Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 555.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: Eric Johnson <johnsone@jupiter.dsu.edu> (30)
Subject: John Henry Newman
[2] From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) (73)
Subject: Re: 14.0552 corporate universities
[3] From: Randall Pierce <rpierce@jsucc.jsu.edu> (6)
Subject: The Corporate University
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:58:57 +0000
From: Eric Johnson <johnsone@jupiter.dsu.edu>
Subject: John Henry Newman
Robert J. O'Hara asked about the source of a quotation:
something to the effect that a university is "an Alma Mater, knowing her
children one by one, and not a factory, or a mint, or a treadmill." (If
Cardinal Newman were around today, he would no doubt add that it is not
a McDonalds or a Pizza Hut, either.)
O'Hara was correct in supposing that the quotation is from Cardinal
Newman's _The Idea of a University_. The exact quotation is this: "A
University is, according to the usual designation, an Alma Mater, knowing
her children one by one, not a foundry, or a mint, or a treadmill." It is
at the end of section 8 of Discourse VI.
As I said in an online conference paper, Newman's thoughts are also
relevant to teaching via Internet. In 1854, John Henry Newman argued
that a university education must be gained in classrooms, and that books
were not an adequate substitute for face-to-face contact with a teacher.
What he said of books is true of Internet teaching: "No [Internet
teaching] can get through the number of minute questions which it is
possible to ask on any extended subject, or can hit upon the very
difficulties which are severally felt by each [student] in succession. Or
again, that no [Internet teaching] can convey the special spirit and
delicate peculiarities of its subject with that rapidity and certainty
which attend on the sympathy of the mind with mind, through the eyes, the
look, the accent, and the manner, in casual expressions thrown off at the
moment, and the unstudied turns of familiar conversation . . . . The
general principles of any study you may learn by [Internet teaching] at
home; but the detail, the color, the tone, the air, the life which makes
it live in us, you must catch all these from those in whom it lives
already." ("The Rise and Progress of Universities")
--Eric Johnson
johnsone@jupiter.dsu.edu
http://www.dsu.edu/~johnsone/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:59:11 +0000
From: lachance@chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
Subject: Re: 14.0552 corporate universities
Willard,
Leo Klein's anecdote about poetry being essential to programmers reminds
me of Scoville's "Elements of Style: UNIX as literature" (for knowledge of
which I am thankful to Patrick Durusau's posting to Humanist in 1998).
Just for the record
> In Humanist 14.0506 Francois Lachance finds in my posting
[...]
It was the juxtapositon of your posting with Leo's that made me find
(invent?) the assumptions that kicked off my mediation.
[Digression: Tis rathering interesting that manuscript studies are
focussing upon what goes with what -- the contingencies of collecting and
binding. To quote a pamphlet from the Perdita project: "Recent scholarship
has recommend a shift in the focus of manuscript research from the
establishment of 'authoritative' texts to the historical circumstances of
manscript compilation and circulation. [...] Manuscript compilations offer
particular problems of interpretation." More information on the Perdita
Project is accessible from the following URL
http://human.ntu.ac.uk/perdita
To what extent bundles of electronic postings can be considered
collections governed by conventions remains an open question. ]
Reflecting upon your example of an institution re-aligning its program, I
still do not quite understand how a discourse that stresses difference
will manage to set aside the impact of affect, allegiance and prejudice in
any intended decision-making audience in a social enviroment driven by
imperatives of change, innovation, reinvention. I am trying to suggest
that the very invocation of a substantial difference between practice and
theory, between the liberal and mechanical arts, is a driver in the push
to rationalize the educational system. I'm not sure that a discourse of
difference will create the necessary inter-institutional alliances that
will sport resistence.
Arguing for the necessity of diversity at the level of a system may be a
way to mitigate the competition induced the economics of scarity being
played by the purse string holders. Arguing for a robust redundancy may be
a better strategy. Not only should the system afford duplication of
programs. It is vital that such duplication be created and maintained in
order to establish the critical mass of people and activity that leads to
inspiring accomplishments. How do you fund a network?
Stephen Erhmann in "Asking the Right Question: what does research tell us
about technology and higher learning?"
http://www.learner.org/edtech/rscheval/rightquestion.html
points out "that most institutions of higher education are facing a Triple
Challenge of outcomes, accessibility, and costs."
Somewhere someone must have proposed that greater accessibility drives
down costs because a more accessible system leads to a more educated
population creates greater wealth which can subsidize the educational
system. Somewhere some economist has such traced synergistic relations.
Everywhere there are people without children who enthusiastically support
schools (and do not mind paying taxes to do so). Everywhere there are
people with children who support school systems that provide adult
education.
There is a non-eschatological argument that justifies the funding of a
strong educational infrastructure not from what people will do with an
education, not from what they will become, but from what people are doing
while they are in the process of active learning.
Some while ago, Willard, you posted a message to Humanist that invited us
to think about each machine being an experiment, each program being an
experiment. Can the global economy afford not to invest in experiments? I
know this has shifted the question somewhat from the focus on commercial
interests in the educational sector. [I'm still avoiding some of the
initial terminology : I've yet to find a university that is not a
corporation.] I hope the shift helps bring to the debate a recognition
that information technology can help institutions with a great experiment
in profit sharing and reinvestment -- a redistribution of intellectual
wealth if you will. The value of the publicly-accountable and stable nodes
in such a distribution network depends in part on the volitility of the
private providers (and the non-transparency of their operations).
BTW, many of the graduates from the publicly-accountable and stable nodes
will seek and find employment in the more volitile spaces. What then of
arguments based on difference?
--
Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
Member of the Evelyn Letters Project
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~dchamber/evelyn/evtoc.htm
--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:59:50 +0000
From: Randall Pierce <rpierce@jsucc.jsu.edu>
Subject: The Corporate University
In his biography of his grandfather, the late Alabama Congressman George
Huddleston, George Packer has some interesting insights into the origins of
today's "Corporate Universities". On pages of 196-201 of "Blood of the
Liberals", Mr. Packer cites the contributions of Frederick Terman to the
creation of a corporate mentality at Stanford University in California and
his influence in the development of Silicon Valley. Thank you for your
consideration. Randall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/10/00 EST