I remember how it was -- JR
Higher education might be the most pressing domestic issue confronting America today. As currently structured and carried out, higher education is a blight upon the nation—an affirmative hindrance to our efforts in aiding human flourishing and securing the common good. It is possible that no propagated belief in modern American history has been more intellectually, experientially and fiscally ruinous than the notion that a four-year bachelor's degree-bestowing bender is a necessary rite of passage for entering adulthood.
Caviling about the systemic corruption of the academy is perhaps old hat. By the time William F. Buckley Jr. wrote God and Man at Yale in 1951, the metamorphosis of America's ivory tower into something closely approximating a fifth column was well underway. But the situation has, in recent decades, worsened; it has metastasized into a cancer whose tendrils spread the latest faddish developments in intersectional, anti-American, anti-Western "woke-ism" all throughout the land.
It is both terrifying and perverse that America's intellectual gatekeepers—the "elite"-forming, credentialing institutions that separate the "deplorables" from the ruling class—impress self-loathing pablum upon malleable young minds.
With some notable exceptions, American higher education today comprises madrasas of wokeness fundamentally hostile to the American regime and the American way of life. Many of the far Left's most toxic ideas, whether moral relativism, socialism, "anti-racism" or multiculturalism, either begin on campus or gain steam there. It shouldn't surprise anyone that one of the more popular policies in conservative egghead circles today is to expand loan access to, and accreditation support for, trade school alternatives to traditional four-year bachelor's degree-granting programs.
Intellectual bankruptcy notwithstanding, there are manifold more tangible problems associated with the failed higher education status quo. Four years spent on campus between the ages of 18 and 22 means four prime years forgone from acquiring vocational skills, advancing a career, and mating and forming families. It also often means, due in part to the federal government's effective monopoly over the student loan industry, four years of willful indebtedness to major in such patently silly "subjects" as "gender studies." Student loans are now the second-largest source of collective American debt, behind only mortgage debt. By some staggering estimates, Americans have over $1.5 trillion in student loan debt.
The modern Democratic Party is heavily reliant on woke college graduates for political support, and many on the Left have warmed in recent years to large-scale student loan "forgiveness" (at least as a halfway measure, compared to the far Left's support for universal free college). Most recently, the likely incoming president, Democrat Joe Biden, has called for "immediate" forgiveness of $10,000 of student loan debt for borrowers.
This policy is idiotic in the extreme and brazenly immoral. Republicans and sensible Democrats must unite to defeat it.
The higher education-student loan complex is in desperate need of more transparency and accountability—not more bailouts. A prudent first step would be for creditors, whether public or (ideally) private, to present clear information about salaries and career paths for graduating high school seniors to consider before they commit to taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to major in "ethnic studies." The worst possible thing we could do would be a mass bailout of this nature, which would initiate a vicious, never-ending cycle of tuition spikes, more indebtedness and more bailouts. It is a quintessential exercise in trying to apply a Band-Aid to a grievously slit artery.
Newsweek subscription offers >
Think the moral hazard problems associated with the 2008 bank bailouts were bad? Wait until you see where this irresponsible experiment could end.
Numerous other problems abound. Such a bailout is inherently regressive, as it would disproportionately benefit woke children who decided they could afford four years of the decadent ivory tower wasteland, and disproportionately harm taxpayers who themselves did not go to college. Such a bailout would also be manifestly unfair to those graduates who have diligently worked to pay off their loans in earnest—even if it meant forsaking jobs they otherwise would have preferred to take in favor of jobs that pay more. In other words, such a bailout would inculcate the worst lessons in fiscal imprudence and recklessness—all while letting the universities off the hook for their running what amounts to one sustained racket.
American higher education needs a wrecking ball—not a bailout.
https://www.newsweek.com/bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-idiotic-immoral-opinion-1548876
UK: Cambridge University with growing 'cancel culture' named one of the worst for free speechThe warning comes in a report from the Civitas think-tank amid growing fears the country's top educational establishments are being held back by the emergence of a so-called "woke" movement which refuses to tolerate any views it judges discriminatory or disagreeable.
Researchers said the 800-year-old university had been at the centre of dozens of rows over campus censorship, petitions, open letters and speakers being cancelled because of their views.
Critics of no-platforming claim the controversial trend is damaging free-speech but supporters insist it shows solidarity with beleaguered communities and encourages inclusivity.
They also highlighted a survey which found that nearly a third of university staff said they have experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace.
Civitas placed 35 percent of universities in the "most restrictive" category while 51 percent were "moderately restrictive" and just 14 percent made it into the "most friendly" group.
Cambridge was joined by St Andrews, Oxford, Liverpool, Sheffield and a number of other top universities on the so-called "red" list.
The Civitas study found freedom of speech “could be curbed by perceived transphobic episodes” in close to two-thirds of red universities and just under half of green universities.
It warned pressure on free speech due to a “cancel culture” of open letters and or petitions was particularly prevalent, being reported in 69 percent of red universities and 48 percent of amber.
The report found just under a fifth of red and amber universities had been involved in controversies where speakers were uninvited or no-platformed.
The research was completed before Cambridge University was forced to axe rules forcing students, lecturers and visitors to be “respectful of” opposing views after overwhelming opposition from academics.
In a vote described as crucial to the free speech issue, dons successfully challenged a “vague and authoritarian” policy they feared would stifle debate and threaten staff with disciplinary action or sacking for being disrespectful.
