Tom Garvin's Irish Times rant about 3rd level

donaghs

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0501/1224269475580.html

Any thoughts on this? It's entertaining at least. Some might say he's ill-informed about the Science/Technology/Engineering disciplines.

Most interesting was the comments about China. Seemed a bit harsh, and certain to raise hackles. But after reading a bit more about the Confucious Institute, it does seem to have political aspects, and directly controlled from Beijing.

Mushy

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Its more the crap I get for doing the course. Should I apologise for having an interest in something and wanting to learn more about a topic? Well I've been called stupid for it. I intend to continue learning about my areas of study even after my final exam on Saturday week....does that make me stupid? I hate how that college is run, skipping graduation so don't have to go near our beloved President. Glorified business is all it is, look forward to leaving the place.

DáireM

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

donaghs

DáireM wrote: »

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

I don't think anyone (even Tom!) is calling their work propaganda. But "post-communist" is a key term here. China has effectively dropped Communism and is now a business-friendly one-party state.

In relation to what the Confucius Institute is: Agencies like the British Council, USAid, the Peace Corps, the Goethe Institute can be seen in some ways as extending the "soft power" of a country. The don't force anyone to do anything, or create proganda - but they do help foster a positive image of that their home country.

In this context, there is a worry that the Confucius Institute is far more directly controlled by the Chinese Government than other countries cultural embassies. I don't think anyone sees it as a threat or danger, but embedded in a proper university it does raise issues of academic freedoms.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/23/content_9766116.htm

Mr.Nice Guy

Can't comment on the Confucius Institute as I'm not very familiar with it but I agree with a lot of his points, particularly this:

Rhetoric, creative writing, foreign languages and history are commonly, if covertly, regarded as unnecessary or pretentious. A grey philistinism has established itself in our universities, under leaders who imagine that books are obsolete, and presumably possess none themselves.

Considering who we have running the country, and what RTE produces for entertainment, I think we could do with a hell of a lot more imagination in our society. This country is as bankrupt intellectually as it is financially, imo.

El Siglo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Can't comment on the Confucius Institute as I'm not very familiar with it but I agree with a lot of his points, particularly this:



Considering who we have running the country, and what RTE produces for entertainment, I think we could do with a hell of a lot more imagination in our society. This country is as bankrupt intellectually as it is financially, imo.

I don't think this is fair, the ones you don't hear about are the ones doing research, keeping their heads down and working. The ones who run the country and RTÉ only get into those jobs through dodgey 'networking' practices and "Dad's friends" etc... sure half the government TDs inherited seats (Cowen, Coughlan etc...). And RTÉ, sure that's all cronyism.
Anyone worth their salt as an academic is lying low or getting out, the amount of politics involved is disgraceful.
I do think though that undergraduate education needs a little more rigour added but the problem is this endless regurgitation of essays. I only learned how to argue through trial and error, thank God for accommodating history lecturers back in the day!:D

DáireM

donaghs wrote: »

I don't think anyone (even Tom!) is calling their work propaganda. But "post-communist" is a key term here. China has effectively dropped Communism and is now a business-friendly one-party state.

In relation to what the Confucius Institute is: Agencies like the British Council, USAid, the Peace Corps, the Goethe Institute can be seen in some ways as extending the "soft power" of a country. The don't force anyone to do anything, or create proganda - but they do help foster a positive image of that their home country.

In this context, there is a worry that the Confucius Institute is far more directly controlled by the Chinese Government than other countries cultural embassies. I don't think anyone sees it as a threat or danger, but embedded in a proper university it does raise issues of academic freedoms.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/23/content_9766116.htm

He definitely implied that it's a propaganda instrument when he called it "an agency of the Chinese tyranny". I also can't see how he can say that it's controlled by the Chinese state when he also claims that the taxpayer foots the bill for it, bit of a contradiction imo.

The Confucius Institute isn't even remotely similar to Chinese Universities, most of the courses they run are Culture and Language based as opposed to the technical and business courses that most Chinese Universities promote.

I agree with the vast majority of his article and think that knowledge for knowledge's sake is what a university should be all about but his comments on the Confucius Institute are lol.

