Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Universities: Renaissance or Decay?
Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former
European Commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a
former Rector of the London School of Economics, and a former Warden of
St. Antony's College, Oxford.
by Ralf Dahrendorf
“Europe’s universities, taken as a group, are failing to provide the intellectual and creative energy that is required to improve the continent’s poor economic performance.” This dramatic statement introduces a new pamphlet whose subtitle, “Renaissance or Decay,” I have borrowed for this reflection.
The pamphlet’s two authors, Richard Lambert, a former editor of the Financial Times and future Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, and Nick Butler, the Group Vice President for Strategy and Policy Development at British Petroleum do not represent vested academic interests. What they say about Europe probably applies to most other parts of the world as well, though not to the United States.
Lambert and Butler identify four main weaknesses of European universities that must be addressed. They call for:
- greater diversity in place of today’s conformity;
- incentives for universities to succeed, which implies the need to set their ambitions higher;
- less bureaucracy and more freedom and accountability;
- above all, more adequate funding to bring European universities close to the US level of 2.6% of GDP, from less than half on average.
Not everyone will consider the underlying assumption of this analysis compelling. Why is this attention to universities necessary? Because, it is said, we now live in a “knowledge society.” Perhaps. It is also a fact that a university education is the best guarantee for young people to find jobs in a globalized environment in which information is a key to success.
Yet it is by no means certain that education systems in which 50% or more of each generation strive to attain a university degree are best suited to cope with the exigencies of the twenty-first century. Many jobs are, in fact, not “high tech,” but, in the words of Britain’s Adair Turner, “high touch” – service-sector jobs that do not require a university education. Even more jobs are somewhere between the two. Thus, a flexible system of varied educational institutions may be preferable to a system that leads one out of two students to an academic degree.
Were we to settle for, say, 25% of each generation on the academic track, universities in Europe, and indeed in many other parts of the world, would still have to overcome their unfortunate tendency to define their purposes against the business world. This tendency has been detrimental both for the business world, which is deprived of the cultural wealth provided by higher education, and for universities, because it removes them from their proper setting in the real world.
There is a strong case for more adequate funding of higher education, including student fees, which are still unpopular in many countries outside the US. But money is not all that is needed. One of the greatest comparative strengths of American universities lies in the nature of human relations. Teachers take their job seriously. They engage with students rather than eagerly awaiting breaks and holidays to pursue their own projects. They are true university teachers rather than people who invoke the “unity of teaching and research” in order to concentrate on research subjects and hope that teaching will take care of itself.
Moreover, the research atmosphere of American universities is characterized by a great deal of informal cooperation. People meet in laboratories and seminars, but also in common rooms and cafeterias. They are not obsessed with hierarchical status or surrounded by assistants.
Nor are they tied to narrow projects and the project groups formed around them. Despite fierce competition for academic tenure, for space in journals and in other media, and for advancement in general, people talk to each other as colleagues. This is what doctoral and postdoctoral students like when they go to American – and, to a lesser extent, British – universities. This is also what they miss even as they relapse into the bad old habits at home. As in so many other respects, universities not only in Europe, but also in Japan, South Korea, and developing parts of the world, including China and India, need to loosen rigid structures and habits to avoid decay and nurture a renaissance.
www.project-syndicate.org
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Malcolm B are you sure
Though it has to be said, that after giving her a Notebook to facilitate her working in quiet zones away from me, I was also awarded the next room to enable contemplation of the issues faced by over 50's in terms of their take up of IT systems. But I can hear her snoring right this minute.
I am going to approach her for more details of where that came from re the non-original work. Will update when I have it.
Overall I guess the greatest concern I have is that we as a Nation are being quite deliberately "dumbed down" by the simple expedient of pricing our kids out of Higher Education. We spend years teaching self-sufficiency, then take away the wherewithal to not only develop that skill but to enjoy the fruits of it's ownership. I think about my car, stopping by the road, adn knowing enmough to get out and seek a reason for there being no ignition, and finding the coil had a short on the lead. Without a basic grounding in both common sense and logic, kids today are left without the skill set that enables one to look at a situation and draw a conclusion based on the evidence gathered just by looking.
No TAFE trades development, or at least massively less than there was in the 70's and 80's. $100,000 degrees? Importing of Chinese welders? And still the electorate can't see the problem.
When we talk about education, I think we need to contemplate, as Katherine suggested some time back, that kids learn to play chess in school.
