A.C. Grayling to establish private humanities university

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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?

Slumberjack

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.

al-Qa'bong

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..

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

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.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

ygtbk

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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.

Are you saying that the state should not have a monopoly over education?

Sven Sven's picture

ygtbk wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

Sven Sven's picture

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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"?

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

...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.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

...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? 

Caissa

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Caissa wrote:

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.

Slumberjack

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.

Sven Sven's picture

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.

al-Qa'bong

Well, it would explain the homeless.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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.

Caissa

Sven wrote:

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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!

Sven Sven's picture

Caissa wrote:

Sven wrote:

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.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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 Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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.

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

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?

Caissa

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.

 

ygtbk

Caissa wrote:

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?

Sven Sven's picture

ygtbk wrote:

Caissa wrote:

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.

Snert Snert's picture

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?

al-Qa'bong

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?

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Sven Sven's picture

Snert wrote:

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).

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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)

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Well, now that the stench has dissipated from Sven's disgusting, entitled treatise on envy:

[URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/14/birkbeck-academics-oppos... we Birkbeck academics oppose Grayling's New College[/URL]

Quote:
Anthony Grayling complains at the anger being directed at him for his plans for the New College of the Humanities (Report, 10 June). Here are a couple of reasons why some of his former colleagues at Birkbeck oppose his proposals. 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.

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.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

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.

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

"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?

Sven Sven's picture

Colás wrote:

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.

Colás wrote:

Second, and more seriously...

I certainly hope so...

Colás wrote:

...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:

Colás wrote:

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?!?"

Colás wrote:

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"...

Colás wrote:

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.

Colás wrote:

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!!"

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

"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"

Sven Sven's picture

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

ygtbk

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 Sven's picture

ygtbk wrote:

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:

Catchfire wrote:

Sven, you are suffering under the delusion that I am required to explain anything to you.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

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?

contrarianna

from Catchfire's quote above:

Quote:
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.

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/

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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.

contrarianna

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.

contrarianna

Plagerizing syllabi,

Quote:

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...

Sven Sven's picture

On the one hand, the good professor claims to be concerned about the vulnerable and trusting, almost child-like, potential students:

contrarianna wrote:

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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...

Pages

Topic locked