't looked into it enough - but it should be noted that Eagleton has axes to grind with both Dawkins, whose writing on atheism is something Eagleton has taken extreme exception to, and Grayling, who wrote an unflattering review of Eagleton's book. I wouldn't take his article as an entirely unbiased view.
Yes, that's true, Eagleton has had public feuds with both Dawkins and Grayling, but he is not even close to the only voice on this subject. And I'm more inclined to respect a Marxist's view than one of mealy-mouthed liberals on the subject of privatizing university.
If the government of Alberta has agreed to allow Shell to mine the tar sands without check or compensation, what business is it of the people of Canada?
If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re trying to sell an undergraduate arts degree that costs more than an MBA?
Meanwhile, in terms of the educational experience, much has been made of the presence of Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, Stephen Pinker, etc etc on the “professoriate” and indeed a lot of the press commentary appears to have inadvertently implied that these academic megastars will be doing the teaching. But, sharp cookies will have noted, none of them appear to have resigned from their existing posts or given any notice that they intend to do so, despite the fact that NCH is planning on getting the first bums on seats in Autumn 2012. In fact, close perusal of the fine print reveals that what the “Professoriate” are going to be providing is lecture courses, and the actual syllabus delivery will come from a staff “to be recruited”; given that the “Subject Convenors” seem to me to be fairly normal middle-ranking UK profs, I would guess that the teaching will also come from the middle ranks of the British academic proleteriat. (Just by way of comparison, when I did my MSc at London Business School, I was actually taught by Paul Marsh, Dick Brealey, Paul Geroski et al; there were PhD students teaching mathematical “boot-camp” style classes but for the most part the research staff were right out in front of the paying punters)....
So who would this appeal to? The answer “people with significantly more money than sense” comes to mind. The prospectus is all about “Oxford, Cambridge this, Ivy League that”, but the actual educational offering appears to be more like an attempt to recreate the American concept of the liberal arts college education. And when I say “liberal arts college education”, the phrase “liberal arts college” is meant to convey the impression “eyeball-searingly overpriced”. Brian Weatherson pointed out to me on Twitter that Oberlin College in America has a schedule of fees that can rack up $200k (ie, the cost of slightly less than three world-class MBA courses) for an undergraduate tuition. This thing, if it has any chance of paying a return on the money invested, is going to be targeted at the seriously rich – probably the international rich – and it is not going to be made appreciably more egalitarian by the proposed scholarship grants.
Yes, that's true, Eagleton has had public feuds with both Dawkins and Grayling, but he is not even close to the only voice on this subject. And I'm more inclined to respect a Marxist's view than one of mealy-mouthed liberals on the subject of privatizing university.
If the government of Alberta has agreed to allow Shell to mine the tar sands without check or compensation, what business is it of the people of Canada?
If Alberta has full jurisdiction over the tar sands, none. If there's shared jurisdiction between Alberta and Canada, some. But I notice that you didn't actually answer my question.
How about if Shell Oil, Cameco or Cargill want to invest in our schools, colleges and universities and take the burden of education off governments' hands?
Premier Brad Wall[Mart] of Saskatchewan may be working to have that reform accomplished over the next few years.
Yes, that's true, Eagleton has had public feuds with both Dawkins and Grayling, but he is not even close to the only voice on this subject. And I'm more inclined to respect a Marxist's view than one of mealy-mouthed liberals on the subject of privatizing university.
I don't know - he's also a Catholic. That muddies the Marxism a little, does it not?
I don't think the label "Marxist" should exempt anyone's opinion from scrutiny of their biases or suggest that they have none. I'm not sure how that would make him less influenced by feuding than anyone else.
Sort of like all Christians aren't necessarily exempt from behaving in interestingly un-Christian ways.
Yes, occasionally, although very rarely in a body of work stretching forty years, Eagleton's Catholicism muddles his writing. I could talk a lot about Eagleton, if you like. I find much of his writing engaging and insightful, and some of it pompous and muddled. But this thread isn't about Eagleton, it's about a bunch of left-leaning academics forming a private, elite college ostensibly in order to save the humanities, which are undergoing one of the most cynical and vicious attacks in England right now. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that?
I don't quite see your question, ygbtk--although I suppose you don't see education as part of the public commonwealth as I do. Perhaps you see it as an economic transaction between those who own it and those who can afford it. Perhaps you see no problem with entrusting the education of our future generations to venture capitalists, rather than to society at large. Personally, I find such a conception of education poisonous and anethema to democracy and progress. Call me a dreamer.
I don't quite see your question, ygbtk--although I suppose you don't see education as part of the public commonwealth as I do. Perhaps you see it as an economic transaction between those who own it and those who can afford it. Perhaps you see no problem with entrusting the education of our future generations to venture capitalists, rather than to society at large. Personally, I find such a conception of education poisonous and anethema to democracy and progress. Call me a dreamer.
I agree with many of your lofty sentiments, Catchfire. However, so far as I know, AC Grayling is not trying to deny anyone the opportunity to go to a state school - he's merely attempting to provide an alternative, which no-one is forced to take. I fail to see the harm.
This commenter at the Guardian (on Simon Jenkins' loathsome defence of Grayling) sums up why I, along with many of my colleagues in the UK, don't see this move as simply a harmless, isolated experiment:
That, and of course those, like me, who imagine a different future for the humanities, rely on the public intellectuals in our fields to lead the way to improvement, particularly those among us who count themselves as the left. Academics enjoy some of the strongest freedoms in the country, and so when the most blessed among them eschew those freedoms for the pursuit of profit, I count that as a betrayal of our trust, and of education in general. Fortunately, when AC Grayling fails us, we have a Nicki Kindersley to take up the slack.
