Monday, December 20, 2010
Rendering unto the taxpayer
What is funded by the taxpayer should be available on an open access
basis to the taxpayer. So the current practice, whereby academics are
paid salaries and then large tranches of research funding only to
conceal the research from their paymaster in very expensive journals,
must be stopped. Let us not forget that Robert Maxwell got his start in
one such publisher, Pergamon Press. Typically the profit margin of
journal publishes, like Elsevier, is over 30% of gross sales.
The current nonsense whereby academics are rated almost exclusively by their performance wrt these scams versus teaching, writing books and so on also needs to be curtailed. There is a simple solution, repeatedly proposed here; insist that all reviews of journal articles, preferably with their authors' names attached, be available for critique on the web.
The country has gone broke partly because the public services are inefficient; in fact it is possible that the reason that the middle classes in the public service did not properly protest the obscene bank bail-out is because many of them realize they are grossly overpaid. There is not a single public servant in the country worth over 100k a year, nor a single university employee worth over 80k. If they were, they would be earning more in the private sector
On a more general level, we are now over-producing PhDs as the labs set up by these funds have an insatiable need for very bright students – and then postdocs – to do very limited experiments within a conventional scientific paradigm set in place by people a generation or two older and less wise than them. Students should be encouraged to do PhDs which require that the intellectual thrust be entirely their own invention. Then the lack of tenured jobs, and the prospect of a decade postdoccing can be pre-empted by encouraging the graduates to go into industry or indeed use the web’s resources to set up their own academies and research institutions.
There is another set of simple solutions;
1. Stop trying to replicate something like the NSF/DARPA/NIH in a country as small as Ireland. Billions can be saved by eschewing hackneyed topics like immunology, in which Ireland will never beat the US/UK, and simply use the open-source material available.
2. Where public funds might be useful is concentration on areas in which there is some Irish intellectual tradition. The fact that Bell, Hamilton, and Schroedinger all had strong Irish links suggests that work on quantum coherent states in biological systems, and - to take an applied science – quantum computing may be salutary
3. The universities themselves should charge fees to those able to pay in areas where technical training takes place, like engineering and medicine.
4. Salaries at the universities should be cut drastically. To take another sector in society as an example, the arts, there is absolutely no reason that the state furnishes academics, and not artists, with both a salary and an audience.
5. Cutting-edge courses at private colleges, like cognitive science, should be accredited by the state and - if time shows they have legs, as happened in computer science – eventually those running them should be invited to become part of a state university
6. The alternative is to abolish accreditation altogether, and allow both public and private colleges put their wares on display on the internet with broadcasted lectures and indeed access to exam material for employers who wish to assess the level of achievement.
7. Tenure is above all a social contract whereby the scholar sacrifices some autonomy – in that teaching will require much time – in exchange for job security. To abolish tenure is paradoxically dangerous to the state, and manifests a government’s contempt toward learning. The state is finding that out, slowly and painfully.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 20u Nollag 2010
PS Happy solstice!
The current nonsense whereby academics are rated almost exclusively by their performance wrt these scams versus teaching, writing books and so on also needs to be curtailed. There is a simple solution, repeatedly proposed here; insist that all reviews of journal articles, preferably with their authors' names attached, be available for critique on the web.
The country has gone broke partly because the public services are inefficient; in fact it is possible that the reason that the middle classes in the public service did not properly protest the obscene bank bail-out is because many of them realize they are grossly overpaid. There is not a single public servant in the country worth over 100k a year, nor a single university employee worth over 80k. If they were, they would be earning more in the private sector
On a more general level, we are now over-producing PhDs as the labs set up by these funds have an insatiable need for very bright students – and then postdocs – to do very limited experiments within a conventional scientific paradigm set in place by people a generation or two older and less wise than them. Students should be encouraged to do PhDs which require that the intellectual thrust be entirely their own invention. Then the lack of tenured jobs, and the prospect of a decade postdoccing can be pre-empted by encouraging the graduates to go into industry or indeed use the web’s resources to set up their own academies and research institutions.
