Showing posts with label david willetts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label david willetts. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Amongst the dreaming spires

Over at Oxford, they're debating a motion of no confidence in David Willetts, the Universities Minister. I'm trying to organise the same thing here, as are concerned academics across the country.

But occasionally, our colleagues in the kind of élite institutions which prefer not to admit working-class, poor or ethnic minority students get it horrendously wrong. Here's an extract from a speech by Donald Fraser of Oxford University:
He calls for a return to higher education before 1992, and the creation of the new universities, and refers sceptically to a new university in the Midlands that offers courses in "cake decoration, wines and spirits appreciation" - adding, to laughter from the dons, that he knows students who already do this in their spare time. He says there are too many universities and calls for a cull.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there isn't a single degree-awarding institution offering degrees in these subjects, here in the Midlands or anywhere else: this is a fantasy straight out of the Daily Mail.

If I'm wrong, do let me know. Did you graduate with a First in Cake Decorating?

Caps off to the Oxford Dons though: no confidence in Willetts by 283-5.

Tuesday, 5 April 2011

Need some help? Think Humanities!

Thanks to my new hero, Worst Professor Ever (oh yeah? Try my classes), I'm led to this article in the - of all places - Harvard Business Review. It makes we want to storm our management suite, prop open the VC's eyes á là Clockwork Orange and force her and her minions to read it over and over and over and over and over and over again. Then I'd slip down to London and read it out loud to David Willetts (universities minister, recently blamed feminism for ending social mobility) and Michael Gove (moronic education minister) while emphasising every syllable with swift kicks to their tender parts.

Some extracts:

Want Innovative Thinking? Hire from the Humanities
This is because our educational systems focus on teaching science and business students to control, predict, verify, guarantee, and test data. It doesn't teach how to navigate "what if" questions or unknown futures. As Amos Shapira, the CEO of Cellcom, the leading cell phone provider in Israel, put it: "The knowledge I use as CEO can be acquired in two weeks...The main thing a student needs to be taught is how to study and analyze things (including) history and philosophy."
People trained in the humanities who study Shakespeare's poetry, or Cezanne's paintings, say, have learned to play with big concepts, and to apply new ways of thinking to difficult problems that can't be analyzed in conventional ways. 
If you want out-of-the-box thinking, you need to free up people's inherent creativity. Humanists are trained to be creative and are uniquely adapted to leading creative teams. (A case in point: Steve Jobs, who openly acknowledges how studying the beautiful art of calligraphy led him to design the Macintosh interface.) 

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Will students desert £9000 per year universities?

That's what the Oxbridge-educated Minister for Universities thinks - as though there will be a market, and that 18-year-olds are rational consumers in this ideal market.

Wrong. Firstly, every university will have to charge very near the maximum just to replace the 80% cut in the teaching grant (so students will pay triple what their older siblings paid for a slightly worse education). Secondly, if there's a range of fees, hard-nosed consumers will ask what's wrong with the discounted ones. Who wants to be the Aldi of Education?

(Willetts wrote The Pinch: How The Baby Boomers Stole Their Children's Future, a book about how his generation snaffled the good housing, free education, top pensions, healthcare, benefits etc. and denied the same to the current generation. Then he voted for benefit cuts, pension cuts, pay cuts, mass redundancies, tuition fees, EMA abolition, NHS cuts and on and on and on. Who says the Tories have no sense of irony?).

Monday, 20 December 2010

10,000 fingers up to the kids

The youth unemployment rate (16-24) is about 20-25%. There are about to be 10,000 more kids on the dole - the Universities Minister has reduced next year's total entrance by that sum. It won't be much fun on the dole either - benefits cut, under-35's will only be allowed to claim for a single room in a shared house, prices up… all this from the man who wrote The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children's Future.

Clearly it wasn't a jeremiad: it was a How-To.

Tory scum. Merry Christmas, no-longer potential students.