Or: education is a human right, a universal public good and a pillar of democracy. Any time the elite attempt to wrest this power away from the people, it should be fought tooth and nail.
I'm trying to understand the extent of outrage against this project - by you, by Eagleton, by others. Don't we need a little more information? How are "public" universities funded in the UK and owned and managed? How much are tuition fees? Quite frankly, Eagleton's sophomoric smears sound like... well, sophomoric smears. I missed the profound Marxist content.
Here's my opinion. Education is a human right, like health care. Both ought to be provided and funded by society, with no entrepeneurs allowed in the arena. That's a huge struggle. It does not, in my book, leave time or energy to denounce the little entrepeneurs who work within the existing unjust system and set up their private shops. No matter how much we expose and condemn them, it won't hasten by one instant the day when society takes up its responsibilities and provides what its members all need.
You might as well sit around condemning some laser clinic or cosmetic surgeon or private gastro clinic. To what end, exactly?
Yes, that's true, Eagleton has had public feuds with both Dawkins and Grayling, but he is not even close to the only voice on this subject. And I'm more inclined to respect a Marxist's view than one of mealy-mouthed liberals on the subject of privatizing university.
If the government of Alberta has agreed to allow Shell to mine the tar sands without check or compensation, what business is it of the people of Canada?
Catchfire is unable to keep it about education, the actual topic of this thread, a sure sign that his argument is flawed.
I'm confused by your post, Unionist. If Canada's best and most celebrated doctors were to open up a private health clinic that charged exorbitant rates for regular physician care (not laser eye clinics, as you suggest), you would be fine with that? What if doctors in Canada at the time were undergoing an unprecedented attack on public health care, with hitherto unseen cynicism, malice and devastation? And, finally, what if said health care celebrities purported to be on the side, ultimately, of universal health care? Perhaps those with axes to grind against Eagleton could attend to the actual subject at hand--you could, for instance, listen to the hundreds of actual students and lecturers who are objecting to this travesty across the country.
Or: education is a human right, a universal public good and a pillar of democracy.
Or, the professors are free to do with their labor what they will. Their labor is not the property of "the public".
Call me a dreamer.
Okay.
You're a dreamer, Catchfire!
I'm confused by your post, Unionist. If Canada's best and most celebrated doctors were to open up a private health clinic that charged exorbitant rates for regular physician care (not laser eye clinics, as you suggest), you would be fine with that?
What kind of straw man is that? If the law permits it, we must organize to change the law - not have scathing articles ridiculing the doctors in question. The only reason Eagleton writes this article is because he hates Dawkins for other reasons. And those who focus their attack on these individuals rather than on a system which permits two-tier education are being diversionary.
That's why I said we need more information about how post-secondary education works in the U.K., funding, etc. Otherwise, what is this discussion about?
Your questions are straw men. Why not answer my questions. Should we pillory and picket some high-profile physicians leaving the public system in Québec and going private - because of the Liberal government's craven response to the Supreme Court's Chaoulli decision - or direct our attacks against the government? Should we expose some physician who says she supports universal health care while running a private business on the side? These are rhetorical questions. My answer is "no".
Tell me the laws surrounding postsecondary education in the UK - tell me what movements exist around this issue - tell me about how tuition fees are set - are there both public (what does that mean??) and private universities - and then I'll be in a position to determine whether the singling out of these enemies of Eagleton is justified or utterly diversionary.
Can anyone in the U.K. create an accredited university willy-nilly? Are the degrees granted by this outfit worth any more than those from those courses that used to be advertised on matchbooks?
There's more background at:
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=416440...
If the article is accurate, then:
1) There is at least one private university in the U.K. already (Regent's College).
2) Degrees will be available under the University of London International Programme, rather than being granted directly by New College.
3) It doesn't sound to me like it's worth 18,000 pounds per year. However, that's a decision I'm sure people can make for themselves.
The health care analogy was your straw man, Unionist, not mine. But suddenly it wasn't good enough for you, so you built another straw man out of Eagleton's beef with Dawkins. Tell me, does Nina Power hate Dawkins? Do the thousands of students against the project? Does the student union chair of Birkbeck College? You have a selective notion of solidarity if you'd prefer to lecture students on what they should be doing about saving education.
I've already posted why this college is dangerous: the humanities in Britain are suffering an unprecedented attack. See, for example, this thread. Tuition fees have tripled overnight--originally meant just for Oxbridge, just about every major university in England have applied for the maximum allowed increase, £9000. The entire system in the UK is shifting to the American model of inequality, socioeconomic gaps and commodification--yet one that is in many ways even more insidious because of Britain's entrenched class elitism. And, rather than fight this shift, AC Grayling and his merry band have opted to profit from it: leaving the future generation of students and scholars--who they ostensibly mentor--out to dry. And all of this is done under neoliberal mantras of "innovation" and "flexibility." Gag.
A.C. Grayling's proposals for private college to rival Oxbridge leads to smoke bomb protest at Foyle's bookshopDuring Professor Grayling’s visit to Foyle’s, a smoke bomb was let off in protest at the idea, filling the room with a choking red mist.
Afterwards, students, who did not want to be named, said they had put the professor on a “grey list” and would greet him with demonstrations at upcoming public events.
“Wherever Grayling goes over the next few weeks, the student movement will be there,” said one protester.
Mark Bergfeld, who has been at the forefront of student protests over the past year, said: “Grayling cannot expect anything else from the student movement in this country.”
“However well-intentioned may have been the motivation of the instigators of New College, this initiative is mistaken. As a private institution of higher education, its creation is a setback for the campaign against this government’s policy – a policy of commercialisation of education through fees, as a precursor to the bankrupting, and then the asset-stripping or sale of public provision,” it read.