Riamfada

Mushy wrote: »

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

Mr.Nice Guy

El Siglo wrote: »

I don't think this is fair, the ones you don't hear about are the ones doing research, keeping their heads down and working. The ones who run the country and RTÉ only get into those jobs through dodgey 'networking' practices and "Dad's friends" etc... sure half the government TDs inherited seats (Cowen, Coughlan etc...). And RTÉ, sure that's all cronyism.
Anyone worth their salt as an academic is lying low or getting out, the amount of politics involved is disgraceful.
I do think though that undergraduate education needs a little more rigour added but the problem is this endless regurgitation of essays. I only learned how to argue through trial and error, thank God for accommodating history lecturers back in the day!:D

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that people are not up to it, I just meant that they are not getting the opportunity. I agree with your assessment.

El Siglo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that people are not up to it, I just meant that they are not getting the opportunity. I agree with your assessment.

No problem at all!:D

Mushy

Grimes wrote: »

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

TRue! I do want to become a teacher though and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge though.

Arpa

Mushy wrote: »

TRue! I do want to become a teacher though and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge though.

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

pljudge321

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

Petty Much? :rolleyes:

Arpa

pljudge321 wrote: »

Petty Much? :rolleyes:

Maybe it is, but constructing a sentence should be simple and second nature. If we let it slide too often then it becomes normal. It's particularly damaging when it's issued from someone who has aspirations to be a teacher. Also "Petty much?" is not a sentence either, but don't get me started. Sorry, please continue on topic.

Mushy

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.

What exactly did I do wrong? Apart from say though twice.

dyl10

Grimes wrote: »

Yes but people who wanted to expand their knowledge in the past usually paid for University and suffered a life of abject poverty for it. Yours (and mine) desire to do arts simply to expand ones mind comes at a cost to the taxpayer which isnt really fair. Unless your degree puts you in a position to financially contribute to the GDP the taxpayer shouldnt really be paying for your interest in an arts subject.

Given the relative 'cheapness' of the degree course, I'd imagine the contribution of Arts graduates to the tax net, pays for the course cost.

Someone doing a 3 year Arts degree probably equates to someone spending a couple of years on the dole and their future earnings would rarely reflect those years positively.

Killer Pigeon

These undereducated people bossing many of the best brains in the country also despise undergraduate teaching.

Welcome to capitalism my dear.

The ideal put forward by these new barbarians is the Chinese university system, a system created by one of the most hideous regimes running a major country. Chinese universities are best-known for plagiarism and hatred of free speech. In UCD there is a thing called the Confucius Institute, which is an agency of the Chinese tyranny. The Irish taxpayer should know that he’ll pick up the tab for this dissemination of post-communist rubbish.

If he is comparing Chinese communism to Confucianism, then he should note that the communist authorities tried to get rid of confusianist thoughts under Mao. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

I probably would agree that UCD and most Irish Universities are marketing education though and run basically by businessmen.

Killer Pigeon

Mushy wrote: »

I'd agree with that to some extent. I'm doing Arts, get the usual sh*te bout it being worth nothing. Well sorry folks, sorry for ever wanting to just know about things (in my case historically and sociologically). University used to be about expanding knowledge, but now is just a further tool to get a "better" job. I do also understand that it has to be done that way though.

Its more the crap I get for doing the course. Should I apologise for having an interest in something and wanting to learn more about a topic? Well I've been called stupid for it. I intend to continue learning about my areas of study even after my final exam on Saturday week....does that make me stupid? I hate how that college is run, skipping graduation so don't have to go near our beloved President. Glorified business is all it is, look forward to leaving the place.

I actually agree with you on Arts, even though I'm in a denominated science course myself. University was also seen as a place were people are to be educated. I found an interesting article on wikipedia (If one can trust it), under liberal arts.

The term liberal arts denotes a curriculum that imparts general knowledge and develops the student’s rational thought and intellectual capabilities, unlike the professional, vocational, technical curricula emphasizing specialization. The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.[1] In classical antiquity, the liberal arts denoted the education proper to a free man (Latin: liberus, “free”), unlike the education proper to a slave. In the 5th century AD, Martianus Capella academically defined the seven Liberal Arts as: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. In the medieval Western university, the seven liberal arts were:

• the Trivium

1. grammar
2. rhetoric
3. logic

• the Quadrivium

1. arithmetic
2. geometry
3. music
4. astronomy

Killer Pigeon

DáireM wrote: »

All I can do is laugh at the suggestion that the Confucius institute disseminates post-communist propaganda. I can only comment on the lecturers I've come into contact with but none of them are steadfast communists and one of them was a protester at Tianamen Square.

