RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
Investing in investment, British university style
Published: Monday, March 1st, 2010
Those who follow academic politics know that British universities are in deep trouble, and I was not surprised to open the 'Prince' two weeks ago to find that Tony Grafton had devoted his first column of the semester (“Slow food ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I regard Professor Katz as the smartest man I've ever met, which is why I cringe whenever I see his name in a Prince byline.
Where he gets into trouble, here as in some previous articles, is in focusing on one sort of value to the exclusion of another (more accurately, on a part to the exclusion of the composite of which it is a part). He writes that dedicated, talented humanists like the ones being let go have no less "utility and impact" or "contribution to the happiness of mankind" than earthier types like butchers and brewers and bakers. The sort of value he has in mind is hard to pin down--perhaps "spiritual" is a close enough characterization--but in any case can be most clearly defined by contrasting it with money.
Money, the lack of it, is why the humanists are being fired in England, and it is why, when the time comes, they will be fired here too. The humanities bring in less money than the sciences (including COS and ECO), and stand in relation to them as squash stands to football. The greater demand for COS and ECO Ph.D's both in the academy and outside of it is why their salaries are higher, on average, than humanities professors', and the greater demand is there because they produce, on average, greater value.
Someone might argue (and on the Prince comment boards no bad argument goes unpublished) that the practice of keeping the more valuable, in financial terms, professors over those more (or at least equally) valuable in "spiritual" terms commits the same error that Prof. Katz regrettably falls into: looking at one sort of value to the exclusion of the other. But financial value doesn't replace but, on the contrary, *reflects and includes* "spiritual" and indeed (nearly) every other kind of value. So when executives make decisions based on dollars and cents, or on pounds and shillings, they are making decisions based on worldwide patterns of value. What people value can change--and the humanities, like crack and unlike nights at Tower, sharpen the appetite for themselves--but the situation at present speaks pretty clearly against thought for thought's sake and culture for culture's sake. From this perspective, it is Prof. Katz and the humanists who are short-sighted and who are, much to my regret, on their way out.
Once again, a professor wants more money to go to professors. Tribalism at its best.
Professor Katz makes a very passionate argument for keeping the academic programs at risk. I suppose a case could be made for every academic program out there. So, how is a university supposed to evolve and remain relevant if it has to carry forward all legacy programs? I wonder if Professor Katz could channel his enthusiasm by lining up those who appreciate the value of philosophy and paleography at King’s College London for a fundraising campaign to save the positions at risk.
And the British government is probably not looking to pay many "advertising executives, truck drivers, golfers, butchers, bond traders, oboists [or] lawyers" to do their jobs either.
Is this not where Universities make decisions that set them apart from others? For example today's Prince carries an OpEd from the Staff asking whether it is efficacious for the Wilson School certificate program to be selective. A letter from Alum'06 points out that none of the other Ivy's offer an undergraduate degree in Public Policy. Hence Princeton is unique among its peers and such uniqueness may attract more top performers. It isn't an inexpensive option but an option maintained because it sets Princeton aside from others.
If a university chooses to host a group of highly qualified paleographers and philosophers it should do so knowing there will be those who value such a gathering and will be attracted to attend. Thus the British government's decision to cut such programs should become an opportunity for private universities to gather unto themselves some of the world's top talent. We've watched this in other areas like the former Soviet Union's coaches becoming coaches for other national programs which are now outperforming Russia. Doors close and windows open. While we can all lament things changing we need to remain positive. This is an opportunity for universities like Princeton to collect, for I would imagine a very small investment, a group of world renown individuals and in doing so increase their prestige within the intellectual community.
what's with the crack on Tower? Why has Tower become the butt of every joke from here to the Woody Woo Dissent column?
Humanists are not as highly paid as lawyers and bankers not because they are necessarily less useful, but because the benefits they generate are positive externalities. Market forces alone do not bring about the best outcomes for society.
The sciences and humanities each do important "work" for humanity. Science allows us to achieve our dreams (or make progress towards them) and the humanities give us the dreams themselves. It seems like many people would just do away with university study of the humanities. This study helps focus and support the humanities, just like laboratories support scientific advancement. Taking away this support would cause fewer talented people to go into the humanities. Although everyone practices philosophy to some extent (all the more reason to question calls for the abolition of such "irrelevant" pursuits), removing demand for humanists will cause fewer genius-type individuals to make the type of lasting change of worldview, political practice, moral beliefs that have been vital to Western success globally. Given the very real human challenges facing our society, we must encourage the next Descartes, whoever he might be, to show us the way forward. This is the special mandate of the humanities (to determine our values) that we can not cede fully to popular culture or extremists. Certainly science will not provide the answers, because it will only give us capabilities, not determine a course of action. Engineering, and the sciences, in the sense that they involve some qualitative judgments on the part of the scientist (forming hypothesis, setting limits, designing experiments) are actually quite dependent on the types of thinking addressed by the humanities. For these reasons and because they provide pleasure and are satisfying in and of themselves, we should be increasing the benefits of devoting oneself to the humanities, not the reverse
it's worse than you think. try reading this:
http://boonery.blogspot.com/2010/02/palaeograph...