A.C. Grayling to establish private humanities university

103 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Thu, 2011-06-09 13:49

Catchfire

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

Quote:
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. There will, as usual, be scholarships for the deserving poor. As a kind of Oxbridge by the Thames, the New College of the Humanities will offer students weekly one-on-one tutorials. For that kind of money, I would demand a team of live-in, round-the-clock tutors, ready to fill me in about Renaissance art or logical positivism at the snap of a finger. I would also expect them to iron my socks and polish my boots.

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

Quote:
While no one should be surprised at the announcement that there is to be such a thing as theNew College of the Humanities, which will offer degrees in Philosophy, Literature, Economics, History and Law, taught in an Oxbridge style at a cost of £18,000 a year, it is imperative that we recognise what this College represents, and what it tells us about the direction that HE is heading in.

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?

Thu, 2011-06-09 13:55

Catchfire

Grayling uni faces flood of fake applications

Quote:
In a protest against Professor AC Grayling's controversial 'private university', hundreds of students have pledged to deluge the staff with bogus online submissions.

The 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."

Fri, 2011-06-10 10:48

Catchfire

'I would like to be given a little bit of credit for trying to do it sincerely'

Fri, 2011-06-10 14:41

ygtbk

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10583/

Quote:

That they see this embryonic small college founded by 14 professors as such a profound threat really reveals their own weaknesses. A more confident system of public higher education - confident of its cause and its content and its mission - would barely notice that a small private college was due to open in London, far less attack it as odious and disgusting and ripe for being shut down.

Also, who is Nicki Kindersley, what's she pursuing a PhD in, and why is the best use of her time trying to sabotage people who want to get an education?

Fri, 2011-06-10 14:55

Catchfire

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:03

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

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?

Fri, 2011-06-10 15:34

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:41

Catchfire

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.

ygtbk wrote:
If A and B have agreed that A is going to teach B humanities, what business is it of C?

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?

Fri, 2011-06-10 16:55

Catchfire

If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re trying to sell an undergraduate arts degree that costs more than an MBA?

Quote:
… is a question that might be asked of Professor AC Grayling, the media don and pundit who has launched the “New College Of The Humanities, and who is proposing to charge undergraduates £18,000 per year for three years (by way of comparison, an MBA from the London Business School will set you back £49,900 for the full two year course)....

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:02

#10

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

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.

ygtbk wrote:
If A and B have agreed that A is going to teach B humanities, what business is it of C?

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:19

#11

al-Qa'bong

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 17:46

#12

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Catchfire wrote:

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 18:24

#13

Catchfire

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 18:44

#14

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 18:57

#15

Catchfire

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:

Quote:
These are not private, independent actions, but have a direct impact on the way education is understood and disseminated. Jenkins is either incredibly naive or disingenuous to pretend that the setting up of an expensive private university at a time when public spending on higher education is being hugely curtailed has no wider ramifications on higher education. Grayling's attempt to make money out of the current neoliberal tide against public funding is a profound danger to education as a public good.

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 20:40

#16

WilderMore

Catchfire wrote:

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.

ygtbk wrote:
If A and B have agreed that A is going to teach B humanities, what business is it of C?

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 21:04

#17

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 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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 21:55

#18

Sven

Catchfire wrote:

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".

Fri, 2011-06-10 22:00

#19

Sven

Catchfire wrote:

Call me a dreamer.

Okay.

You're a dreamer, Catchfire!

Fri, 2011-06-10 23:42

#20

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

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.

Fri, 2011-06-10 23:44

#21

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

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?

Sat, 2011-06-11 00:08

#22

al-Qa'bong

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?

Sat, 2011-06-11 11:11

#23

ygtbk

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.

Sat, 2011-06-11 15:03

#24

Catchfire

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.

Sat, 2011-06-11 15:31

#25

Catchfire

A.C. Grayling's proposals for private college to rival Oxbridge leads to smoke bomb protest at Foyle's bookshop

Quote:
Professor AC Grayling, one of the academic figures behind the New College of the Humanities planned for Bloomsbury Square, was targeted by critics during an unrelated talk on arts funding at Foyle’s bookshop in Charing Cross Road on Tuesday night. He will be the first “master” of the new university and has spent the week in newspaper and television interviews defending the project....

During 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.”

Quote:
In one of the most vehement [objection letters], a group of academics including Professor Catherine Hall from UCL and Professor John Hutnyk from Goldsmiths, argued the project would change the course of higher education.

“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:

Quote:
London Mayor Boris Johnson welcomes the idea and, speaking on Monday, said he would support the creation of more private universities in the future.

Sat, 2011-06-11 15:45

#26

Catchfire

The New College is a business designed to profit from fear

Quote:
The press coverage of the launch of the New College of the Humanities is symptomatic of the decline of our civilisation that its founders are seeking to exploit. The college was repeatedly described as a "university", though it will not have the power to confer degrees. It has been said that the line-up of star professors will teach, when in fact they will collectively give 110 lectures a year, which makes for about seven or eight hours of teaching each, since there is no suggestion that they will mark essays, examinations or deal directly with students.

Indeed, 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.

Sat, 2011-06-11 16:18

#27

Sven

Is the labor of the professors owned by the state or not?

Sat, 2011-06-11 16:34

#28

al-Qa'bong

Your question is a smokescreen, and isn't the isssue.

Sun, 2011-06-12 01:22

#29

Sven

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 08:13

#30

ygtbk

Sven wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 09:48

#31

Sven

ygtbk wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 10:08

#32

Unionist

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:

Unionist wrote:
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.

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 11:58

#33

al-Qa'bong

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 12:12

#34

Catchfire

Unionist wrote:
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....[M]y 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.

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.

Sven wrote:
They have the right to sell their labor any damned way they want.

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?

Sun, 2011-06-12 12:27

#35

Jacob Richter

Sven wrote:
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.

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:

Sun, 2011-06-12 15:02

#36

Sven

Jacob Richter wrote:

Sven wrote:
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.

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 15:08

#37

Sven

Catchfire wrote:

Sven wrote:
They have the right to sell their labor any damned way they want.

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 15:45

#38

Catchfire

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 15:59

#39

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
But, in many of those cases, the jobs performed can be (and are) performed by private sector analogues.

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:19

#40

Sven

Catchfire wrote:

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?

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:24

#41

Sven

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:30

#42

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 17:58

#43

Catchfire

Sven wrote:
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?

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.

ygbtk wrote:
University education is always an economic transaction (although we can always hope that it's something more than merely that).

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."

Sun, 2011-06-12 18:12

#44

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

ygbtk wrote:
University education is always an economic transaction (although we can always hope that it's something more than merely that).

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 18:23

#45

torontoprofessor

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 21:36

#46

Catchfire

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 22:10

#47

Sven

torontoprofessor wrote:

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.

Sun, 2011-06-12 22:55

#48

al-Qa'bong

Sven wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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?

Quote:
There are private police, security, etc. jobs that a person can do rather than only having the option of working for the state.

"Private contractors" was the euphemism that the forces of freedom called their mercenaries when they liberated Iraq.

Mon, 2011-06-13 01:01

#49

Sven

So, al-Q, why is it imperative that a state have a monopoly over education?

Mon, 2011-06-13 02:59

#50

al-Qa'bong

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?

Mon, 2011-06-13 08:59

#51

ygtbk

al-Qa'bong wrote:

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.

Pages

Topic locked