The funny thing about the guy who wrote the article is that he is actually a professor in politics in UCD.

ghostchant

Arpa wrote: »

Maybe it is, but constructing a sentence should be simple and second nature. If we let it slide too often then it becomes normal. It's particularly damaging when it's issued from someone who has aspirations to be a teacher. Also "Petty much?" is not a sentence either, but don't get me started. Sorry, please continue on topic.

You seem to be judging the person in question quite harshly, based on one paragraph, written on an Internet message board.

I had an amazing maths, physics and applied maths teacher. I have no idea if he was capable of constructing a sentence or not, since I can't remember ever seeing him write one. Nor do I have any clue as to whether my English teacher was familiar with Analytical Mechanics. You're working under the assumption that all teachers require the same skillset, regardless of what they're teaching. Of course the ability to convey information is essential, but perfect sentence
structure isn't necessary for that. Passing on their enthusiasm for the subject they're teaching would be a significantly more important skill in my eyes.

Back on topic! Weird rant against China aside, it was an interesting article. Coming from a science perspective, I get concerned about the focus on applied research, where the money is, without equally strong support for basic research at the same time. Though I must admit that that's a funding issue, pretty much independent of UCD and other universities.

Damian Duffy

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

There is such a lack of original creative thought in UCD at the moment that it's painful to watch. I'm not saying that there is nobody in the college with creative ideas, of course there is, but it's so rare to see it's incredible.

As a friend of mine mentioned the other day, people now go to college for the sake of going to college because it's 'in' and without it, they would possibly be left out of social circles etc. They then don't want to do the work when they get here, instead they moan and moan about a workload that when compared to previous generations is so small it's ridiculous. This leads to people treating college like they did school. They sit there and expect everything to be told to them, the ultimate goal being to get it out of the way so that the piss up can begin.

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

A lot of this is the college's fault of course with semesters, horizons etc but the responsibility lies with the individual as well. The fact there are people going through this system and then becoming teachers scares me.

El Siglo

Damian Duffy wrote: »

There is such a lack of original creative thought in UCD at the moment that it's painful to watch. I'm not saying that there is nobody in the college with creative ideas, of course there is, but it's so rare to see it's incredible.

As a friend of mine mentioned the other day, people now go to college for the sake of going to college because it's 'in' and without it, they would possibly be left out of social circles etc. They then don't want to do the work when they get here, instead they moan and moan about a workload that when compared to previous generations is so small it's ridiculous. This leads to people treating college like they did school. They sit there and expect everything to be told to them, the ultimate goal being to get it out of the way so that the piss up can begin.

I'm doing a PhD in UCD and sometimes that requires giving tutorials to undergrads and asking them for input to a question is torture, they just don't want to know. It's give me the answers, I will learn them and then I will spew them back at exam time.

A lot of this is the college's fault of course with semesters, horizons etc but the responsibility lies with the individual as well. The fact there are people going through this system and then becoming teachers scares me.

Creative ideas are there, saying that there is less creativity now is like saying scientists or people 100 years ago were less intelligent, it's all about context. There's so many people now going to college that the ones who should go are out weighed by the ones that shouldn't or traditionally wouldn't have gone. What this has done has changed the way college should be experienced, from the purely academic pursuit to job chasing, ladder climbing binge drinking that it is now.
I remember lectures and tutorials back in UCD, it was as if I hadn't left my crappy secondary school. The thing is creative people who have genuinely good ideas aren't listened to or heard because the idiots, albeit in a class room, lecture theatre or Dáil are able to shout that bit louder. I'd say out of a class of maybe 250, five to ten percent have something useful to contribute academically, whereas twenty or thirty years ago this would have been twenty to thirty percent.

parker kent

Arpa wrote: »

