Dawkins evolves

solar bud

alternative NRG
Messages
11,854
Reaction score
414
Location
them there hills
http://m.guardian.co.uk/education/2...-grayling-ferguson?cat=education&type=article

University lecturers and students reacted with dismay on Sunday after a group of leading British academics took a step towards the establishment of an elite US-style university system in the UK by launching a new private college offering £18,000-a-year courses.
AC Grayling, a professor of philosophy at the universities of London and Oxford, will welcome next year the first students to the New College of the Humanities to study for degrees in English, philosophy, history, economics and law taught by academics from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge.
There is a starry lineup of professorial talent: Richard Dawkins will teach evolutionary biology and science literacy; Niall Ferguson will lecture on economics and economic history; and Steven Pinker will teach philosophy and psychology.
Inspired in part by the business model of American Ivy League universities where $40,000 (£24,000) annual fees are not unusual, New College will cost double the maximum tuition fee allowed in government-funded universities. It is set up to deliver a profit to its shareholders who include the professors and a team of wealthy businessmen who have bankrolled the plan.
"At £18,000 a go, it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance," said Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers' association, the University and Colleges Union.
"The launch of this college highlights the government's failure to protect art and humanities and is further proof that its university funding plans will entrench inequality within higher education."
Grayling said the decision to set up New College came after the government cut subsidies to humanities and social science subjects and introduced increased competition by allowing universities to charge annual tuition fees of up to £9,000.
He admitted the business model might seem unusual for a group of professors who are, for the most part, "pink around the gills and a little bit left of centre", but he said government cuts meant going private was the only way to provide a high-quality humanities education and he predicted more universities would go private.
"It is the economic reality," he said. "The £9,000 cap is completely unsustainable. The true cost is way more and that ceiling is going to have to be burst. Other universities might also think 'either we sink or go independent'. Almost all of [the professors signed up] have served our time with decades in public sector higher education and we have seen it get more and more difficult. It is quite a struggle now to see into the future with how we can cope with these cuts. Either you stand on the sidelines deploring what is happening or you jump in and do something about it."
Other teachers signed up include Sir David Cannadine, a history lecturer at Princeton; Ronald Dworkin QC, a leading constitutional lawyer teaching at University College London and New York University; and Steve Jones, a leading geneticist. Lawrence Krauss, professor of earth and space exploration and physics at Arizona state university, who has advised Barack Obama on science policy, will teach cosmology.
The college sets out to "inspire the next generation of lawyers, journalists, financiers, politicians, civil servants, writers and teachers" and every student must take extra classes in ethics, science, literacy and logic and critical thinking as well as a course in practical professional skills.
Scholarships will be granted to one in five of the first 200 students. An endowment fund is being established to try to increase that ratio to one in three.
Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the move showed that "an education in humanities from some of the leading thinkers in the world will be restricted to the richest" and that academics would be removed from the public system.
"This institution has been created as a reaction to the government's swingeing cuts to higher education funding that have seen all teaching funding removed from many humanities subjects," he said. "If the government does not hit the brakes on this rushed reform and reverse the cuts to funding, the UK's currently world-leading public universities will be irreparably damaged."
Gareth Thomas, Labour's universities spokesman, commended Grayling for his initiative, but added: "It is a sad reflection of the scale of government cuts in higher education that it is taking a private initiative to drive new investment in arts, humanities and social sciences courses.
"When independent experts are warning that 80% cuts in funding are likely to lead to large numbers of humanities courses being axed I worry that high fees will deter many of the brightest and best from studying those arts, English and humanities courses that remain."
The college aims to attract candidates with at least three A grades at A-level with the promise of more direct teaching than at traditional universities. The student-teacher ratio will be better than 10 to one and there will be 12 to 13 hours' contact with teachers each week.
Graduates will come away with a degree from the University of London and a separate diploma from the college to reflect the additional course that includes practical professional skills such as financial literacy, teamwork, presentation and strategy.
One of the backers is Charles Watson, chairman of the City PR firm Financial Dynamics. He said: "Higher education in the UK must evolve if it is to offer the best quality experience for students and safeguard our future economic and intellectual wealth. New College offers a different model – one that brings additional, private sector funding into higher education in the humanities when it is most needed, and combines scholarships and tuition fees."
Grayling said the organisation had raised "a very significant" amount of money, thought to be more than £5m, to fund the college .
One third is owned by Grayling and the 13 other founding professors, while shares are also owned by a group of wealthy businessmen. They include Jeremy Gibbs, former chief executive of specialist venture capital consultancy, Matthew Batstone, former marketing chief of the Economist Group and a trustee at Bedales, a £30,000-a-year boarding school, and Roy Brown, the founder of Metier Management Systems which pioneered computer project management systems in the 1970s and 1980s.
 
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201106116005873

"Our ambition is to prepare gifted young people for high-level careers and rich and satisfying lives," he added.

Well, there we go, the selfish gene, survival of the richest. It's not ok to segregate children according to their parents' religion but when a business opportunity presents itself it's perfectly ok to segregate kids according to their parents' wealth.

How many people do you know who could afford £18k per annum to send their child to university? That's a living wage for a big chunk of the population.

