4 ms·
If an intellectual thinks in a forest, did he really think? A core part of intellectual work [1] is that it must be disseminated to other people. University do
by abdullahkhalids 4y ago
If an intellectual thinks in a forest, did he really think? A core part of intellectual work [1] is that it must be disseminated to other people.
University do disseminate academics to students, but students often pay for that privilege. Allowing the public free access to the library, to seminars and other intellectual events on campus is a different way of spreading knowledge and learning [2]. More importantly, by allowing public the university reminds itself that it is not just a commercial institute that produces a product, a mindset very common in universities now.
There are other ways that universities can resist being commercialized, but public access is a visible canary, which once it dies signals the end.
[1] especially work funded partly by tax payer dollars
[2] Public outreach should be a core goal of any university. See [1]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- skybrian 4y agoI agree that sharing what you know is important, but a lot of it can be done online. If you want to see a lecture, watching a video is probably a better way to do it, and it can reach a lot more people. Access to academic papers is better done online. If you read the MIT library access policy for visitors [1], it's pretty restrictive anyway. University libraries mostly aren't public libraries. So it seems like the question isn't whether a university provide benefits to the public, but rather, what does the public actually gain from physical access? Are physical visits important for practical reasons, or are they primarily symbolic? [1] https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=176243&p=1160451 https://libguides.mit.edu/c.php?g=176243&p=1160451
- the_only_law 4y agoWould much rather seen a lecture in person than have to listen to it in a shitty mid-2000s recording (which seems to be the case for a lot of MIT online videos, especially non-CS ones)