Comments on: The “function” of universities

By: j jenson

j jenson — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:30:15 +0000

I am clearly outclassed here, intellectually speaking. I was under the delusion that a “data point” was precisely the point in question; i.e. is what Feser wrote stupid, or not? (I also suffer under the delusion that those in the “profession” are interested in the answers to questions posed, not in avoiding arguments. Silly, silly.)

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:25:33 +0000

gmt, I apologize for not defining what I was referring to. I am not relating any of my definitions to politics or politicians. I totally agree with what you had to say about that. I was referring to economic and philisophical theory taught in colleges versus what is more widely accepted in the business world. That has nothing to do with democrat and republican. It has everything to do with free market and socialism. Granted there is a mix out there, but the attitude of many students out of college is very anti-capitalist untill they try to apply it. Then it tends to change to be more anti-socialist. Few people firmly believe in one or the other as a pure system, unless they are in a condition in which they are insulated from the need to actually apply their beliefs.

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:32:07 +0000

Yes, emphatic reiteration does not constitute and argument. You’ll note that that’s not what I was doing, I was pointing out the obvious. That’s a data point, not an argument. Overlooking inconvenient data points also doesn’t help one construct arguments. Claiming that others are “in denial” is also not an argument. But I am beginning to see why you might consider Feser credible. In case you are having difficulty, I was responding to this non sequitur: [if some] are so quick and vicious in responding to them, then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke? I provided another possible explanation for all the smoke, see? Then you … well, what is it that you’ve contributed, exactly?

By: bill carone

bill carone — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:57:24 +0000

Ophelia, “[Movies are] nice and ‘private.’ Does no one ever complain about [them]?” If you are only objecting that there would still be some complaints, then I agree. My argument is only that there would be less complaining and dissatisfaction; no system would work perfectly. “Are there no quality issues?” Well, there’s quality and then there’s quality; I was just talking about quality as “consumer satisfaction.” I think that most movies are dismal; however, the ones I choose to see are quite good overall. Same goes for books and magazines (and blogs). If half of the private schools taught creationism and the other half taught evolution, there might be no complaints from the consumers, but I would not hesitate to call it a “low-quality” state of affairs in education. I would guess that “I’m being forced to pay for something I don’t like” causes more dissatisfaction than “Other people are choosing to pay for something I don’t like.” “Is the for-profit sector always as easy to move around in, to vote with one’s feet or wallet in, to exercise one’s ‘choice’ in, as you portray it? I don’t think so” I think it is easier than the government alternative in the education example. Why do you think otherwise?

By: j jenson

j jenson — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:16:26 +0000

“Yes, what Feser said was patently stupid. It was also an assault on our entire profession. Get it, now?” Huh? (Emphatic reiteration does not comprise an argument.) Also, I made no assumption. I posed a question for which there might be a range of answers – including the answer that Berube, yourself, and others, are in denial. Why is that not possible? Do you deny it? N.b. I also happen to be in the “profession.”

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:33:43 +0000

then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke? In what field could get away with making that kind of unwarranted assumption? Yes, what Feser said was patently stupid. It was also an assault on our entire profession. Get it, now? Oh, and I admit, I have a strong, visceral reaction to stupidity, which I guess is why I’m in education.

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:28:01 +0000

you do indeed have to make concession to everyone involved. Huh? If I don’t teach something that is true because my customers don’t want to hear it, what kind of product are they getting? Isn’t this the sort of thing to which conservatives objected when the “concessions” were to people of color vs the canon? I won’t dumb my curriculum down for Afrocentrists and I won’t dumb it down for the right, either. That’s my responsibility and my professional self-respect, and all the Adam Smith fairy tales in the blogsphere cannot change that. This is why economic models don’t work for everything. Remember the storm over “community standards” in the teaching of US history? The customer isn’t entitled to what they want, because they aren’t a customer. The teacher is more like a consultant. Would you apply this same “reasoning” to personal trainers?!? “Why, no, if you want to eat doughnuts all day, by all means. And when you get fat, just sue me for malpractice!” If this is how you approach the “real world,” I’m surprised you can cross the street in safety. A multi-ton bus doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what you want, it will run you over. Ah, the childish epistemology of the free-market fundamentalist!

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:20:17 +0000

If your primary view does not work in the “real world” and people are clammoring for the teaching of one that does, what then? Well, I don’t have that problem, so I wouldn’t know. You’ve made some rather broad generalizations, so much so that I’m not sure what you mean by “liberal,” “conservative,” or what “works,” or even that you have any idea what it is that academics actually do, aside from what certain pundits CLAIM that we do. You have not estabished this allegedly non-functional “primary view.” Stereotypes are not the same thing as samples. So, I’ll define my terms. As it stands now, politicians who call themselves “conservatives” are preaching traditional liberalism. If that’s confusing, look up the word “liberalism” in a dictionary, or consult a history of political economy for the 19c. In the process, any disagreement with “conservative” (i.e., liberal) economics is dismissed as “liberal,” which boggles the mind! What conservatices actually do, if we look at the policies of, say, the last five GOP presidents in US, or the difference between conservative government in the US and Germany (and West Germany) since 1945, is another thing. Even Laffer himself admits there was no clear supply-side effect in 1982, so while even the battle lines are blurry, in your own terms, there is furthermore no victory. Every developed nation has a mixture of “free-market,” meaning a market free of govt.. influence but not that of the behemoths of the marketplace, and govt. policies. The absolutes of American polemics are nowhere evident in this “real world” of yours, just as the borrowed rhetoric of liberalism is nowhere evident in the actual policies of conservatives who have borrowed it.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:11:56 +0000

Right. Well think of broadcasting for example (US version). Or the entertainment business – movies in particular. Or publishing. They’re all nice and ‘private.’ Does no one ever complain about any of them? Are there no quality issues? Is the for-profit sector always as easy to move around in, to vote with one’s feet or wallet in, to exercise one’s ‘choice’ in, as you portray it? I don’t think so.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:55:19 +0000

Why suppose that this is self-immolation on Feser’s part? Leiter publishes a blog that would destroy most anyone’s reputation, but he manages just fine. Chris’s response, so far as I understand it, is to agree with Feser that university education leads students to liberalism, but to disagree as to whether that’s good or not. I think that concedes almost everything to Feser, on this particular topic.

By: j jenson

j jenson — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 04:43:26 +0000

I’ve read several of the critiques addressing these Feser articles (as well as the articles, themselves). The striking thing about all of the critiques is that they are so clearly anxious to refute what they CLAIM is crack-pot non-sense. My point? If professors like Feser feel compelled to write about these things, and if people like Berube, et al., are so quick and vicious in responding to them, then doesn’t it seem plausible that there’s actually some fire amidst all this smoke? Speaking hypothetically, would the nay-sayers feel as compelled to refute a professor who thought he was abducted by aliens? Maybe they would have a laugh, but would they appear as paranoid about refuting the veracity of alien abductions as they do in this case? I think not. It seems obvious that there’s a good chance that Berube and crew feel threatened on some level. But why? Is it because there’s a good deal of truth in Feser’s analysis? In my own experience, Feser’s analysis is right on the mark – it could stand improvement by way of nuance, but the core of his analysis is a bull’s-eye. Plus, I’ve seen these very same defensive/derisive postures, which Berube et al. assume, assumed in my own classes by professors keen to deny the same sort of accusations. Elephant? What white elephant?

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:49:06 +0000

That, Bill, is precisely what I was saying. My terminology was a bit exagerated perhaps, I am sure there would still be people that protest the actions or teachings of a said school and attempt to bring government control to the school because they think the teachings are inherently dangerous to society. However, on the whole, individual families, rather than complaining, would simply move their children to a different school. The complaints would dwindle down to those that believe in an authoritarian government that has the right to run the lives of others with whom they disagree.

By: bill carone

bill carone — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:48:10 +0000

““Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish.” Ohhhhhhhh no they won’t. What on earth gave you that idea?” I’ll bite. If all schools were private, then if a school teaches nonsense, I can simply enroll elsewhere. I might try to get the school to change its curriculum, but I certainly wouldn’t spend too much effort on it, since there would be a “better” school down the street. In a public school system, it costs more to change to a “better” school, so you would expect people to spend more effort trying to change the school they’re in. I would think, then, that complaints about curriculum would decrease if all schools were private.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:08:17 +0000

“Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish.” Ohhhhhhhh no they won’t. What on earth gave you that idea?

By: limberwulf

limberwulf — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:03:41 +0000

gmt, agree on the idea that complaining about not being heard often means your point is weak, or that you are not in a position to put your point forward in a rational manner. Agree also that intellectuals need not carve out a spot for contrarian vies, however, my question is this. If your primary view does not work in the “real world” and people are clammoring for the teaching of one that does, what then? Is that not like the universities teaching the earth is flat and resisting the teaching that it is indeed a slightly pear-shaped sphere? Liberal versus conservative concepts as they relate to economics are not so cut and dried as the shape of the earth, to say that they are demonstrates an arrogance of belief in unfounded truth that approaches that of religion. If you do not understand why conservatism works, perhaps you should study it, rather than trying to teach an alternative. It is unlikely that I will find a superior engine if I have no clue how current engine technology functions. Not impossible, mind you, but certainly unlikely. Bottom line is, your school, your teachers. You arent required to teach anything other than what you believe to be true in a school you own. But you do not own the schools. In most cases there is “public” ownership, and the arguments in a publicly owned and funded organization that you do indeed have to make concession to everyone involved. Take away public funding and you will find that the complaints about who is teaching and what they are saying will vanish. But then, thats not a very left-wing concept is it?