There is another set of simple solutions;
1. Stop trying to replicate something like the NSF/DARPA/NIH in a country as small as Ireland. Billions can be saved by eschewing hackneyed topics like immunology, in which Ireland will never beat the US/UK, and simply use the open-source material available.
2. Where public funds might be useful is concentration on areas in which there is some Irish intellectual tradition. The fact that Bell, Hamilton, and Schroedinger all had strong Irish links suggests that work on quantum coherent states in biological systems, and - to take an applied science – quantum computing may be salutary
3. The universities themselves should charge fees to those able to pay in areas where technical training takes place, like engineering and medicine.
4. Salaries at the universities should be cut drastically. To take another sector in society as an example, the arts, there is absolutely no reason that the state furnishes academics, and not artists, with both a salary and an audience.
5. Cutting-edge courses at private colleges, like cognitive science, should be accredited by the state and - if time shows they have legs, as happened in computer science – eventually those running them should be invited to become part of a state university
6. The alternative is to abolish accreditation altogether, and allow both public and private colleges put their wares on display on the internet with broadcasted lectures and indeed access to exam material for employers who wish to assess the level of achievement.
7. Tenure is above all a social contract whereby the scholar sacrifices some autonomy – in that teaching will require much time – in exchange for job security. To abolish tenure is paradoxically dangerous to the state, and manifests a government’s contempt toward learning. The state is finding that out, slowly and painfully.
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 20u Nollag 2010
PS Happy solstice!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Toward a new type of university
So far, so good. Problems arise when outside entities like the state begin to mediate the student-teacher relationship in some way. For example, the state may set up its own universities and indeed establish administrative structures that ultimately gain power over the community of scholars. That has happened even in bastions of liberal education like the University of California, where the politically-appointed board of regents, most of whom are not academics, have the power to set the content of syllabi, as well as the financial functions most associated with administration – and which have most impact on the process of learning. In one notorious incident, the regents rescinded academic credit for one course of lectures. Finally on this point, there are very few real “private” universities even in the USA – MIT and Stanford, to cite but two, are massively subsidized by the government, directly through research monies and indirectly through student loans and grants.
So, too, the private for -profit colleges are creatures of the state; they could not survive a year without state-issued student loans. Typically, these colleges have an advertising budget greater than their teaching budget; in fact, a multiple thereof. Once they get students on the hook, with loans that have to be repaid even after a declaration of personal bankruptcy, the education isnotoriously slipshod. Finally, public universities have attacked the concept of academic freedom through various ruses, the final step in the domestication and elimination of scholars in the society. Britain abolished tenure; Ireland has rescinded basic rights of staff and students alike at universities, including the right not to be bribed and intimidated, and repeatedly Ministers (including an Education minister) in Parliament have confirmed this abnegation of rights.
Elsewhere I have written about the elision of truth, and over-specialization of scholarship with its negative consequences for students and increasingly micro-knowing faculty in research universities. There is also a huge bill for the taxpayer, and it is likely that he does not get value for money. The management of research projects implicit in the modern notion of the research university has been critiques by the Nobel laureate Ahmed Hassan Zewail in late 2010, who argues it stymies research. The for-profit private model is similarly unacceptable.
The model proposed here uses the web to get rid of all the state-created administration and re-introduces direct contact between student and teacher. It acknowledges the massive role played by students, who are often at their intellectual peak, in the perpetuation of learning by repeatedly asking for their counsel and feedback, as well as encouraging their interaction with each other. It eschews both the hard sell of the for-profit privates and the state subsidy of the public universities.
The lack of funding is not a fatal blow. 99.99% of knowledge is but a click away; that salted away in expensive inaccessible journals often tends to be specious. In fact, the first course proposed here, is precisely a multi-disciplinary guide to cutting-edge science. Likewise, courses which have had their political neutrality eroded by the state, like Irish studies, are ideal for this model. Finally, courses which fall prey to turf wars with a consequent stasis in the discipline and its teaching, like Cognitive Science, are likely to be the revenue generator and attract funding by tech companies who want better-trained graduates. I have taught on the Cognitive Science program at Stanford(called symbolic systems) and have been invited to teach on the equally conceptually disorganized one at UC Berkeley.