“Privatisation of teaching and research is not the answer. It will distort course provision and the focus of investigation. It will foster an instrumental attitude to learning among students, who will increasingly measure the value of their degrees against the private returns from possible future employment that might allow them to repay their debts."
A position which seems to be upheld by this troubling comment from London Mayor Boris Johnson:
The New College is a business designed to profit from fearIndeed, it seems that they will play no role in the design of the curriculum either, since that has by all accounts largely been lifted from that of the University of London. Furthermore, many of those now cashing in by teaching at New College will only be able to do so because the tax-payer funded their education and research in our universities. Some of the novel intellectual content is risible in its superficiality. Scientific literacy is to be taught at degree level without mathematical content. That is what is usually known as popular science and is readily available from all good bookshops or via the television screen.
In the looking-glass world of the media, fame and talent are perfectly correlated. Yet, eminent though the professoriate associated with the college assurededly are, their combined intellectual power and credentials are easily outmatched many times over by most of our research intensive universities. Brian Cox is surely an excellent particle physicist but his fame outside his field is out of all proportion to his academic status. The same goes for some of the figures associated with the New College, who seem to have been assembled to provide brand recognition, kudos and for the marketing power of their names, rather than being recruited to be part of a coherent intellectual community.
Is the labor of the professors owned by the state or not?
Your question is a smokescreen, and isn't the isssue.
Your question is a smokescreen, and isn't the isssue.
It's at least part of the issue...and an important part. If some professors want to sell their labor privately, why shouldn't they be free to do that? The only reason they wouldn't be free to do that is if their labor is somehow owned (and, thus, they are owned) by the state.
They have the right to sell their labor any damned way they want.
Is the labor of the professors owned by the state or not?
A good question. A slightly different way of asking the question is "Should the state have a monopoly on education?". Before answering "yes, of course", it's worthwhile considering the point that state policy may be to suppress certain ideas or languages. In this case, then a state monopoly is not so much free provision of an essential public service as it is censorship.
A slightly different way of asking the question is "Should the state have a monopoly on education?". Before answering "yes, of course", it's worthwhile considering the point that state policy may be to suppress certain ideas or languages. In this case, then a state monopoly is not so much free provision of an essential public service as it is censorship.
I don't think there is explicit state censorship in education, even in a system with a state monopoly (putting aside, of course, places like North Korea, Cuba and Saudi Arabia).
But, there is plenty of group-think in education that is certainly fostered when the state has an education monopoly.
This discussion is based on a large dose of ignorance on our part of how postsecondary education currently is structured in the UK. We are asked to support a (IMHO seemingly) bizarre protest against some individuals, while the government which facilitates this elitist turn gets off scot free. I don't buy it for two seconds - unless there's more to this than meets the eye.
That's why (Catchfire - I'm looking at you) I didn't come to any final conclusion. That's why I'd like to know if anywhere here actually knows what we're talking about. That's why I wrote this:
Without that information, my instinct tells me that this is an emotional, ad hominem reaction which lets the real culprits (on Downing Street and in Whitehall) off the hook.
A recent article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on the labour dispute concerning Saskatchewan teachers referred to our "publically-funded" school system.
Seeds are being sown that are intended to sprout into us accepting the idea that government should get out of the business of education.
Astonishing comment from someone who invests so much laudable effort on this board to keeping the NDP honest. As a matter of fact, there are already massive, nationwide movements against the current coalition government in the UK, targeting both the cynical actions of David Cameron and his "once-in-a-lifetime" cuts, and the turncoat Nick Clegg who, after getting elected by the student movement for his promises not to raise tuition fees, promptly tripled them once gaining government. Students, Academics and anyone supporting public education have, in fact, marched en masse and en force against these two villains. And this is the background in which A.C. Grayling decided to launch a private, elite university--which, incredibly, Unionist sees as simply the act of an intrepid individual seizing an opportunity--rather than an alleged ally profiting in the face of a national battle for public education.
Yes, of course. Just like anyone has the right to work as a repo man, a tar sands exec, industrial salmon farmer, slum lord or Monsanto copyright lawyer. Does this right grant them immunity to criticism?
Yeah, because the the soldiers and police, the judges, the tax collectors and auditors, and the rest of those in the civil service are all "owned by the state." :roll:
Yeah, because the the soldiers and police, the judges, the tax collectors and auditors, and the rest of those in the civil service are all "owned by the state." :roll:
But, in many of those cases, the jobs performed can be (and are) performed by private sector analogues.
There are private dispute resolution "judges" who can render legally binding arbitration awards -- completely separate from the government. There are private police, security, etc. jobs that a person can do rather than only having the option of working for the state. Same with many civil service functions. There are private auditors.
The bottom line: If someone wants to teach someone else who is willing to pay that teacher for those services, then what business is it of anyone else? Only the business of busy-bodies.
Yes, of course. Just like anyone has the right to work as a repo man, a tar sands exec, industrial salmon farmer, slum lord or Monsanto copyright lawyer. Does this right grant them immunity to criticism?
As a general proposition? Of course not.
But, whether or not people are generally immune from criticism is not the question.
The question is: Does your particular criticism of these professors have merit?
From my perspective, as I noted above, it's nobody's damned business what they and the students who want to pay them decide to do amongst themselves. It's the economic equivalent of being a busy-body about what goes on between consenting adults in the bedroom. They should be free to do what they damned well please amongst themselves.
Well, the difference of course is that you view education as a commodity and I view it as part of the commonwealth. So I don't find it surprising that we disagree.
I believe the word you're looking for is "mercenaries."