It really is quite sad.
Universities and economics
I thought I'd disagree with this article, but having read it I more or less agree with its main points.
One point I would mention is that most people with degrees only attend 1 university or at least universities in one country. I have attended or worked at 3, all in Oz and I left the sector in 2000. By then Howard's plan to force universities in Australia to the wall, or become commerce degree factories, was pretty much assured.
Clearly the good US uni's have the benefit of huge private and benefactor support. I'm not so sure about the mid range ones. European uni's, I can only say a bit about French ones, do seem to reflect the heirarchical society they serve. I still think the French method of teaching at the great universities, while elitist, does yield some amazing results.
What I don't agree with is that economic success of a country reflects academic success. The coupling into industry of ideas from academia is a difficult one in most countries, requiring as it does significant venture capital. I think this is where the US has the upper hand, there is so much money in the system that rich entrepreneurs can not only exist but can afford to take a gamble.
Moreover, US industry is huge and more or less self sufficient due to its large, homogeneous population. There is also a huge resource base. I'm not taking away at all from US academic success, but let's not forget that a lot of the ideas come from industry doing the hard yards (look at JPL and NASA for instance) perhaps with a bit of a hand from some "pure academic research".
It is a leap of faith to say that by putting more money into the academic sector, commercial success would result. It depends on many other factors. Look at Oz for instance, there have been some fantastic ideas (e.g. absorption spectrometer, cochlear implant) but they invariably get commercialised elsewhere due to lack of local investment or manufacturing infrastructure. No amount of Uni funding will fix this problem up.
SWMBO adorata
"She who must be obeyed is currently undertaking a Doctorate in Information, in a University here in Australia."
No, she's asleep in her bedroom next to mine Daemon Singer. While I cannot speak for her, I think she would be amenable to a reasonable offer. In my view, she deserves a D Litt magnum cum laude and I reckon you'd get a good thousand or so of her ex-students obsequious in the Great Hall celebrating not only the event but thankful for having been taught by her.
A little "reality"?
Kneejerk anti-americanism aside, Dahrendorf could be accused of having a little of his conservative slip showing. The clues are in the spurious cultural cringe reference to the "real world" of business, and the references to fees. He also seems to be constructing something of a utopia re American "collegiality" versus European status angst etc. Perhaps some of this comes from his own popularity in US academic circles, there's no doubt a richer (in both senses) conservative community there for him to rub against collegially.
The US academic system is largely well resourced by comparison to Australia or Europe, and, unlike Australia, operates in a culture that values intellectualism. Their postgraduate system, in terms of teaching and resources, is, in my opinion, a very good thing. Their undergraduate courses are, compared to those in Australia, considerably dumbed down, closer to our year 12 level even by early third year.
However Dahrendorf is wrong to imply a "they value teaching", others don't, dichotomy. America is a highly competitive environment for research, and, as elsewhere, research, not teaching, is the path to appointments and promotion. If there has been a decline in teaching (and some was bad to begin with) in Aust or European universities I suspect it could be correlated pretty strongly with an increase in teaching load, and having to do more with less. Academics tend to be jealous of research time, and as resources for it diminish other activities are likely to suffer.
Let it also be noted that the wealthy private universities in the US tend to actually be so wealthy they can afford, more often than not, to demand high levels of academic freedom as a condition of the donations they receive. Not that there isn't, as there increasingly is here, agenda setting via donation going on.
However I recall a point made by visiting American scholar Craig Calhoun at La Trobe last year. America has wealthy private universities because it allows extremely wealthy people to flourish free of any realistic level of taxation, they basically bludge on the less well off. There are lots of super rich able to give large endowments and have been for a long time. The United States is a country of great inequality, having great private universities may require also having this great social inequity.
That said, a lot of the talk of resourcing universities is largely hokum, with the budget surpluses Australia is running a return to free education at levels where 40% could access it (as opposed to about 10-15% when it was abolished) - if they wanted to, and could meet the requirements - would not be a problem to a government with the political will. And to those who worry about recurrent costs in the future I would note education is a major indicator of economic growth potential. However, an educated population may be anathema to governments that subsist on pathetic deceits and morally bankrupt policies.
Windschuttle to the ABC board anyone?
US university model
The US higher-education model is hardly perfect, but I have no idea what Angela Ryan is talking about.
I've been through the US university system right through to being a post-doctoral scholar.
