Saturday, December 28, 2013

What Is the Purpose of the University?

In my last post I was criticizing the institution of tenure but pulled my punches at the end by saying that you cannot determine whether or not tenure serves the purpose of the university until you determine exactly what the purpose of the university actually is  So, what is the purpose  of the university? One would think that the answer to this question would be clear. Yet, it is anything but clear.

Here are some possibilities. Is the purpose of the university to provide education? Is its purpose to do research? Is the purpose to socialize young people? It the real goal to provide a coming of age ritual? Perhaps the purpose is to provide marketable job skills to support the economy. Is it all of these things.or some subset? Well, the answer is that we don't know and different people have very different perspectives on this.

If we go back to the beginning of the university concept back in the 12th century, we see the the first universities were created on the guild model. In one of the original universities, the faculty were the guild and their product was education. In the other major university of the time, the students formed a guild and selected faculty to provide them with education. The later did not survive. So, we can think of the origins of the university as an education guild whose purpose was to provide a product (education) and limit entry into the guild by granting degrees.

As time progressed the product became increasingly more popular and education became the mark of the upper class educated person much like clothing, jewelry or servants. This model of education continued through the founding of the United States where it was believed that education should not be limited to aristocrats. After all, if you were going to let everyone vote, they should be educated enough to vote wisely.

But, even this noble sentiment did not hold for long. By the end of the 19th century, American Universities were under going a major shift away from what we refer to today as Medieval Scholasticism to a curriculum based on math and science. This scandalized many who felt that the University was being pulled away from its lofty responsibilities and restructured to provide job skills for the masses.

It wasn't until the very end of the 19th century that anyone considered having faculty do research. Again, many were scandalized by the thought of pulling faculty away teaching and having them do research instead. Today we see research as a major part of the university but even this comes into question. For example, in Isaac Newton's day, nearly all of what we would consider scientific research today was being done outside of the university. Today, most research in technological fields is done outside the university as well. Although there are certainly examples of good research being done in universities, it is probably also true that the vast majority of university research has more to do with tenure and promotion than it does with advancing knowledge.

So, what have we left to consider? Oh yes, socialization. An argument can be made that the college experience is just a modern example of a coming of age ritual. Given the number of people who go to college and leave with more debt than education, one has to wonder what they are getting if it is not education. Maybe they are getting socialized into the tribe (some would say the tribe of humanism, but I am not going to go there). 

I apologize for having gone on this long, and still not clarified the purpose of the university. But, the point is that you cannot. And until we can, any prospects for evaluating the tenure system or improving our education system look bleak. After all, if you don't know what you are trying to do, it is very difficult to get better at it.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Tenure



I am feeling a bit cynical these days. Being an academic has simply failed to live up to my expectation. I really should move on. But, academia has a tradition called tenure that encourages faculty to not move on. Instead it encourages you to stay stuck in the mud becoming increasingly cynical and alienated as time goes by. OK, maybe I overstated that a bit. But, as I said, I'm feeling a little cynical.

Presumably the august tradition of tenure protects intellectual curiosity. It allows the development of bold new ideas. And, if that were the case, then it probably would be a good idea. But, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality tenure protects both mediocre people and mediocre thinking. Which is to say that it is one of those good ideas that doesn't really work out very well in practice.

Consider the plight of a new PhD coming into the academy full of ground breaking new ideas. For their first six or seven years as an academic they will be on what we call 'the tenure track'. During this time they will have to convince their senior colleagues that they are worthy of life time employment in their prestigious institution. Do they do this by showing their senior colleagues that they are irrelevant? Do they do this by attracting attention with bold new ideas that rub everyone the wrong way? No. They do it by showing how they can conform to the standards of the day. 

Senior academics often tell their junior colleagues to tow the line until they get tenure. And once they are tenured they can begin a new spree of free thinking. But, think about this. After five to seven years in a doctoral program and seven more on a tenure track, does anyone have any creative ideas left? Or has the process squeezed all their originality out of them? Overwhelmingly, the later occurs. 

Does anyone ever make novel contributions after tenure? Of course they do. But they are in the extreme minority. And it is those few, and I mean very few, that are used to justify the systemic mediocrity of everyone else.

Would it be better without tenure? Unfortunately things are never that simple.In order to evaluate alternatives to tenure, we would have to examine them in terms of the purpose of the university. In order to do that we would have to understand the purpose of the university. We would have to know exactly what it is that universities are supposed to do. And that is another hornets nest entirely. I will pick that up in the next post.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

What Gives You the Right to Be Taken Seriously?



There are many reasons why you might want to dismiss what somebody has to say. Some are obvious. They might be biased. Or they may clearly have an agenda. Maybe they are just repeating talking points or propaganda.  This is often true of someone who is trying to sell you something whether it is a product or an idea. Sadly, cable news programs seem to be falling into this category more and more these days. To be fair, I should point out that these programs often fall under the category of entertainment rather than news. But, this is hard to detect by simply watching the programs.

Some are less obvious. They might make claims without providing evidence. Or the evidence may be selected to support their view. Anyone who starts with a point of view and looks for evidence is suspect. One should start with evidence and look for an explanation or interpretation. Some people just don’t check their facts or take facts from questionable sources.

Even less obvious problems arise when the issue is stated so vaguely that all the fact checking in the world could not resolve it. For example if someone claims universal health care is good for the country you can pretty much ignore the claim. Almost everyone will have a different idea of what the words “universal”, “healthcare” and “good” means. So, anyone who makes vague claims should be ignored as well.

And anyone who is 100% positive that they are on the right side of an issue should be ignored as well. Any issue worth discussing is too complicated for one to have as simple of an opinion as agreeing with it wholeheartedly.

Next time you encounter someone spewing forth rhetoric of any kind, ask them what the other side of the argument is and how they came to their conclusions. If they fail on either count simply dismiss them as a fool and move on.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

What Gives You a Right to an Opinion?

In last week's post, I repeated something I used to tell students in my ethics class and that is "If you can only argue one side of an argument then you have no right to an opinion." This week I was going to expand on the issue of what gives you a right to an opinion and the piece I was writing started to get really complicated. So, I had to put it aside and will pick it up later.

The right to an opinion is not the same as the right to free speech. I absolutely support one's right to free speech. Within the normal restrictions that we apply to free speech, I think everyone has a right to free speech no matter how nutty they may appear.

The right to an opinion, as I am using the phrase here, is the right to be taken seriously by other people for the things you say and to have them consider  your perspectives and they sort out their opinions. So, when I say that you do not have the right to an opinion, I am really saying that you have not earned the right to be taken seriously for your unconsidered opinions by others who are developing considered opinion.

I will follow up further on this idea in subsequent posts.


Saturday, October 19, 2013

Two Sides of an Issue



I used to teach a class in the ethics of technology. One of the biggest challenges in teaching ethics is convincing students that ethics in particular and morality in general is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of competing interests. So, while many people see the goal in ethics as being able to convince somebody else of your opinion, it is not. The goal is see other people’s opinions as well and then come to a balanced and reasoned conclusion. “When you make an ethical decision,” I would tell them, “and you feel good about it, you probably didn’t fully understand the decision.” In every ethical decision there are winners and losers. And every ethical decision involves picking the winners and snubbing the losers. I will come back to this idea later. But, for now, I wish to return to the idea of ethics as multiple competing perspectives.

I would tell students, who were quite often very convinced of their ethical positions along with all the supporting talking points, “If you cannot argue at least two sides to an argument, then you have no right to an opinion.” The reason for this is that if you cannot argue at least two sides of an issue you just repeating what somebody else said and don’t really have an opinion. I will take up this issue again in a future post.

Nonetheless, considered opinions require you to evaluate all sides of an issue and come to a conclusion. If you cannot offer even the most rudimentary arguments from opposing sides then clearly you haven’t considered them. And if you haven’t considered them, then you really don’t have an opinion. You are just parroting something that somebody else said.   

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Are True Believers the Worst Enemies of Their Own Ideas?



There is nothing so destructive to a good idea as people who accept it without question. Democracy is not without its flaws. Individual liberties must have limits. Individual responsibility must be balanced with community responsibility. And even the Golden Rule has some non-symmetric complexities.

I have chosen some fairly benign example because if I raise any of the more vexing issues of our day people have a tendency to think “oh, he is one of ‘those’” meaning I am among the uninformed who have come down on the wrong side of an issue. Sometimes people will say “the wrong side of history” to strengthen their claim with future perspectives that they are certain will come down on their side. 

An example is in order. Back in the early 1990’s I attended a conference in which protecting individual privacy was a major issue. There was a panel discussion on this issue where everybody was on the same side. “We must do all we can to protect individual privacy” was the subtext of every discussant.  I turned to some people around me and asked “what is the other side of the issue”. I got blank looks, shrugs, and some looks of disdain. There was no other side to the issue and suggesting there may be, for some, bordered on blasphemy.  

But, there are always at least two sides to an issue. And our personal privacy has suffered severely for failing to recognize that.  Most websites, for example, provide us with token privacy options which we give away for the web equivalent of shiny baubles. In other cases important policy decisions cannot be made due to a lack of data – data that has been protected by personal privacy. Had we had a serious discussion of privacy we may have more nuanced and useful public policy with regard to privacy. But, that did not happen because the advocated of personal privacy saw anyone who did not agree with them as one of the uninformed who came down on the wrong side of the issue. There is nothing so destructive to a good idea (protecting personal privacy) as people who accept it without question (“We must do all we can to protect individual privacy”).

I mention this because I may pull the tail on one of your sacred cows in this blog. I may have already done so. But, if I do, please don’t relegate me to the dust bin of “one of those”. I ask questions because no idea is perfect. And by asking questions maybe we can improve them.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

I'm Back



I’m Back! Being blessed or cursed (depending on your perspective) with a short attention span I have a habit of starting things, getting excited and energized, losing interest, forgetting about them, finding them again, and getting excited and energized again.  I know this drives people crazy. And I am among the people driven crazy by it. But, there isn’t a great deal I can do about it. So, I live with it.

My blogs are not the only victims of this behavior. I have several unfinished books, both fiction and nonfiction on my website. In fact, I have several promising but unfinished books free for download on my website. Every now and then I get an email from somebody who has stumbled onto one of the treasures encouraging me to finish it and get it published. I feel a pang of guilt whenever that happens. But, the guilt is not enough to motivate me to work on something that I don’t happen to be interested in at the moment.

Nonetheless, I will be picking up this blog again, explaining why play is the answer to everything, and coming up with as many other whacky ideas as I can in an attempt to hold your interest.

I also started a new blog in an area that I am currently interested in. It is PatternsandPredictions. Have a look if you feel so inclined. Quite unrelated to this effort I happened to notice the stats for this Ranting blog. There have been over 11,000 views. I was astounded. I realize that in the world of blogging this is chump change. But, in my world of expectations, I would have been happy with a few hundred views. So I am bowled over with 11,000. I am also energized again and plan to start contributing to this blog again on a fairly regular basis.