Oh what nonsense. I said nothing remotely like that. I love it, so I study it. I also teach it. And it is very much about the "real world" of WWI, marriage, modern life. . . .

>>> Peter Montgomery 06/07/12 6:29 PM >>>
But TWL is about the "unreal world". You study TWL only as part of your work
and not for its own sake?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nancy Gish 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: universities and "business"

Dear David,

The irony of stereotypes is that those who espouse them imagine they are real. The idea that making money or working in business is somehow "real" and in contrast to what is thought to be not "real" is one of the most insidious causes of problems in education. I happen to think a life of study and commitment to reading, writing, critical thinking, and teaching future generations is about the most "real" thing one can do. I happen to think I live in as real a world as there is. Otherwise I would not spend my time studying, for example, century-old poems like The Waste Land and believe it matters.

>>> David Boyd 06/07/12 3:35 PM >>>
But, I am not espousing stereotypes, Nancy - I hope I am living in the real world.



On 7 June 2012 19:56, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
If "market forces" were remotely what is claimed for them, we would not be in the financial mess we're in. It's become a slogan for what you aptly quote as "the unacceptable face of capitalism." I have no objection to capitalism as a general economic method, but there are now no controls on it. That is the lack of any limiting hand that is a serious problem.

I'm not interested in continuing this either, but I cannot be silent when universities are simply misunderstood and criticized on no basis of insight and certainly not on business methods as a model. There are corporate scandals precisely because "market forces" do not protect the public from outrageous misbehavior by "business." Moreover, there is no single "fundamental economics." Economists disagree as much as any other group.

So I would appreciate an end to stereotypes of universities if this is to stop. I realize it is not all that enlightening.

>>> David Boyd 06/07/12 1:50 PM >>> 

On 7 June 2012 18:17, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hallo Nancy

No point in prolonging any of this debate, save to say that I do not believe my critique to be at all 'false', in the same way that I am no apologist at all for what a right-wing but decent and astute UK Prime Minister was moved to call 'the unacceptable face of capitalism'

You can readily point to recent 'scandals', but they don't alter one little bit the fact that, if you take away Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', the almost-inevitable outcome is very bad indeed - including the sheer waste and inefficiency that tends to flourish once that hand isn't there.

I don't pretend to know how things work in the USA, but, in the UK, universities get the vast bulk of their funding from the taxpayer, and are therefore insulated from market forces: THAT's the nub of the problem ! - it's fundamental economics. 

I agree that the ground is changing--unfortunately it is mainly because legislators no longer see education as either essential or part of "the American Dream." Students who did not have enough sense to choose wealthy parents either work long hours and try to go to university at the same time or give up, try for jobs with only a High School diploma (or not even that) and get none.

My point is not that universities do everything right or that they have no corruption--though in my experience the latter does come mainly from attempts to impose "business" models where they have no applicability or from administrators with no real experience of what has to go on in classrooms and libraries and no preparation to understand the real purpose of what they are supposedly doing. Example: my university decided we did not need to teach German because there were not enough majors. So majors in philosophy (who wanted to go to graduate school where they would have to read it in the original) and music majors (who have to sing in many languages) had a sit-in. We still have a German professor at least, but not a major. It is a stupid and ignorant application of "efficiency." In my own case, half my career has been on Scots literature (half on Eliot of course), and it was my study of German and Anglo-Saxon that made it possible. Neither would now appear to be efficient I assume, and what administrator from a business background would have the slightest knowledge base on which to judge?

But the key point is that students are not customers; classrooms do not exist to find out what they like and provide it; universities that attempt only to provide training without knowledge--let alone wisdom--are classist, since the children of wealth go to the Ivies and a few top universities where they do get some broad insight into history and culture as well as skills; and administrators with no experience in classrooms and scholarship have no useful preparation for making those activities work. 

Faculty do not exist to fulfill administrative ideas; on the contrary, the only conceivable reason for any administrator's job is to facilitate what faculty and students do. 

I am also weary of the assumption that all "change" is either in itself good or unavoidable. Change can be bad. Objections to it are not simplistic resistance to and fear of "change." It might surprise you that on education, I am what most colleagues would consider pretty conservative, though that is not unconsidered or mindless clinging to anything. I am appalled at what goes for education in many places--including schools as well as universities--now.
>>> Ken Armstrong 06/07/12 12:46 PM >>> 

There can be no doubt that the profit motive of big business has lead to plentiful and infamous cases of corruption and ill-gotten gains, but as someone who spent thirty-plus years mostly as a non-academic and not a high level "administrator" in a largish university, I know there is plenty of evidence on the side of the problems inherent with academics who may have spent 10 to 20 years (in your example) heaving to the lines of the tenure process and then a few years later being catapulted into management positions to which they attempt to apply the same rules and attitudes that served them well in the tenure or department decision-making process. Those of good will and common sense usually come out without doing too much damage and occasionally some real good to processes they have no preparation to understand; others can do a lot of harm in a relatively short period of time. As a mid-level administrator I was always grateful for the former and wary of the latter. The best of the latter were the ones I could ignore because they were themselves so ignorant of what they were in charge of they didn't know how to evaluate anything that was happening under them. 

The problem with this system is that the ground is changing under it and as a model that was perhaps appropriate, or more appropriate, many decades ago it has become more dysfunctional as the world and its perceived functions change so drastically around it. BTW, in my experience there was no shortage, either, of plain old incompetent administrators who never were faculty. The wonder for me was that this was at a verifiably highly successful institution. I always wondered how things must be going down in the swamps of the less successful...

Ken A