Most of my friends and colleagues have been through the US system. And I have colleagues and friends who have been through European and Asian universities.
All these systems are diverse with many different universities working within them. All have strengths and weaknesses, virtues and flaws. I now work in the Australian uni system. Same applies here.
I would say the US has greater problems in its primary and secondary education system than in the tertiary sector.
But I do not recognise the planet Angela Ryan is talking about.
common sense
Hi Will, considering that you are a Climate scientist (did I get that right? There must be a proper multisyllable noun for that, which conveys what one does/has qualified in, what was your PhD in? Was it original work? Is it true that it is not required, as that is something I had not heard),...in your studies was the area of study or research funded by industries effected by such in this day and age?
I only ask to help one consider how such a chair funded by ,say ,the coal board, may view certain climate change results and research projects. "Is coal burning causing climate change?" may change to "the low impact coal burning has on climate change compared to private transport". Or "Cows fart more GHG than coal plants" (as they don't fart).
We saw a perfect example of how knowledge is manipulated/or the presentation of knowledge, when the PM, in his usual incompetent manner, chose a Chief Scientific Adviser who also worked for a major energy company. Little wonder Johnny didn't know (sorry,"wasn't told") about Climate Change with that little darling whispering sweet nothings into his ear, literally. And then what do we get ? When finally it seems too big, a dam of water to hold back by flimsy spin, we get Carbon sinks, built by his other bosses, as suggested. Chutzpah.
The manipulation of knowledge is one of the biggest threats to a civil society gaining true wisdom and longevity.
And what else? CSIRO shows that GM food can causes lung inflammation in rats. Wouldn't you think that would make headlines here? make for immediate demands for funding ,make urgent further NHMRC targeted research grants? No,CSIRO has no more funding for such research and now sticks to coal related research.Slap slap. Not surprisingly no private companies have followed this research finding up with further careful studies and why have no UIniversities targeted such? Would they get the NHMRC money for such?
Some of the most powerful multinationals in the world have an enormous amount of inlfuence over the movement of money for research.
And look at the money spent on malaria,while there is a WHO proven preventative -total population impregnated mosquito net,now being rolled out by japanes aid companies to a few lucky areas Japan is investing in. It might be eradciated before a vaccine reaches safe testing but not the profits to the companies there that a vaccine would be. I guess I am being too cynical but where is the common sense and what other reasons other than lack of logic can there be for such research directions and money wastes when a solution ,cheap,is already there.
Oh and I didn't see any American company finding out about the problems with 3G tower radiation did we? And here,now following the model,we ignore such ewvidence when hits us in the brains that maybe there is a problem with certain EMR. Microwave is becoming a boom industry for communciations,judging by the US defence force scientific papers,and where is the research as to that safety? We know the East German soldiers who contracted a plethora of ailments from such were compensated after a long battle,the kind I bet they never expected to fight.That was due to the radar exposure. I just lost the third aquaintance to a right sided brain tumour ,young guy,and alwasy had his phone there,a high flying sales man.
Where is the proper study? Is the fact that the phone industry and all it's offshoots is too powerful? Surely not,yet ,again ,where is the research here?
I know of two drug company funded patient trial studies that had fabricated results when they wer proving unfavourable to the company.Both were in North America.Both are well publicised.Both resulted in deaths,including children. This is how bad having research funded by interest goups can get. Imagine when,say,the pharmacology chair is paid for by a particular company...
As long as industry and the commercial world has funding control of an area and can potentially influence the direction /finding of research,the true quality and independence is impuned and compromised. Gurgle splutter all you like,such is common sense..
cheers
Re; Common Sense
Angela Ryan writes:
"Hi Will, considering that you are a Climate scientist (did I get that right? There must be a proper multisyllable noun for that, which conveys what one does/has qualified in, what was your PhD in?"
My Ph.D was in Geological Sciences. My thesis was on the topic of paleoclimate (past climate variations), particularly the history of the natural carbon cycle (how it operated/would operate in the absence of human impacts such as fossil fuel burning).
"Was it original work?"
Yes. At least my thesis committee, outside examiners, and the referees and publishers of the papers that arose from the thesis, thought so.
"Is it true that it is not required, as that is something I had not heard)"
No, in every university Ph.D program I've encountered anywhere in the world, the thesis must be original work. Certainly true for physical and biological sciences - I can't speak for humanities.
"...in your studies was the area of study or research funded by industries effected by such in this day and age?"