Thursday, 10 June 2010

Pay up or piss off

Morning everybody, and what a grey and miserable one it is - outside as well as in my head.

It hasn't started well: I woke to the sound of the Universities Minister, who was privately educated then subsidised by the state to go to Oxford University, telling the world that students should pay massively inflated fees, and that hearing lectures on screen down at your local further education college should count as 'going' to university.

Naturally, I have a few problems with this.

Firstly, this model of 'education' is clearly not going to apply to the rich, the privileged and the powerful. In fact, it will keep the socially exclusive institutions clear of oiks: those too poor to attend the Oxfords, Cambridges, Imperials and Durhams.

Secondly, further education is a noble sector of which we should be proud, despite the damage done to it by thirty years of neglect. It isn't, however, university education. FE teaches skills - important ones - university teaches independence of mind, encourages philosophical exploration and tries to foster risk-taking. The point of a university education is that the student educates him or herself, with help from us. Watching a lecture on screen implies that education is simply a matter of facts to be memorised, rather than an intellectual and emotion exchange, in which debate and argument are the education. You need to talk about things with fellow students and tutors, look things up in quality libraries, watch people's body language and talk shit in coffee houses. That's education - not writing down what you're told.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, we're forced to return to virtual rote learning to keep our pass rates up and placate management, who now seem actively opposed to the model I've just proposed. Hence the replacement of humanities, which they see as truculent and subversive, with things like Uniform Studies (supposedly profitable franchise bullshit).

Thirdly, David Willetts' vision of education encapsulates everything that I hate about Conservatism. As a political philosophy, it centres on individualism: the individual should be permitted to consider only his or her immediate profit when making any decision. Ethics, the collective good and any other consideration is secondary or hostile to self-enrichment. I think this is socially destructive and immoral. For me, subsidising an individual student is a wise investment in society.

For instance, why would you become a primary school teacher, or a university lecturer, under Willetts' scheme? You'd have to get into debt to the tune of £30,000+, then take another two or three degrees (funding unknown), only to work for a relatively low wage comparable to what someone with a 2.2 in Economics can get in the private sector. Why should the binman subsidise the medical student? Because the binman's daughter might be that student, and the binman might find himself in need of a transplant which can't happen because not enough surgeons could be found (we already pillage poorer countries for their doctors and nurses).

Similarly, how would a working-class student become a politician, lawyer, judge, senior civil servant or doctor under this system? It's already rigged so that the tiny minority of privately-educated children take the majority of places at the elite universities. These degrees won't (I hope) be available via the FE podcast method - so these influential professions will continue to be the preserve of our superiors. Why is this a problem? Because we need these people to have experience of life. When I was a juror, the lawyers and judges weren't familiar with things like how people drink lager (I kid you not: a serious discussion was held to enlighten everybody). When you're deciding whether a council has illegally withdrawn funding from respite care for disabled children, or fixing school intake criteria - whether in court or in Parliament - we need you to understand how life is lived outside the magic circle of private school, Oxbridge and the higher professions.

In the end, I think that this is a brilliant country because by and large, its citizens care about each other. Not everyone, not all the time, but on the whole. This evil, evil government is openly encouraging you to stop all that, and shift only for yourself and possibly your family. If you haven't got the cash or the confidence to get into huge debts, the professions are closed to you. Fuck off.

You can probably tell that I'm toweringly angry about this. I got into education for three reasons. Firstly, I have no other skills at all. Secondly, it's what I love, or loved. Thirdly, and most importantly, I have that postcolonial understanding that education is what levels the playing field. To some extent, you can overcome the conspiracy against you by learning how the world works.

Not any more. I no longer believe that my management have any educational values beyond a balance sheet, and I know, absolutely, that the government sees education as simply one more burden on the state which should be paid for by individuals out to make a lot of money.

If you think your degree is dumbed-down now, wait until you see what your younger siblings are going to get. As for me: I'm going to publish as much as possible so that I can leave this country. Resistance, as they say, is futile.