Communicator (communicator) wrote,

Bonfire of the Humanities

I was saying before that I think basing access to education on parental income rather than intellectual ability and achievement demeans education itself. I think it demeans it in two ways. It is bad that the highest awards are not given to the most competent students, of course, but more damagingly, this lowers the status of competence itself. If student ability is not the deciding factor in determining progress, then competence becomes something of secondary consideration (almost by definition).

I think that the establishment of private universities such as AC Grayling's New College for the Humanities is a symptom of a degradation of the idea of education.

Here is Terry Eagleton in the Guardian:
British universities, plundered of resources by the bankers and financiers they educated, are not best served by a bunch of prima donnas jumping ship and creaming off the bright and loaded. It is as though a group of medics in a hard-pressed public hospital were to down scalpels and slink off to start a lucrative private clinic. Grayling and his friends are taking advantage of a crumbling university system to rake off money from the rich. As such, they are betraying all those academics who have been fighting the cuts for the sake of their students.

Plus why is Stephen Pinker the Philosophy tutor? He doesn't even have a degree in Philosophy. It just makes me think they are picking 'famous people' to attract money. Like paying to go to a dinner with celebrity speakers.

I also have a prediction which is that Pinker, Dawkins, Grayling and Peter Singer will spend 0.01% of their time teaching at this place, while creaming in the ££££s off the poor saps who have paid to rub shoulders with them.

Imagine me going 'ha ha' in an annoying voice.
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic