[mrjonathanr]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/29/war-against-humanities-at-britains-universities

As depressing as it is plausible.

[tomtom]

I don't think there is a war on humanities per se, the headline should be how incompetently Universities are run in general. I've 'a friend' who's seen about 50% worth of what was mentioned in the article in their institute. I don't doubt most of it is true in some places.

Where 'my friend' works the VC's package is reportedly in excess of £300k PA. Not even a top 20 - or even 30 institute. Senior management is dire - it is all grey men in suits - many who have come from industry then leave after 6 months to a year when they realise how batshit the place is.. Recently (last three years) 'my friend' informs me there has been a series of 'grand schemes' and 'centralisations' thrust upon from on high - nearly all have failed or been withdrawn after 'partial success'. For each of these they are required to adjust, do lots of associated paperwork/admin etc.. I'm told a classic recent example is a (now de-moted) senior manager single handedly changed the whole institutes admission policy - which many many people said was a bad idea - and it is estimated costed in excess of £5million in lost income.

There are examples of successful university management - where good people have made a difference and made their employees feel valued and push towards a common goal etc... These tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

[tomtom]

PS - another central thrust of the article is how important studies in humanities are for society (great example of Chinas problems having nearly eradicated them) - and how 'space' is needed for thought and development of ideas. They can't be squeezed out like toothpaste....

[andy popp]

I'm in the anomalous position of being a humanities scholar in that modern version of the goose the laid the golden egg - a management/business school. Its a kind of gilded cage. And what I know of friends in depts such as English and History doesn't yet paint a desperate picture. But I think there are signs in the wider culture of a sea change against anything that isn't obviously and demonstrably 'useful' (readily seen in the comments under the Guardian article). It starts with an overwhelming emphasis on STEM subjects at school and is based on an incredibly reductive view of what constitutes value. The idiocy is that STEM vs. humanities needn't even be an either/or choice.

But if we look to the US for signs of what is to come the omens are grim - any notion of liberal arts education is under profound ideological attack from the right in states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina. Mr Gradgrind eat your heart out.

[moose]

from what I can gather it's pretty grim in some of the STEM subjects too (at the Chemistry end anyway) - ever increasing burden of grant proposal writing at the expense of research.  Everything has to have an immediately exploitable, near certain outcome. 

[andy_e]

Edit: irrelevant!

[Sloper]

While I am strongly of the view that humanity courses are not only desireable they are a necessary element of higher education I can see how there is a widespread animus that many humanity degrees both lack the practical application of a STEM subject and also the academic content of say, history, philiosophy, English, classics or should that be 'classix'?

With the debauchment of HE standards perhaps this retrenchment was inevitable even though it will be a damaging retreat?

The bollocks of Derrida, other similar nonsense and so on might have been a justifiably  expensive bauble hidden from public view in academia when the scales were smaller but it is now a hidesolut expensive carbuncle that is impossible to hide or justify.

[2 Tru]

This seems appropriate



I studied Politics in 2006 pre top up fees and thoroughly enjoyed the degree and support the statement that higher education should be more than just a vocational education for a career.

However when I left Uni I found out that if I wanted a job I cared about I needed an qualification that was applicable, I ended up studying part time and gaining a second degree in Building Surveying a career I am very happy with.

Ideally you should be able to do both at the same time, major in a degree that will help you get a job and have the option to take classes in philosophy, geography and Norse literature.

[i.munro]

from what I can gather it's pretty grim in some of the STEM subjects too (at the Chemistry end anyway) - ever increasing burden of grant proposal writing at the expense of research.  Everything has to have an immediately exploitable, near certain outcome.

Not just one certain outcome but a string of them as milestones.
As someone said " the uk used to have one of the strongest research sectors in the world along with the least competitive private ssectors. So of course they deciced to introduce private-sector business practices into research."

[Oldmanmatt]

I attended a rather "selective" sixth form college, back in the early '80s (one with prefects and dress codes) and remember the utter derision that the lecturers poured upon the "Tech" (quite literally on the same site and separated by a narrow grassy strip (in fact, our Geology labs were in the Tech buildings)).
This predominately revolved around the (relatively (ie within the last 20 years)) introduction of "Sociology" to the Tech's prospectus.
"Beauty therapist" and "Nursery Nurse" we're fine (I grew up in a "Wilt" novel world), but "Sociology" was pretentious, "Red Brick", up-start, trivialising of Academia!