Just confirms what I've always thought of the man, a complete tosser.
 
When Dawkins writes about such interesting topics he really does his best boring me to death.

The Selfish Gene: should have been good.
 
He's just the atheist pope isn't he, same old hierarchy, same old money and power motivation.

Move along, nothing to see here I'm afraid.
 
There's nothing wrong with making good cash out of what you dedicated all your life to build. Fair play to Dawkins.

Geniuses are not necessarily good teachers however. Not that Dawkins is a genius or anything though, but 18K does not guarantee a stellar education to those who can afford it, only an expensive education.
 
I think the superstars are just lecturing, the actual teaching will be done by their lesser minions.

I read this article first with my humanities academic hat on, and was feeling a little positive about it, thinking it sounds like they're offering a great course (well apart from the business management side), then looked back at what I'd just read and thought "What a load of bastards".
Playing right into the tories' hands.
 
Dunno really, I certainly wouldn't say it's all his fault, I'm more surprised at Grayling to be honest, what with his study of ethics and self-confessed 'left-leanings', but neither of them are solely responsible.
From the academic point of view it makes sense at first, cuts to humanities courses make this seem like the only way to keep the high-level learning/teaching going, but as mentioned this is not going to be some uber-elite brain academy, but an uber-elite money academy.
Who could afford 18k a year (plus living expenses) out of pocket? I mean I work full-time and that's more than I earn, no way you're paying that with a summer job. So the only option is £54k of debt (plus living expenses), or (and let's face it the only likely option) seriously rich parents.

I suppose they may draw some mature students with money saved, and maybe that's the future of higher education.
 
i understand that its alot of money, but then this thread seems to be blaiming dawkins for the whole thing, which whiffs of a religious agenda to me.....

the lecturers involved have worked their asses off to get were they are today,and think its arrogant to assume they should lecture for pennies.You cant get much better than dawkins in evolutionary biology (imo) field. But you could get a very good course in biology at a different uni, for less money than that......but if you do have enough money to do these top drawer courses, then good luck to you i say
 
But it creates an (even more defined and entrenched) inherited heirarchy of people with a top drawer education and 'an edge in the job market' as the practical aspects of the course are geared towards, AND draws all that money out of the mainstream education sector where it could benefit up-and-coming academics and intelligent people who don't have the family financial cushion to access this sort of establishment.
 
of course its not perfect dood, im not denying that....but thats the way uni courses are going, and smashing up london didnt help to change that, so we are stuck with it.......maybe if we all vote labour next time we can reverse the decision? :Wink3:
 
I'm not blaming Dawkins at all for it, after all it's just a gravy train which he has a ticket for, not one he has set up himself.

I suppose I just find it ironic that someone who is so outspoken about discrimination and prejudice in one area can quite happily cash in on it in another. True colours and all that.
 
Would now be a good time to point out the fees 'are only ' £18k a year.
Eton charge £29k and have charitable status. Now thats a piss take.
It costs £50,800 per year to send someone to a Young Offenders Institution, £164,750 to send a child to a Secure Training Centre and £185,780 to place a child in a Local Authority Secure Children's Home.
Dont know how the rest of you view this but it has to be said Dawkins is actually offering value for money,
 
Cool, we can send all the 'problem' kids to New College to learn humanities instead, save ourselves a fortune in tax. I'm surprised George Osborne hasn't thought of that one.
 
It would make an interesting scenario for one of these "swapping lives" type TV programmes. You never know, the results might be surprising.

Now if Dawkins could demonstrate the power of his approach in such a situation, I would gladly take it all back. As you say though, can't see it happening really.
 
This is the whole deal for me.
Statistically there will be more poor/disaffected kids who are actually clever not being given a chance to discover those talents versus kids from a wealthy/privileged background that aren't that bright who are in effect wasting a quality education.
To be both effective and fair any 'system' should be able to identify those bright ones, be they poor or wealthy and ensure they receive a quality experience. Of course those that aren't so bright and that can afford it should be allowed to pay a market rate for the same experience. If a system is based on merit then those missing out weren't the clever ones and despite the inherent prejudice in my proposal at least those that can benefit (and in this case benefit should be taken to apply to the individual and society as a whole) would actually benefit from what is being shown to be a substantial investment not only of time but increasingly of money.
So by my reasoning fundamentally there is nothing wrong with £18k fees as long as people that cant afford to be taught something that can be beneficial to society are receiving that education.
 
Totally agree with that.

But this new venture seems more of a response to exploit a gap in the market created by public sector cuts than simply an attempt to set up a high quality institution.

If the mission statement had its emphasis on "knowledge for the betterment of humanity" and a merit-based admission system without a token set "quota of poor kids", then I might have been in favour. But as it is, it simply looks like an investment so rich families can get their kids into the top social stratum in-crowd of high earners, and maybe welcome in a few poor brainy types who can be similarly useful to the system. And whilst I am not against the latter per se, it does smack a bit of "we invested in you, took you from rags to riches, you owe it to us to scratch our back too"

Maybe I am just a miserable old cynic, but I just can't help thinking this is more about social elitism than intellectual elitism.
 
Back
Top