Never mind. Soon we can look forward to our kids attending the Ronald Macdonald School of Nutrition Studies at COSTCO University, or earling a degree in Weaponizing from Westinghouse Tech.
Well, the difference of course is that you view education as a commodity and I view it as part of the commonwealth. So I don't find it surprising that we disagree.
If education is part of the commonwealth, then are you not also saying that the labor of a professor can only be rendered to the state and that a professor, therefore, cannot do with their labor what they will?
I believe the word you're looking for is "mercenaries."
Ah, so an arbitrator (or anyone else who does something that the state may also be doing) is a "mercentary"...
That's a very cogent...er, "argument"...against a person being able to do with their labor what they will.
Well, the difference of course is that you view education as a commodity and I view it as part of the commonwealth. So I don't find it surprising that we disagree.
University education is always an economic transaction (although we can always hope that it's something more than merely that). Are you saying that lecturers get paid in pixie dust, or ought to be? Given that they get paid in real money (dollars, pounds, etc.), then ignoring the actual labourers, and the source of the funds to pay the labourers, seems hard to defend.
It is fascinating to me that those most opposed to socialism, and quite frequently libertarians, are ironically the quickest to state that the only means of achieving any kind of sociality is to legislate ethics and to uphold state oppression. No, Sven. As always, the goal of activism is to effect social and cultural change so that those who take up positions of educators--as with doctors, mail carriers, scientists, police officers and lawyers--recognize the responsibility to the commonweal such a position carries withal, an act accordingly. Not because they are forced to by the state appararatus, but because the exact reason they decided to become educators was to fulfill this very role. Come the revolution, comrade, everyone will eat roast beef. But comrade, I don't like roast beef! Come the revolution comrade, you will love roast beef.
Actually, as you may know, university was free in Britain pre-Blair (and still is elsewhere in Europe and Scandinavia). So all of this is claw-back. This is precisely the mindset my comrades in the UK are fighting, and that we ae trying to fight here. And, of course, as any reader of Capital knows, a "commodity" is much more complex than simply an "economic transaction."
Actually, as you may know, university was free in Britain pre-Blair (and still is elsewhere in Europe and Scandinavia). So all of this is claw-back. This is precisely the mindset my comrades in the UK are fighting, and that we ae trying to fight here. And, of course, as any reader of Capital knows, a "commodity" is much more complex than simply an "economic transaction."
I understand that no tuition was charged in the U.K. over the period 1950-1998 (approx), although it was before then and has been since then. I think by "free" you mean "taxpayer-supported", unless you mean to imply that lecturers work for free. The funds to pay them come from somewhere, even if not from the student.
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I believe that university education should be as widely available as possible, and that a person's means should not keep them from this opportunity. So I believe in very well-funded state-funded universities with no tuition.
On the other hand, if I want to invite a bunch of people to my living room and ask them to pay me $2000 per month for piano lessons or lectures on differential equations or weight training, then I am inclined to think that the state should not prevent me from doing so. And if I want to get together and rent some space with 20 other academics, and charge people $2000 a month to hear us lecture, then I am inclined to think that the state should not prevent us from doing so.
The best solution would be for state-funded education to be so good that any attempt to set u a private alternative would fail, simply because nobody would bother paying for it. Another, though less good, solution would be for the state to allow this practice (as I think they should), but not to recognize any degrees that my friends and I might confer.
Well that's the rub, tp: not only are these degrees recognized, the expectation (certainly Grayling's, and likely his rich would-be students') is that a degree from NCH will be on the same level as Oxford or Cambridge--at the very least, from London, who will confer the degrees.
The best solution would be for state-funded education to be so good that any attempt to set u a private alternative would fail, simply because nobody would bother paying for it. Another, though less good, solution would be for the state to allow this practice (as I think they should), but not to recognize any degrees that my friends and I might confer.
But, that's just it. What, exactly, is "so good" is going to be a matter of legitimate debate. And, generally, when there is a monopoly (whether that's the government or a private enterprise), "so good" is going to be exactly what the monopolist tells us is "so good" -- which is usually not going to be as good as what might otherwise be achieved if there are competing alternatives.
I believe the word you're looking for is "mercenaries."
Ah, so an arbitrator (or anyone else who does something that the state may also be doing) is a "mercentary"...
That's a very cogent...er, "argument"...against a person being able to do with their labor what they will.
As if you're concerned with labour rights.
Again, I'm addressing your smokescreen for what it is.
Remember what you said here?
"Private contractors" was the euphemism that the forces of freedom called their mercenaries when they liberated Iraq.
So, al-Q, why is it imperative that a state have a monopoly over education?
Why is it imperative that private enterprise take over education?
You've been beating this drum for a couple of years on babble. What's your interest in undermining the educational sysem?
Why is it imperative that private enterprise take over education?
You've been beating this drum for a couple of years on babble. What's your interest in undermining the educational sysem?
This is an interesting point, since "pure public" and "pure private" are not the only alternatives. Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. all currently have mixed systems at either the secondary or post-secondary level or both.
So a reasonable question might be "Why does maintaining the current mixed system undermine the current mixed system?". It's not obvious that it does.
A follow-on question could be "What reasons can be extended for replacing the current mixed system with a State monopoly?". I gave a possible reason why that might be unwise above.
Why is it imperative that private enterprise take over education?
I'm not advocating that private enterprise "take over" education. For some of us, as ygbtk noted, it's not an either-or question.
The question is: Who is hurt by the private initiative that ACG is proposing?
I think it's funny how this proposed school was characterized in the initial post: "A group of well-known academics are setting up a private college in London which will charge students £18,000 a year in tuition fees." The academics "will charge" students £18,000 per year, as though students will be forced to go to ACG's institution and to pay £18,000 per year to do it. A more accurate way to characterize this endeavor: "A group of well-known academics are setting up a private college in London and they hope that some students will be willing to pay £18,000 a year in tuition fees."