This model, incarnate in the University of Ireland, sees itself in competition neither with the for-profits nor the state universities; it carves out its own niche. It also is a salutary return to the community of scholars model from which corporate pressure is diverting the state universities. It is clear that the Irish state is hell-bent on abolishing the national University of Ireland, and only a change of government in 2010 would have stopped it; therefore, it is with mixed feelings that I now irrevocably announce this project, which at least is Irish-owned and run;
U of I, now enrolling
Seán Ó Nualláin Ph.D 8u Nollag 2010
PS It is time to establish that universities indeed have been allowed outside the framework of the Irish constitution, often by allowing criminal behaviour by management, and this latitude has had the support of our outgoing government.
Perhaps, in the wake of the minister of education in question since announcing (to joyous acclaim) his retirement from politics, it is as well to recap his greatest hits.
He continued to state in answer to questions from numerous members of parliament including Joe Higgins and Paul Gogarty
“As the Deputy is aware, the Universities Act, 1997 confers autonomous statutory responsibilities on universities in relation to the day-to-day management of their affairs. “
Her are some of the questions;
193. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if the autonomous responsibilities delegated to universities under the Universities Act 1997 means they can effectively obey the laws of the land when it suits them. [14004/03]
194. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the fact that SIPTU has called a vote of no confidence in the human resources department at DCU; and if his Department intends to monitor the ongoing breakdown in staff relations and disputes over non-compliance with the Universities Act 1997. [14005/03]
195. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he refuses to intervene in documented cases of intimidation and bribery of students, financial irregularities and an unfair dismissal as upheld by a rights commissioner, when it is obvious that DCU management's undertakings to engage with these serious issues have not been carried out. [14006/03]
196. Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to a case (details supplied); if there is action he can take in such cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14007/03]
Minister for Education and Science (Mr. N. Dempsey): I propose to take Questions Nos. 193 to 196, inclusive, together.
As the Deputy is aware, the Universities Act, 1997 confers autonomous statutory responsibilities on universities in the day to day management of their affairs. The conduct of staff relations is a matter for each university, in accordance with section 25 of the Act. In this context it would not be appropriate for me to comment on or intervene in operational management or individual disciplinary issues within a particular university such as the issue raised by the Deputy. However, I have been informed by the Higher Education Authority that the university in question is satisfied that it is properly discharging its responsibilities under the Universities Act 1997 and is conducting its affairs at all times in conformity with the laws of the land.
Of course, the High Court later ruled that DCU was not "conducting its affairs at all times in conformity with the laws of the land."
Dempsey's radical stance was reinforced by his interpretation of academic freedom;
“Section 14(1)(b) of the Universities Act lays out what the university must do in performing its functions. It is independent and autonomous”
Therefore
“The conduct of staff relations is a matter for each university in accordance with section 25 of the Act”
Similarly, in reply to Joe Higgins on the issues of bullying at the universities;
“As the Deputy is aware, the Universities Act, 1997 confers autonomous statutory responsibilities on universities in relation to the day to day management of their affairs. My Department does not collect information in relation to the issues raised by the Deputy. I have no proposals to carry out a study in relation to bullying in Irish universities.”
The phrase “autonomous statutory responsibilities” is of course piquant; an allowable interpretation is surely the Dick Cheney “Go commit a sexual act on yourself”. Eventually, Gogarty saw the point, and then became education chairman at the Dail.
I append Dempsey’s sustained assault on logic, joined as he was for an adjournment debate by the PM’s brother, in case we failed to get the message;
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2003/05/21/00081.asp
http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/02/peter-principle-in-academe.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0569/D.0569.200306190019.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0559/D.0559.200212180025.html
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78472
Many are featured in links from;
http://universitywatchdog.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/the-greens-and-opportunistic-hypocrisy/
19u Nollag 2010