Thirty years on (all but) and the Tech bought the Sixth Form twenty years ago and is now offering Degree courses and on track for full Uni status.

My point is, those people I attended college with are now the people making decisions and they have a great disdain for "wish you washy", non-STEM subjects.

They are Thatcher's little children, even if they don't realise it.

As a lay-person, I would posit, that the public's perception was tainted by that '80s explosion of seemingly pointless and esoteric subjects; mixed with a subconscious, Thatcherite, utilitarian, world view.

Outside of Academia, it is difficult to see the value of much of the Humanities, beyond the obvious History, if you are a Express, Daily Fail or Torygraph reader.

Good old Guardian reading, paintbrush wielding, liberals like w'ot I is, are very much a minority these days.

"The Public" just don't care.

For example, I was out walking with an otherwise intelligent, well educated, friend; when we stumbled across a hill fort.
Three concentric rings of ditch and banks and quite large.
Quick check of the 1:10,000 OS, showed it was unrecorded.
Me? Fascinated, trying to plot it and wondering who I could tell.
My mate? Couldn't give a shit. History was for musty old Codgers, apparently.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sloper]

I'd say that the public perception is not the consequence of the modest increases in university numbers in the 1980s but rather the perception of the explosion of 'mickey mouse' degrees in the late 1990s/2000s.

I have no issue with philosophy as a 1st degree, in fact I'd rather more people read philosophy and fewer law but I still can't understand how 'media studies' (as it is generally constructed) can be considered as sufficiently academically rigorous to be a 'degree': it is the proliferation of these types of humanities degrees that tarnishes the reputation of others.

Q? Do you know what you learn when you read sociology?
A. Why you're unemployable afterwards.

[rich d]

I went to uni in the 1990 so it was a long time ago. We took A levels and selected our uni course on what we enjoyed doing and what interested us, if you got a decent degree you kind of assumed that you'd get a job from it, my entire careers advice was some rubbish computer program that asked if you wanted to make pots or live in a field. I also didn't have to pay for my course. Nowadays uni feels like a paid choice to start your career, as such I can understand why some degrees have less value - probably due to perceived earnings or entry into jobs. I don't agree with it, but think it's an inevitable result of losing grants and funding for uni course.

[mrjonathanr]

I still can't understand how 'media studies' (as it is generally constructed) can be considered as sufficiently academically rigorous to be a 'degree': it is the proliferation of these types of humanities degrees that tarnishes the reputation of others

What does media studies entail?

[Sloper]

I'd say it requried the level of education which one naturally acquired by virtue of being a reasonably well read and educated individual: for example I am sure I could blag an essay on 'the emergence of conumsption of public media from Roman times to modernity (sub title, from the brothels of Herculanem to Banksy)'

http://www.uea.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/degree/detail/ba-media-studies

http://www.rgu.ac.uk/information-communication-and-media/information-communication-and-media-study-options/undergraduate/media

From what I can see there's very little that can be stretched to be considered properly 'acdemic'.

PS Congrats on the new job.

[seankenny]

Outside of Academia, it is difficult to see the value of much of the Humanities, beyond the obvious History, if you are a Express, Daily Fail or Torygraph reader.

Good old Guardian reading, paintbrush wielding, liberals like w'ot I is, are very much a minority these days.

"The Public" just don't care.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's worse than this. A friend of mine - clever, but left school at 16 and runs his own business - asked me what exactly was the point of his son studying physics.

[Falling Down]

My Dad pushed me down a classic three sciences route at school for O-Levels even though I was more interested in English and Art and I ended up with an Engineering degree and PHD which have both served me well job wise. However, I do wish there had been the chance to add one discretionary arts/humanities module to my degree though like you can in the US and France. 

The good thing about the arts and history though is that (massive IMHO alert!) they are more enjoyable and easier to pick up outside of a formal higher education.  I can't imagine how difficult it would be to "study" physics, maths and the other physical sciences in ones free time.  I've hopefully made up for missing out on my humanities education by reading voraciously and doing the odd adult education course.

I'd like to go back to university at some point to study literature, music or philosophy. 

Three of my housemates in Sheffield once asked me why someone called their degree (HoADaF),  Mickey-mouse.  I explained with a straight face that it was because Film was predominant and that cartoons were an important part of cinematic history.  They said "Oh phew, we thought it might have been because it was easy and silly"  - Sorry Andy!