In the case of my thesis, it was not funded by any industry money. Mostly US National Science Foundation, some US Dept. of Energy funding.
You ask "I only ask to help one consider how such a chair funded by ,say ,the coal board, may view certain climate change results and research projects. 'Is coal burning causing climate change?' may change to "the low impact coal burning has on climate change compared to private transport". Or 'Cows fart more GHG than coal plants' (as they don't fart)."
I certainly share your concerns about possible conflicts of interest arising from industry funding of research, and the ways in which such funding could compromise the neutrality and impartiality of research. As a citizen and consumer, I am particularly worried about medical studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. A number of scientific journals are trying to formulate mechanisms for ensuring transparency in such studies.
In the case of climate research, this type of political conflict has arisen around the highly-politicised issue of anthropogenic global warming. To some degree the politics are within the academic sector, as there are scientists who make the case that global warming a) isn't happening, b) isn't due to human activity natural cycle), c) won't be bad for us. There are legitimate arguments for all these contentions, though the chance (a) and (b) are true is diminishing with each new data set that gets published. (c) - well there will be "winnners" and "losers" out of the coming climate impacts, and this remains an area of uncertainty.
Where industry comes into this issue is mainly through industry-funded think tanks, though there are some academic scientists with some funding from some of these sources.
See some of my earlier posts on the topic of climate change for (my) perspective on this issue.
Daemon, funny you mentioned Peter Singer.
"Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University."
FYI Daemon, that's an AMERICAN uni.
True enough Mike,
And his initial work was done where?
Here is some more info. I still don't understand why you feel so aggrieved, though I am developing some insight.
Also I don't consider Americans savages. I merely consider them badly educated.
good faith and lots of opium
...particularly in history and geography and logic. (and math,science,theology,and english english) but damn good at popular culture and sports analysis.And if it is in a movie,then by gawd that was the way it happ'ned.
That is why their government gets away with so much and Mike writes what he does in good faith. :)
The vanguard of most of western democracies who worship the material and need the eternal economic growth and suck more and more on the opium of the masses.(not a religious term).
Cheers
Daemon, to put your mind at ease -
I've never in the least felt "aggrieved" by anything anyone has posted on Webdiary. I'm not a Muslim, for chrissake, murdering and pillaging in response to mere cartoons, or a Theo van Gogh movie, or a Salman Rushdie novel. To me Webdiary discussions are all just innocent fun. And I enjoy it or else I wouldn't be here.
You've inspired me to think about some issues here, Daemon - thanks. The US is a huge and diverse country. Perhaps the South should have been allowed to secede all so long ago - after all, they wanted to, and that in itself is enough justification for many here (hi, Roslyn). But they weren't allowed to. So you now have the situation in the US where there are too many religious morons with political clout. You've got the southern Christian fundamentalists and their fellow travellers, the similarly delusional Muslim Americans (as numerous as the entire population of Jordan), most of whom voted wholeheartedly for George W. Dunce. If only Thomas Jefferson's secular vision had come true, alas...But the US is clearly the world leader in science and technology, despite the religious nutters. What do you make of that?
I prefer the land of Oz, to be honest.
PS I was mainly responding to this:
"Where the corporation/religions owns each chair and determines what thoughts are taught and what is researched and what is published?" - Angela Ryan, on US universities.
If this is what you think, Angela, I strongly suspect you've never been to a major US university. Your post reflects only prejudice, neither facts nor experience, in my guestimation.
Hawking vs. the Pope
The British scientist joked he was lucky the pope didn't realize he had already presented a paper at the gathering suggesting how the universe was created.
"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo,'' Hawking said in a lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. John Paul died in 2005; Hawking did not say when the Vatican meeting was held.
Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century for supporting Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun. The church insisted the Earth was at the center of the universe.
In 1992, John Paul issued a declaration saying the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension.''
Hawking said the pope told the scientists, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God.''
The physicist, author of the best seller "A Brief History of Time,'' added that John Paul believed "God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand.''
- from Space.com
alas strike two Mikey.
Wrong again Mikey, but heck you are consistent in that regard. Where do ya think I got my spelling? Imagine doing a spelling test to work in America and having to spell colour as "color" or fail. Now I can never remember wich has a "s" or a "z" or a "tre" or a "ter". European language is easier in that regard, can't spell any of them. How about you, why so vehement? Or just angling? Been disappointed with a European's basic knowlege? Standard of awareness? Understanding, basic analysis of an event? Or..sensitive? Hooked.
The wisest person I know actually describes himself as from a stateless region. His life education was pretty tough, but despite much difficulty he hasn't lost any integrity nor sense of humo(u)r nor understanding of the value of friendship and family. It is being able to hold such values despite suffering and avoidng cynicism and losing spirit one sees in those like Europeans, who have come through harder times methinks with their homes war torn. He was educated in Eastern Europe at university level as so many were. I think we have it best here for now, but that is about to change, which saddens as we generally here are a very naive simple population with a two dimensional palette, easily manipulated, rarely spending time considering where we as a nation are going or how to pay the piper. Thoroughly commercialised centres of knowledge will further diminish any ability to challenge or change or grow for the better of society as a whole. Just push those buttons and lean back and watch the show. cheers
Angela and Daemon, see Gareth's post below.
Heck, even many of Angela's beloved Palestinians and Iraqis want to get into American universities. I've even met some in such institutions. Quite a few, in fact. As well as plenty of Europeans.
(BTW I lived in Europe for 3 years, in 3 different countries. As well as Japan, the land of Oz and, yes, the USA. Lucky me!)
Well then there is Australia, humorously, not mentioned
She who must be obeyed is currently undertaking a Doctorate in Information, in a University here in Australia. As I understand in my probably oversimplified way, the general direction from her advisers has been to avoid like the plague using work from American Doctoral Studies because none of it is original. I repeat.. NONE is original, since it isn't required.
Now that to me, means either the US, fount of all knowledge, land of the free and home of the brave, is in fact not aiming to introduce new thought, but rather to find folks ready to re-hash old work and try to derive some use for it.
Angela's point is well made. A Chair of Medicine at UCLA named for Record Company Billionaire David Geffen is a case in point. Geffen endows UCLA with a 200 Million dollar benefit to make sure his name liveth forever more, but at the same time spends millions stopping people using the beach in front of his Malibu mansion. Why would he enshrine his name there I wonder? Philanthropist indeed, but what happened to philanthropy when the great unwashed wanted to bathe in the briny where he could look down on them?
Just one example. Are you prepared to suggest that there is no specific direction given regarding the endowment or do you believe Mr G just pulled out the old cheque book and said "go for it?" I would have to question that, just based on my personal view of philanthropy.. there is rarely "no cost to the recipient".
The point I am making of course, is that a chair named for example the "Burroughs Wellcome Fund endowed Chair for Medical Science", could reasonably be expected to find new chemists for a specific company and not much for the rest, wouldn't you agree?
Research carried on under the Aegis of that chair, which in Australia would belong to the University and by default, the people of Australia, would end up adding to Burroughs Wellcome's Bottom Line, would you agree? All this for a pissant 1.6 miliion dollars US. Bargain.
I'm sorry Mike, that when someone offends your sensibilities vis a vis America, that you get on your high horse and have to parade your deep knowledge, but, what if Angela hasn't been to the USA? What would change whether she has or she hasn't. Your two liner hardly identifies the point you are making, at least not enough to make me think other than you may be American or an "Americaphile". Humorously enough, I don't believe there are many of you here. Why would that be?
Why are you so shocked by what I regard as a common sense thought process. Is it so unbelievable to you that American Universities whore themselves to big business, and in reality, taken in the context of University studies all over the world, don't seem to produce all that much genius? Australia seems to do more than its' fair share. Peter Singer for example, another Webdiarist, is considered one of the worlds' leading ethicists. I know Americans who can't even spell ethics. So why so shocked?
Maybe Singer moved to the US
...to teach all those savages how to spell "ethics," right, Daemon?
Isn't Harvard in the US?
Angela Ryan, according to the UK’s Times Higher Education Supplement, the world’s top universities are as follows.
The US education model appears to be doing just fine.
6 little pumkpins calling me now
The top 10 pop hit list hardly reflects the quality of music presented,but more the economic realities of the musical industry.
No scientist would be impressed by the validity and discrimination and predictor value of the criteria and method of the various "top 10" university pop charts. Some even use number of Nobel prizes as part of the criteria,forgetting that 50yrs ago the standard may have been a lot higher when such an award may have been given,and that many of the newer Universities haven't had the same time to accumulate such accolades but may have a superior standard of teaching and research quality, or the reasearchers may be "seconded" rom another facility.
.How can you judge such and compare one University in one country to another,with different type of students/teachers/priorities/cultural expectation/observe error/bias all to consider? When do you think our universities here were first able to even offer doctorate award locally in science? It was much later than I had thought. Yet such counts against local univesities in this kind of top ten accumulative award criterias.
Do not misunderstand me, I think ,as Will put out,that mostly those in the top perform well and there are only pockes of aberration ,just as everywhere else. But is there that great a difference in the university itself from the top 100 versus any of our local unis when well funded a ew years ago? I can only compare Cambridge as an undergrad and a local uni but there was little difference,although the skiiers were better locally, and here one gets to play against Wallabys in the touch football comp and really know it.Ouch.
Post Grad in North America further made me appreciate how good we have it here and wonder why we are letting the government screw it away into the ground.
Also , if the US is so important for our industry and trade why are we not teaching the kids baseball instaed of cricket and also golf. The two are the universal language there and in Japan. Stupidity and lack of forsight as usual. Our baseball team won the keenly comptitive inter competition. Great bonding. That is the role of sport.
But I think also the people themselves make the most difference in a university and that can change in a day with the movement of a prof and his/her style/post grad entourage to another campus.It can be so individual the one that inspires ,has the gift to teach and lead in a University.The award system is also biased against unis with art faculty focus as counting Nobels is much less in those areas anyways.
I think the top 10/100 whatever is misleading and it would be better not to dumb such down but instead look at actual current standards and achievements and approval ratings from visiting observers/examiners,just as many professional have now in their acreditation body. Status of universities influence funding so hence the "popular culture/advertising spin" touch to such, rather than rigorous assesment.
All universities can offer a centre of learning and debate,questioning and sharing ideas.These can be formalised in research and degree awarding .Peer reviewed,published in respect4d reviewed journals research is the aim.Most of the major universities do this very well,but repeatedly there are pockets of shame where money has perverted such actions and Universities have turned a blind eye due to the perceived benefits from continuing.
The more the findiong here degenerates ,the more the dollar will be chased at the expense of other priorities when making research and teaching decisions.how is this so difficult to understand?
If corporations can control the flow of knowledge to suit their agendas,their policies,or even religious groups as we see now setting up more aggressively then knowledge and wisdom changs,maybe not for the best for the community. A simplified example might be imagined with Opus Dei controlled medical schools becoming the majority (hypothetical,but add other extreme religions and them also funding such while the government cuts secular funding out)then consider how womens' issues in health and reproduction could be taught.
Consider those with firm ideas of history,imagine if NAZIs had control of the history departments at all level of education then the next generation believes just one view, without learning the variant nature of history as one examines it from differing perspectives.The Soviets would have a different history.That may be why Mike has such a different view of history as such is determined by one's country of education or level of such.
If corporations can change the history of native Australia and remove any claim to restition or right ot title etc,as happened originally and may again,then those corporations can pillage the resource,especially Uranium,from isolate communities so much easier.And if government has no evidence of crime,then government too can avoid compensation etc in many areas.In my naivety I never thought I would see such happen until my eyes were opened by this government. But this is the government that stopped the research by CSIRO inot GM food causing lung damage. Back to coal boys.
If the military industries can sanitise the recounts of war events now and in the past then military actions will be more acceptable and hardware purchased and used.
There are many ways to influence knowledge and make a buck or control and direct society. Those with money will do it if they can.Remove public funding and open up such to commerical/power intersts and we will see it if looked for.
Cheers
ps and mike,considering the appalling conditions in Palestine and Iraq for people(humdreds of ademics being assasinated is one allegation in Iraq) and the posted stats on Palestinian conditions show just how bad they are in an already bad basket case ME,well,as you say I am sure any would jump to study here or the US.
PPS Saying all that above,a uni education is so very different to the education from having 6 little pumpkins. I always wonder which is it better to do first.
Have you ever been to America, Angela?
Have you ever been to America, Angela?
From your latest post I strongly suspect NOT.
selling off wisdom
Good grief, are we talking of planet earth ? US "universities"? Where the corporation/religions owns each chair and determines what thoughts are taught and what is researched and what is published? Where the cost is beyond the average unless the military pays? Who could compare the average education level and social and civic activity of a European to an American?
And excuse me, no pecking order between professors and students in the US? Just as public assets must be sold off, now institutions of learning must be changed to the US model. I hope that never happens. US society shows where their education has led them. There has not been a getting of wisdom but a selling off.
Cheers