My prediction? This project will fail because there will not be enough people willing to pay about $110,000 in tuition to get a humanities degree. If it is successful, then ACG and his colleagues will probably be doing something very interesting and it will be worth asking: What are they offering that people are willing to voluntarily spend $110,000 to get?
So, again, why is it imperative that the state have monopoly control over education?
No one actually dies from a lack of access to private education due to economic reasons. The same can't be said with respect to the debate surrounding health care, or access to medicine, or access to the means of obtaining food. In Canada we have what amounts to a price fixing monopoly of private for profit grocery store chains that are only accessible to those with the means. Where applicable, the public consensus establishes to means to obtain basic food requirements and other necessities through program spending. We largely understand of course that these social measures range from marginally adequate to completely inadequate in addressing the need, but like everything else this is a matter of priority and policy that in one way or another can be addressed. The same can be said of any socially related area where lives are on the line and the public has the wherewithal but not necessarily the motivation to progressively and effectively address. I find it difficult to be moved to any great extent by the specter of yet another setting which provides a select gathering of elitists the opportunity to exchange money for the privilege of talking amongst one another, when the focus should be about shoring up universal access to the necessities and beyond, including education. It's a matter of prioritizing ones outrage, which in itself can be argued as being informed by ones privileged access and exposure to areas typically denied to the many.
Good point. Why don't we have a government-run food store? Food security is a big issue; such an agency could ensure availability and quality of decent food for everyone..
Good point. Why don't we have a government-run food store? Food security is a big issue; such an agency could ensure availability and quality of decent food for everyone..
It would make more sense to give the indigent vouchers for food.
In Canada we have what amounts to a price fixing monopoly of private for profit grocery store chains that are only accessible to those with the means.
There's no such thing as a price-fixing monopoly of multiple players. However, you could have a price-fixing cartel of multiple players.
You should actually go to work for one of those big chains (in a position with strategic responsibility) and then come back and tell us that there is "price fixing" amongst the numerous grocery store competitors in Canada. What you would certainly find is that the businesses are fiercely competing with each other on price, selection, convenience, etc.
Sven wrote:So, al-Q, why is it imperative that a state have a monopoly over education?
Ding! Sorry, Sven, that's not where this conversation is going. Go ask on the Globe and Mail's comment section why the Pfizer School of Pharmaceuticals and the Imperial Oil College of the Environment aren't exactly attractive to the progressive community. The debate here is a matter of tactics, not of "Shouldn't only the wealthy be educated? How else will we know if they deserve it?" In fact, I find it quite incredible that so many babblers seem to think that this gutsy young entrepreneur AC Grayling is just trying to make it in this hard knock world. I used to think that public education for all was a prerequisite for democracy, but apparently the lack of purchase that idea has on babble speaks to the divide between the student movement and the rest of progresive politics (and hand wringers sit around and wonder why young people don't vote). Happily, the labour, environment and other progressive movements in the UK are standing in solidarity with the students as they see the kind of attacks on education to be part and parcel of the neoliberal project threatening them all.
Good point. Why don't we have a government-run food store? Food security is a big issue; such an agency could ensure availability and quality of decent food for everyone..
Would this be a monopoly food store (sort of like the LCBO is in Ontario for spirits and most wines), or would it be alongside existing grocery stores? The second seems less problematic to me.
Ding! Sorry, Sven, that's not where this conversation is going.
Are you saying that the state should not have a monopoly over education?
Good point. Why don't we have a government-run food store? Food security is a big issue; such an agency could ensure availability and quality of decent food for everyone..
Would this be a monopoly food store (sort of like the LCBO is in Ontario for spirits and most wines), or would it be alongside existing grocery stores? The second seems less problematic to me.
While the latter may be less problematic, it would be a waste of resources (government-run entities are inherently inefficient and, thus, wasteful). And, would government-run grocery stores need to be supplied by government-run distribution systems, which would be supplied by government-run farms, the inputs to which would come from government-run farm suppliers?
If we want to make sure that the poor have adequate access to food, give them vouchers.
I'm saying that the frame of your debate, and its vocabulary (i.e. "monopoly") are fundamentally flawed and distracts from the progressive conversation about public education. Have your debate somewhere else.
I'm saying that the frame of your debate, and its vocabulary (i.e. "monopoly") are fundamentally flawed and distracts from the progressive conversation about public education. Have your debate somewhere else.
So, you'd just use different words to describe the same substantive result: Education should only be provided the government?
If so, why don't you just say that?
No, Sven. No. I realize that "public" is synonymous in your mind with "government monopoly," and "public education" with "education provided only by the government," but students of politics and language understand this move to be reductive, simplistic and regressive. At any rate, rather than distract from this particular issue, if you want to open yet another thread on whether public education is a social good or a mug's game for rubes, fill your boots. You might save us the time and effort and read up on one of the older threads, however. Or, hey, even this one.
From my perspective, I would make the following arguments in favor of having public and private education co-existing:
1. The professors should be free to do with their labor what they will.
2. No one is forcing anyone to pay £18,000 per year for a humanities degree (or for any other degree, for that matter).
3. A private decision of people to interact between themselves (willing profs and willing students) is not a matter of anyone else's business (just like it's no one else's business what happens between consenting adults in the bedroom). If someone wants to shell out $40,000 per year (all in) to go to, say, the University of Notre Dame rather than spend $15,000 to $20,000 to go to, say, the University of Minnesota (a land-grant university that I attended), why should you or I care? I may think it's idiotic but that's no reason to impose my views on someone else.