Therein lies the problem. When simple sentence construction is difficult there is little hope for our future educators.
I was fortunate to have an extremely good second level education, I revered my teachers as holders of knowledge which surpassed my own, and for the most part they did, because they came out of a UCD which was determined to be nothing less than intellectually progressive in all disciplines.
You can imagine my disappointment when I came to UCD as it is now. There is very little of that determination to be intellectual for the sake of being intellectual, and in that I don't mean a streak of haughtiness or snobbery, but simply a sense of pride to be progressive in a field. There are professors and academic staff who still have that spark visible, but the system is failing them.
When I meet graduate friends whom I know are not the most academically bright and ask them what they are doing, it saddens me to hear they are now teachers. The problem continues and the time is gone when calibre mattered.

Have you considered that your "revered teachers" were not actually the intellectual Gods that you imagined, but were in reality just one chapter ahead of you? As you get older, you realise that authority figures you once looked up to, are not as infallible as you once thought. They are people just as capable of mistakes and errors as anybody else. On a side-note, once you have met teachers in Coppers, you never look at them the same again

Now of course you may have been lucky and had great teachers, but to suggest that all modern teachers are worse than their predecessors is ridiculous. There were bad teachers then, there are bad teachers now. Same as there are good teachers coming from UCD now, and there will be bad teachers coming from UCD now. As is said above, there are more people in college now, so there will be more of every type of student; good, bad and indifferent.

To judge one person based on what was likely a quickly written message on boards is not a sign of the open-minded thinking to which you seem to aspire. Hopefully our teachers are not as quick to judge!

Back to the OP, most Western areas that are economically strong tend to have a strong investment in the arts. Look at New York or other similar areas. David McWilliams refers to places that are "gay friendly" as being the where the most innovation appears. (http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/03/19/drag-queen-bingo-proves-ireland-has-hit-jackpot)

So I agree with the article. A purely business mindset is not going to create the necessary environment that economically strong areas thrive under. So in conclusion, arts students rock

Edit: I like the anti-plagiarism bit about China too, very true! Although he does come across as far too pretentious in the article

Arpa

parker kent wrote: »

Have you considered that your "revered teachers" were not actually the intellectual Gods that you imagined, but were in reality just one chapter ahead of you? As you get older, you realise that authority figures you once looked up to, are not as infallible as you once thought. They are people just as capable of mistakes and errors as anybody else. On a side-note, once you have met teachers in Coppers, you never look at them the same again

Yes, I have considered that and I have factored that in to what I have said for the sake of brevity. Read it again. I wasn't five years old looking up to authority figures and "revering" them. I was 18, quite capable of making judgements of character and noticed a sincere passion in what certain teachers were doing. However thanks for the input on that. If you have just come out of a lecture on Freud and authority figures, I'm not up for it at the moment.

Now of course you may have been lucky and had great teachers, but to suggest that all modern teachers are worse than their predecessors is ridiculous. There were bad teachers then, there are bad teachers now. Same as there are good teachers coming from UCD now, and there will be bad teachers coming from UCD now. As is said above, there are more people in college now, so there will be more of every type of student; good, bad and indifferent.

Yes I more than likely was lucky to have great teachers but again, I never suggested that any modern teacher is better or worse than their predecessors. I was suggesting that there is a different attitude emanating from UCD today in terms of a genuine desire to, as the article suggested, seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Of course there are good and bad in all walks of life, but when it comes to the education of future generations I'm afraid, "There's bad in every bunch", just doesn't swing it anymore. That attitude will only propogate the problem.

To judge one person based on what was likely a quickly written message on boards is not a sign of the open-minded thinking to which you seem to aspire. Hopefully our teachers are not as quick to judge!

Thank you for clarifying my aspirations. As for my judgement, it's very simple and I won't go into detail. Quickly written message or not, the use of two subordinating conjunctions in the same clause is basic grammar. I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

parker kent

Arpa wrote: »

I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

Well it is only ironic if they intend to become an English teacher, otherwise it is a harmless mistake. Plus everybody, including yourself in this thread (yes I have spotted spelling mistakes in your posts ), makes errors. But this is boards, not the New York Review of Books so cut everybody some slack! I get your point though, writing ability is awful for a lot of students. My English undergrad class had people with comically poor English. Now that is ironic.