Their amendments, which included replacing the phrase “respectful of” with “tolerate”, make it almost impossible to no-platform speakers by cancelling their invitation.
A Cambridge University spokesman said, “freedom of speech is a right that sits at the heart” of the institution.
He said: “Rigorous debate is fundamental to the pursuit of academic excellence and the University will always be a place where freedom of speech is not only protected but strongly encouraged.”
Education Secretary Gavin Williamson stepped into the free speech row earlier this year and warned ministers were considering regulations to stamp out campus censorship.
He said: "Already in Britain students have been expelled for expressing their religious beliefs. "Mass petitions have called for the dismissal or defunding of academics because of their research interests and on some occasions, universities have caved into this pressure.
"Too often, activists’ threats are able to shut down events, and there have been appalling incidents directed at the Jewish community at leading London universities."
Australia: Dunce teachers to be weeded out with tough test
It is certainly a good idea to filter out the dummies BEFORE they do teacher training rather than after. It avoids big waste of resources.
But no current proposals are going to help the kids in State schools much when all new teachers will be entering what is basically a destroyed educational sysyem. Smart kids will always do well in any system so it is the plodders and the dummies who need to be looked after. They are currently being largely failed by the chaos that is common in State school classrooms.
And that chaos both harms the pupil and deters good teachers. Teaching is not a job for dummies so young people who would make good tachers usually will have many options for their future. And they just have to look at a typical State school classroom to decide that there are jobs better than teaching
So there is something of a Catch 22 involved: To improve the education of the kids you need good teachers. But those who would make good teachers don't go into teaching. Which leaves mainly the desperates willing to go into teaching.
In short, teaching is a low-prestige job and that is the major dictate governing whom you will get to go into teaching. You can test yourself blue in the face but if the candidates for teacher training are mostly pretty dim, it it is only dim teachers that you will get. And the current crops of new teachers can be very dim indeed. You are getting the blind to lead the blind
But teaching has not always been a low status job and is not a low status job everywhere. Perticuarly in Asian countries teaching is high status and well-paid.
How come? Asian schoolrooms are famous for their high levels of discipline. Teachers are free to teach and do so. A good teacher likes to teach and in Asia they do
And that is the key difference between their government schools and ours. In our government systems teachers are too busy trying to get the pupils to sit down and shut up to have much time for teaching. And they are even told that it is not their job to get the kids to sit down and shut up. Teachers are not supposed to teach any more. They are merely learning facilitators.
That all asks too much of most potential teachers so State schools will always remain pits of poor education.
And parents know that. It is why 40% of Australian teenagers are sent to private schools. One way or another, such schools provide the sort of good learning environments that few State schools can equal. I taught High school in two quite different private schools and had no discipline problems at all. I was free to concentrate on my basic task of opening up young minds to the world of knowledge. So there are some dedicated and talented teachers in existence but they will almost all end up in one of our many private schools
So what can parents do who cannot afford private schools? Their only hope is to get their kid into a selective school or a school in a "good" area. But what is a good area? It is wherever well-off people live. Their kids get disciplined in various ways at home so give little trouble in classrooms. Teachers in such schools can teach. But again there is a Catch 22. "Good" areas are expensive so they are just not an option for the less well off. The less well-off are stuck with government schools
So why are government schools often so bad? It is purely the Leftist influence. Leftists have a horror of disciplining kids and they impose low discipline through regulations and other ways. Once again it is the Left who are NOT the friends of the poor
Shadow Education Minister Tanya Plibersek has told Sky News there must be a higher university cut off to enter teaching courses and potential teachers need to be tested before degrees rather than afterwards.
Dunce teachers will be weeded out before they start university with a tough new English and maths test.
The nation’s education ministers have approved a skills test for school leavers before they enrol in a university degree to study teaching.
One in 10 trainee teachers flunked a similar test after finishing a four-year education degree at university last year.
Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan said the upfront test would save students time and money.
“We don’t want to see students getting to the end of their degree and not being able to graduate or work as a teacher because they haven’t passed the … test,’’ he said.
“The sooner a student takes the test, the earlier they can get support or make alternative arrangements.
“Giving students the option to sit the test before their start their degree will save time and money.’’
Mr Tehan said students who fail the upfront test will still be able to enrol in a teaching degree at uni.
“But it does make them aware that they need to work on their literacy and numeracy skills,’’ he said.
Student teachers cannot graduate until they pass a test placing them in the top 30 per cent of the population for literacy and numeracy.
In 2019, almost one in every 10 graduates failed the online test – 8.3 per cent bombed the literacy test and 9.3 per cent flunked the maths exam.
Each test has 65 questions, administered by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).
The ministerial decree to let students sit the test before signing up to a teaching degree overrides the universities, which had refused to let students take the exam upfront.
However, the upfront exam will not start until 2023.
The federal government will make teaching degrees cheaper next year, to lure smart school leavers into the teaching profession and head off a national shortage of classroom teachers.
The Education Council of federal, state and territory ministers has also agreed to “improve’’ the writing assessment for students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 who undertake the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).
Mr Tehan said NAPLAN was due to go online in 2022.
“NAPLAN is the best tool we have to understand the impact of COVID-19, the long-term trends in student learning and what actions we need to take to improve,’’ he said.
The controversial national test was cancelled this year due to COVID-19 lockdowns.
***********************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*******************************
No comments:
Post a Comment