4. The existence of private education will not destroy public education. Public and private universities and colleges thrive in the United States.
5. Monopolies (and, yes, let's use the term that actually describes the condition) are inherently inefficient and do not foster innovation. There's no reason to believe a government monopoly in education would be exempt from those tendencies.
Now, other than some nebulous assertions about "social justice" (assertions that lack any detailed argument for why "social justice" can only be served through government-run education), no one here has really articulated why, in light of the above, it is imperative for the government to be the sole player in education.
No, Sven. No. I realize that "public" is synonymous in your mind with "government monopoly," and "public education" with "education provided only by the government," but students of politics and language understand this move to be reductive, simplistic and regressive. At any rate, rather than distract from this particular issue, if you want to open yet another thread on whether public education is a social good or a mug's game for rubes, fill your boots. You might save us the time and effort and read up on one of the older threads, however. Or, hey, even this one.
Okay. Then, why is it imperative that there only be "public education"?
...government-run entities are inherently inefficient and, thus, wasteful...
Why don't you also say the Sun circles the Earth? Your dogmatic, "gubbmint bad," reduction of any question is about on the same level of argument.
...government-run entities are inherently inefficient and, thus, wasteful...
Why don't you also say the Sun circles the Earth? Your dogmatic, "gubbmint bad," reduction of any question is about on the same level of argument.
If we're talking about being dogmatic, I think you may be the dogmatic one (only public education should exist).
I, on the other hand, while skeptical about many government-run operations, am not so dogmatic as to claim that the only solution is privately-run schools. Why not let government and private institutions co-exist?
Everything you right in #63 is true under capitalism, Sven.
I guess some of us believe education is a right. In my ideal worls all educational opportunities would be funded exclusively through the public purse and tuition fees would be abolished.
I guess some of us believe education is a right. In my ideal worls all educational opportunities would be funded exclusively through the public purse and tuition fees would be abolished.
I understand that. But, no one has attempted to really articulate why public education is the only way a right to an education can exist. Instead, it's simply declared to be so.
If the elite are able to cough up five digit attendance fees to newly established private schools and call whatever comes out of the process a degree, while public funding for education is in a state of crisis, it speaks to a range of issues which include progressive taxation levels and public funding priorities.
Let's look at housing and stipulate that everyone has a right to housing.
Does that right no longer exist (or is it somehow diluted) if some people live in private housing while others live publicly-provided housing? Of course not.
Well, it would explain the homeless.
See, Sven, the reason why babble exists is so that people who have already figured out the pitfalls of private education can discuss how best to shore up the rights we have earned, to fight those who seek to erode those rights, and to work toward improving access, quality and diversity of education. We don't have to explain it to you--well, again.
I understand that. But, no one has attempted to really articulate why public education is the only way a right to an education can exist. Instead, it's simply declared to be so.
Because it is not a fundamental right if some are denied it because of cost.
See, Sven, the reason why babble exists is so that people who have already figured out the pitfalls of private education can discuss how best to shore up the rights we have earned, to fight those who seek to erode those rights, and to work toward improving access, quality and diversity of education. We don't have to explain it to you--well, again.
That's a cop out.
I suspect that most of the advocates for public-only education cannot even "explain" it to themselves because they have never really answered (again, for themselves) why, specifically, co-existing private and public educations instutitions would destroy the right to education. It appears that no one here is capable of articulating the answer to that very basic question.
How does the existence of Carlton College (a private liberal arts college here in Minnesota) deny anyone a right to get an education at the University of Minnesota, for example? It doesn't!
I understand that. But, no one has attempted to really articulate why public education is the only way a right to an education can exist. Instead, it's simply declared to be so.
Because it is not a fundamental right if some are denied it because of cost.
How was I, for example, "denied an education" because I went to a public university (the University of Minnesota) while someone else when to the University of Notre Dame (and paid three times the amount of money for the pleasure of doing so)?
The answer? I wasn't.
Sven, you are suffering under the delusion that I am required to explain anything to you. Why would I engage in such a fruitless enterprise? For the last time: please end the thread drift, and get back to the topic. Open a new thread if you like.
Sven, you are suffering under the delusion that I am required to explain anything to you. Why would I engage in such a fruitless enterprise? For the last time: please end the thread drift, and get back to the topic. Open a new thread if you like.
Well, of course you don't have to explain anything to anyone.
As to "thread drift," the issue of public-versus-private is the very essence of your criticism of this newly-proposed private university in the UK.
See, Sven, the reason why babble exists is so that people who have already figured out the pitfalls of private education can discuss how best to shore up the rights we have earned, to fight those who seek to erode those rights, and to work toward improving access, quality and diversity of education. We don't have to explain it to you--well, again.
For those of us who don't already know why a mixed system (as we currently have now) is untenable, could you please explain?
Several tiers of education, continued government cutbacks of the public system makes the cost of education prohibitive.
The premise of capitalism is that everything has a price.
Several tiers of education, continued government cutbacks of the public system makes the cost of education prohibitive.
The premise of capitalism is that everything has a price.
Do you view government monopoly provision of education, or more specifically somehow preventing AC Grayling from starting a private college, as solving either of those problems?
Several tiers of education, continued government cutbacks of the public system makes the cost of education prohibitive.
The premise of capitalism is that everything has a price.
Do you view government monopoly provision of education, or more specifically somehow preventing AC Grayling from starting a private college, as solving either of those problems?
I think the line of thinking would go something like this: Only the rich could possibly afford a private education (which no one else can get). Therefore, the rich have too much money. Because they have too much money, they should be taxed so that all of their "excess" wealth is confiscated and redistributed to things like public education. In other words, the very existence of private education is evidence that some people have "too much" money.