[mrjonathanr]

Thank you Sloper, appreciated.

Looking at the course content there, Aberdeen does include modules such as  semiotics and intercultural communication whilst East Anglia also includes analysing culture and media and power. These are the domain of critical theory/sociology/philosophy and merit some consideration in my view. A lot of the rest of those courses seems very vocational. (Which doesn't exactly fly in the face of the Guardian article's argument).

Media studies is a funny one though.  After all, (I'm told) delve back into antiquity and the distinctions between art/philosophy/literature/history et al were not there. Myth was reality, reality myth and a subject which joins different modern modes of communication and thought under one umbrella should/could be bang on the multi-disciplinary money.


I've taught 'critical thinking' (hosted a club at lunch more like) for a while now. It came out of coaching Oxbridge applicants in U6 to think a bit more broadly pre-interview and then I joined forces with an English - sorry- media studies teacher.. from which I came to see that subject as 'English in all media', a different beast to its popular reputation. Obviously what it is at undergrad level may be different to school, and vary between institutions. But still, in a technological age its hour may yet come. (And I speak as someone who in dirtbag climber days regularly used to hitch to Buoux with three luxuries only, of which one was a fountain pen. I kid you not)   

[tomtom]

While I am strongly of the view that humanity courses are not only desireable they are a necessary element of higher education I can see how there is a widespread animus that many humanity degrees both lack the practical application of a STEM subject and also the academic content of say, history, philiosophy, English, classics or should that be 'classix'?

With the debauchment of HE standards perhaps this retrenchment was inevitable even though it will be a damaging retreat?

The bollocks of Derrida, other similar nonsense and so on might have been a justifiably  expensive bauble hidden from public view in academia when the scales were smaller but it is now a hidesolut expensive carbuncle that is impossible to hide or justify.

I'm intrigued. What is the evidence for the debauchment of HE standards?

[a dense loner]

Most people that leave school are thick as fuck now?

[tomtom]

How do you define thick as fuck?

whilst sounding facetious - there's a serious Q about how you define intelligence. Record numbers of yoofs getting better exam results - does that equal intelligence or ???

[a dense loner]

Fucks pretty thick, that's all I know really

[Oldmanmatt]

Young kid, several A*s. Couldn't get  head around the fact that changing the work handset for landline telephone, did not mean changing the number.
That and many other similar examples, lead me to conclude there is an epidemic of a very special kind of stupid. One that still manages to get good exam results.

Or as we used to say in the Andrew, " They could tell you the square-root of a baked bean tin, but they can't bloody open it".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sloper]

Law is no longer, in many institutions an academic subject and I see on a regular basis graduates with >7 years post qualification experience lacking in basic analytical and problem solving skills and the lack of ability to apply 'black letter' and case law to factual matrices.

Most senior partners I know socially express similar views / experiences and most other professionals express similar views in their own fields.

I can recall my best man (a chartered structural engineer) explaining that he was in effect teaching remedial maths at Nottingham university.

I am sure some professions are less affected by this scourge but it is evident in far too many areas to be dismissed.

something like 35% of 20 year olds are at university now and >75% will get a 2:2 or better, if you believe that standards haven't fallen then then can I sell you my breeding unicorns.

 

[mrjonathanr]

It's endemic.

I won't reduce it to this but league tables and high stakes testing are a massive part of a reductive pressure to just pass - and teach to- the test.

Gradgrind needs to bow out.

[tomtom]

I don't think the quality of the degree I teach on is any worse - if anything I think its better than the same subject degree I was taught 20 years ago (at a supposedly better institution).

In the 16 years I've been teaching students I have seen nothing but an improvement in how they are taught and IMHO how the students have performed.

I think there are generational changes in how students think, operate, work etc... As in I've seen the cohort move from libraries, to google, to now a post google generation... The way students work and think has changed during that time (as a metaphor think how log tables etc.. were  replaced by the calculator etc..) and I think we see students coming to us having received a more formulaic (and less free thinking) education pre HE - which of course we endeavour to drum out of them and get them to think for themselves.

But, my earlier point was a serious question - as I have not seen or heard anything more substantive (and thus representative) than anecdotes. I have never seen any data about this so called dumbing down of HE.