3 ms·

So then universities have to completely rely on money from the private sector? Don't you think that would lead to an environment where the sponsors tell what to

So then universities have to completely rely on money from the private sector? Don't you think that would lead to an environment where the sponsors tell what to teach? Don't you think that could be problematic? Not to mention what your solution would mean for young people with less money or professions in the humanities. You think studying history is not important? University is not only there to teach you knowledge but more importantly critical thinking and scientific best practices (like checking your sources). If anyone has problems with critical questions about their reasoning or their sources, that not the problem of the one who asked. If anyone think questions show lack of respect, maybe they should first think why anyone should respect them. I'm pretty sure there is a certain culture of feeling superior if one has a degree from a university, but this is definitely not fixed by frowning upon higher education. Actually it makes everything worse.

repolfx 8y ago
Yes to all the questions in your first paragraph bar one. Completely rely on the private sector, check. Sponsors tell what to teach, check - that in fact is the entire point! The closed-loop unaccountable nature of current teaching is hugely wasteful and damaging to young people who frequently graduate in huge debt and essentially unskilled. Don't I think that could be problematic, no, otherwise I wouldn't propose it. I think asking whether studying history is important is a low-value question to ask: anyone can argue any field of human endeavour is "important". It's better to ask, important relative to what else? People can easily study history outside the context of subsidised academia, and the opportunity cost of subsiding huge numbers of people who (a) don't care about history and (b) won't use anything they learned post-graduation is enormous. University is not only there to teach you knowledge but more importantly critical thinking and scientific best practices Universities like to claim this. I do not believe them. I think this angle is pure marketing spin that can't be substantiated and covers up the truth - universities make people worse at critical thinking, whilst giving them an undeserved sense of superiority and entitlement. After all, if they were so devoted to critical thinking on campus, trigger warnings and safe spaces wouldn't exist. But even putting those aside, which parts of university courses are supposedly teaching these skills? I've studied computer science, history and archaeology at university and at no point was any attempt made to teach even the basics, like what the different logical fallacies are and how to spot them. Actually it makes everything worse. Why would it? Removing the notion of academic superiority from public life would re-orient social status towards practical experience and away from the ivory tower. That doesn't seem likely to make things worse.

repolfx 8y ago

Yes to all the questions in your first paragraph bar one. Completely rely on the private sector, check. Sponsors tell what to teach, check - that in fact is the entire point! The closed-loop unaccountable nature of current teaching is hugely wasteful and damaging to young people who frequently graduate in huge debt and essentially unskilled. Don't I think that could be problematic, no, otherwise I wouldn't propose it. I think asking whether studying history is important is a low-value question to ask: anyone can argue any field of human endeavour is "important". It's better to ask, important relative to what else? People can easily study history outside the context of subsidised academia, and the opportunity cost of subsiding huge numbers of people who (a) don't care about history and (b) won't use anything they learned post-graduation is enormous. University is not only there to teach you knowledge but more importantly critical thinking and scientific best practices Universities like to claim this. I do not believe them. I think this angle is pure marketing spin that can't be substantiated and covers up the truth - universities make people worse at critical thinking, whilst giving them an undeserved sense of superiority and entitlement. After all, if they were so devoted to critical thinking on campus, trigger warnings and safe spaces wouldn't exist. But even putting those aside, which parts of university courses are supposedly teaching these skills? I've studied computer science, history and archaeology at university and at no point was any attempt made to teach even the basics, like what the different logical fallacies are and how to spot them. Actually it makes everything worse. Why would it? Removing the notion of academic superiority from public life would re-orient social status towards practical experience and away from the ivory tower. That doesn't seem likely to make things worse.