This is true even if someone like me can receive a perfectly good education at a public university. But, that is not what is relevant. What is relevant is that there are people with "too much" money.
You forgot to add that we want everyone to wear this suit:
You take that "envy will make you unhappy" jazz to heart, don't you?
I'm not against private schools or colleges, though it's hard, sometimes, to see them as something other than a money-making opportunity for someone, or an opportunity to control knowledge somehow. A public university can at least plausibly claim some altruism, or common good, to their approach.
So I wouldn't say that Grayling "cannot" or even "should not" start a school. But to what end? Because he wants to contribute to the common good?
Another fair question, I think: why the huge price tag? Is what's being offered BETTER than what can be offered at a publicly funded university? Or is it some kind of Veblen Good?
You take that "envy will make you unhappy" jazz to heart, don't you?
I do. Some of the unhappiest people I know are people mired in envy - but they often dress up their envious feelings in the clothes of "social justice" in order to make their envy a positively admirable quality.
For example, taking action to help the more than two billion people of the world who live (and die) on less than $2 per day in absolutely grinding poverty is a clear social justice issue. Fretting about your neighbor's kid going to the University of Notre Dame when you're kid is "only" going to the University of Minnesota is not. Sorry, it's just not.
Another fair question, I think: why the huge price tag? Is what's being offered BETTER than what can be offered at a publicly funded university? Or is it some kind of Veblen Good?
Often, the high price tag at private schools is only paid by those from families with enough coin to pay "list price" for the school and a large portoin of that funding is used to offer scholarships for those who cannot afford the full price of the tuition. One of my nieces fits in the latter category. She's going to a private college and the scholarship money she receives makes the total cost roughly equivalent to going to the University of Minnesota, which was one of our choices (she just didn't want to be on a campus with 40,000 students and opted for the more personal environment of the private school).
You take that "envy will make you unhappy" jazz to heart, don't you?
Bertrand Russell (1930):
"Of all the characteristics of ordinary human nature, envy is the most unfortunate; not only does the envious person wish to inflict misfortune and to do so wherever he can with impunity, but he is also himself rendered unhappy by envy. Instead of deriving pleasure from what he has, he derives pain from what others have. If he can, he deprives others of their advantages, which to him is as desirable as it would be to secure the same advantages himself." (my emphasis)
Well, now that the stench has dissipated from Sven's disgusting, entitled treatise on envy:
Why we Birkbeck academics oppose Grayling's New College
Second, and more seriously, the NCH is at the vanguard of the coalition's assault on public education. The forthcoming higher education white paper will likely further seek to marketise the sector, launching a race to the bottom with private outfits first leeching off then asset-stripping our publicly funded universities to offer knockdown education at a profit. Going down that road will deliver a handful of prestigious research universities, which may choose eventually to become private institutions, and a host of cut-price private providers who care little about educational standards. Far from serving to improve quality or defend the humanities, this opportunistic venture will hasten the decline of the reputation for excellence that British universities, as public institutions, have fought so hard to establish. Together with other colleagues and students, we will be campaigning for the University of London and its constituent colleges to review how private tutorial colleges use university facilities, in order to ensure that our collective resources are not raided by these emerging privateers of education.
I do. Some of the unhappiest people I know are people mired in envy - but they often dress up their envious feelings in the clothes of "social justice" in order to make their envy a positively admirable quality.
Of course that's obviously what all this is about. I've been pretty consistent in thes thread in warning about the potential dangers of privatising education, which you interpret as "You're jealous of Ivy Leagers."
Talk about one's dogma/ideology skewing one's perception.
"You're jealous of Ivy Leagers."
Actually, the correct word would be "envious," not "jealous". One is "jealous" of protecting something one already has. One is "envious" of something someone else has but which one does not have.
But, why quibble over mere words?
First, the NCH is essentially a for-profit tutorial college. For all the hype surrounding the academic "superstars" involved, precisely how much teaching they will do remains an open question. The argument about smaller class sizes is a compelling one, but academics are angry with the implication that intensive teaching of this sort is a substitute for a vibrant intellectual community in which research informs teaching and vice versa. This spirit of community is thriving at Birkbeck and other public universities, making Grayling's loss of faith disappointing and misplaced.
Colás is essentially saying: The traditional teaching environment is the very best (à la Pangloss) and how dare Graying assert that "intensive teaching of this sort is a substitute for a vibrant intellectual community in which research informs teaching and vice versa". The audacity!
If Colás was so confident of the superiority of the traditional approach to education, then he should have no fear of the traditional approach being successfully challenged by a patently inferior methodology.
Second, and more seriously...
I certainly hope so...
...the NCH is at the vanguard of the coalition's assault on public education.
The mere co-existence of private alternatives and choices represents an "assault on public education".
Mind you, Grayling isn't seeking to end public education. But, Colás seems to fear a "Domino Theory of Education": If one single educational entity is private, then eventually all will fall into private hands.
And, why is this the case? Let Colás explain:
The forthcoming higher education white paper will likely further seek to marketise the sector, launching a race to the bottom with private outfits first leeching off then asset-stripping our publicly funded universities to offer knockdown education at a profit.
In other words, the money that people will spend at NCH (their own money, by the way) will "leech off" money that really is the money that belongs to publicly-funded universities. "How dare people use their own money in a way that differs from what we omniscient professors know is best for everyone?!?"
Going down that road will deliver a handful of prestigious research universities, which may choose eventually to become private institutions, and a host of cut-price private providers who care little about educational standards.
Yes, more of the "Domino Theory of Education"...
Far from serving to improve quality or defend the humanities, this opportunistic venture will hasten the decline of the reputation for excellence that British universities, as public institutions, have fought so hard to establish.