Arpa wrote: »

Yes, I have considered that and I have factored that in to what I have said for the sake of brevity. Read it again. I wasn't five years old looking up to authority figures and "revering" them. I was 18, quite capable of making judgements of character and noticed a sincere passion in what certain teachers were doing. However thanks for the input on that. If you have just come out of a lecture on Freud and authority figures, I'm not up for it at the moment.

Leave the amateur dramatics to Dramsoc! I hardly got that deep into the topic. Yes I understood you were not 5, it is secondary school teachers we are talking about after all. But you were still 18...hardly the age of wisdom.

The article has valid points. A University should not be run as a business and weirdly, it is not good for the business sector in a country for that to happen. But I think the future generations will be OK, people have been talking about doom of institutions and the next generation for 4000 years. The Hugh Brady era will end and is likely to be replaced by somebody far too into knowledge for knowledges sake, leading to an angry article in the Irish Times about how future generations need to learn practical skills.

Arpa

Fair points. Though I think irony does not have to be so specific. Anyway, spelling mistakes and typos are different to grammar. It just kills me to see a lack of care. As for age...18, I think that's old enough to have a fair idea about someones character. Then again that depends on the individual. As for the article...back on topic, finally.
Yes, of course people have been talking about doom for coming generations, that's to be expected, but again it's not a sufficient answer. Every point raised, (no offence peter clark) but every point you seem to say. "Well yes A happens but B also happens and that's life, it will be okay". Anyone can do that. Make some proper points and stand by them, middle ground explanations are boring. It's the type of inane meandering that ends discussions, because somebody says, "Yeah I see your point, and I see yours too, now whos round is it?". "The war happened, and wars have been happening for thousands of years, so things will be okay". It's just not beneficial. As an educated guy, which you sound like, you should be challenging your mind when you read the article and looking at ways to improve things, not sitting on the fence. So should everyone, or else theres no point in discussing it. Hugh Brady and his team of business cronies won't just walk out because they feel they're letting the intellectuals down. With humility SuperSpider.

Mushy

Arpa wrote: »

Thank you for clarifying my aspirations. As for my judgement, it's very simple and I won't go into detail. Quickly written message or not, the use of two subordinating conjunctions in the same clause is basic grammar. I'm not normally a stickler for these type of things, especially online, but given the nature of the thread, and the intended career of the person who was posting, it seemed ironic and worth mention. Particularly when the dependent clause states "...and pass on this wonderful thing called knowledge." It's too good to pass up. No offense intended, I'm sure you're great at what you do.

Nah I'm mediocrity personified when it comes to academic grades, and English was always one of my worst subjects. My history lecturer pointed this out in handing back essays, said it was the reason my essas lost marks...and lots of them:( Yes I do think there is a link between these two! Thought that'd change with LC, but then had the worst teacher imaginable. Sure when I re-read it I knew exactly what was wrong anyway. And no, I don't intend going near English.

I still stick to my original point though about the place becoming more of a business. Answered that question in a sociology tutorial, about neo-liberalism in UCD. Nobody could disagree because they didn't know what neo-liberalism was.

convert

I have to say I agree with a lot of what Tom Garvin worte in his article. There's definitely an attitude in UCD that arts doesn't matter because it's doesn't draw in the same funding as science or engineering which attract big money from pharmaceutical companies. While it's great that the college is getting in money, perhaps this could lead to the commercialisation of education, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

It also seems that lecturers are actively encouraged to move away from a 'teaching' focus to placing more emphasis on their own research, which can only hinder the further education of students in the university.

While we're on the topic, there have been some great replies in the Times over the last few days.

hatful

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Garvin. No allowances seem to be made for subjects that present and view research results in a different way to business and technology fields. The pressure on academics from the humanities to produce "evidence based research" is enormous. There was a time when students were educated rather than trained. Well rounded individuals who knew what thinking is and can adapt their reasoning to varying work situations were turned out of universities.

dyl10

El Siglo wrote: »

. I'd say out of a class of maybe 250, five to ten percent have something useful to contribute academically, whereas twenty or thirty years ago this would have been twenty to thirty percent.

What do you base this on?

El Siglo

dyl10 wrote: »

What do you base this on?

Experience.