Again, if the public model is so vastly - and so obviously - superior to the alternative that Grayling is proposing, then the public institutions have nothing to worry about. People will shun Graying and the NCH and the NCH will soon wither and die.
Together with other colleagues and students, we will be campaigning for the University of London and its constituent colleges to review how private tutorial colleges use university facilities, in order to ensure that our collective resources are not raided by these emerging privateers of education.
Once again, "That money is our money!!"
"You're jealous of Ivy Leagers."
Actually, the correct word would be "envious," not "jealous". One is "jealous" of protecting something one already has. One is "envious" of something someone else has but which one does not have.
But, why quibble over mere words?
So you agree with the substance of what I wrote.
That's a decent quibble, though: "jealous," according to Oxford, is "feeling resentment or envy (of person, his advantages, etc.) on account of known or suspected rivalry"
So you agree with the substance of what I wrote.
Actually, I don't think envy plays a role in the criticisms by academics of Grayling's plans. Oh, there might be some envy in the context of, "Gee, why should my neighbor's kid get to go to Notre Dame and my kid only gets to go to the University of Minnesota?" But, that's not the concern of the academic critics.
Sven, I admire your fortitude. But your perfectly reasonable questions have been met with anything but straight answers. No-one has yet justified why AC Grayling should not be allowed to teach students that want to be taught (although some rhetoric has been flung in that direction), or answered your question of why education should be a public monopoly. I wish you luck.
Sven, I admire your fortitude. But your perfectly reasonable questions have been met with anything but straight answers. No-one has yet justified why AC Grayling should not be allowed to teach students that want to be taught (although some rhetoric has been flung in that direction), or answered your question of why education should be a public monopoly.
You must have missed this earlier comment:
Sven, you are suffering under the delusion that I am required to explain anything to you.
Why should I respond to diversionary, right-wing dystopic fantasies of government monopolies? Is the Thames Valley School Board a government monopoly? Is it even government? What about SSHRC, NSERC or other arms-length funding bodies?only in minds sculpted by Ayn Rand does public education wear he grey worker's uniform al'Q posted upthread. Besides, answers to why education should resist private incursion have been posted extensively elsewhere on babble and even in this very thread. Babble is not a place where old arguments are to be rehashed and repeated, but rather to work towards common goals and developments. I'm actually a bit depressed by the response the student and activist academic movement against this private college has received here. If we have to fight these battles here on babble, what hope do we have in the streets and in the halls of power?
from Catchfire's quote above:
The siphoning off in the UK of students and academics for profit hit the UK's publically funded system already crippled by drastic cuts in social spending (while military spending continues to rise).
The centre of any publically funded university is its library, electronic databases and other resources. These are all paid for by taxes and student tuition, grants and donations for public education. The cost of the development, housing and maintenance of these services is huge.
It's unlikely that Grayling's college will have a much of a library or expensive database subscription service and may very well make parasitic use of those of public universities paid for by others. These costly public resources should not subsidize private enterprises.
If private Unis opt out the public system, it should be a total optout.
Too often those who advocate the "free market" in education are oblivious to the degree that public money supports them.
The end point are enterprises such as the huge, stock-market-listed University of Phoenix chain, adept at marketing and helping the targeted poor get government student loans to pay tuition fees (which students often are never able to pay back).
The massive effect of education money transfer from public to private coffers is comparable to the housing bubble.
Watch this Frontline documentary, College Inc. online. It is a must see for anyone interested in this subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/
Actually, Grayling's college will pay London University for the use of its library and other facilities, if you read and listen to the links. He was quite clear about that.
As far as I can find out each student of the proposed 1000 students will pay 20 pounds a year for a total of 20,000 pounds a year for a library whose mere operating budget is likely in the millions. http://www.london.ac.uk/libraries.html
That translates to a massive subsidy to a for-profit University.
Should Grayling's college foot the full bill for its own substantial Library on a true "free enterprise" model, it would never happen.
Plagerizing syllabi,
Principal speaks out about the New College for the Humanities
PaulLayzell
In a letter published in The Times (8/6/11), our Principal, Professor Paul Layzell wrote:
....
The New College of the Humanities website gives detailed descriptions of the courses that Royal Holloway has produced for the University of London’s international programmes, without crediting us as the author. Our intention in producing these courses was to make our programmes more widely accessible, at affordable prices, to anyone around the world who, for whatever reason, cannot come to our Egham campus. These courses are written by us, and they are even marked by us.
Although there is nothing in the terms of our agreement with the University of London’s International Programmes to prevent it, morally I and my academic colleagues find it completely wrong that our material should be taken and sold at such a high price to individuals privileged by their wealth, rather than just their intellect. Potential students should look very carefully at New College’s claims of a superior teaching style, and assess for themselves whether that is worth such an enormous uplift in price.
http://www.rhul.ac.uk/aboutus/newsandevents/news/newsarticles/principals...
On the one hand, the good professor claims to be concerned about the vulnerable and trusting, almost child-like, potential students:
Potential students should look very carefully at New College’s claims of a superior teaching style, and assess for themselves whether that is worth such an enormous uplift in price.
While at the same time giving them a figurative smash in the face:
The potential students are "individuals privileged by their wealth".
One would think that the good professor would love to see those greedly, privileged students fleeced for every dollar (or pound) that can be extracted from them.
It strikes me that his putative concern for their well-being may be more than a bit disingenuous...
Is it really, Sven? Or are you just reading a bizarre ideological tilt your interpretation of the left?
Would it be wrong for me to say that any concerns you may express for the poor are two-faced expressions wherein you'd rather have 'those people' rounded up and kept off our beautiful streets?
Closed for length.