January 14, 2008
Hey, it’s not just us having a bit of fun. Claire M. Morris, president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), also disputes the conclusions of “retired university administrator Clive Keen.”
Go here for the pertinent AUCC reports.
January 11, 2008
January 11, 2008
[Response to The Daily Gleaner from Joe Galbo:]
A recent editorial in this newspaper claimed that most people don’t want or need to go to university.
Such claims keep alive retrograde ideas that access to university education should be restricted to the lucky few and that everyone else should be happy with job training.
Before they embrace such neo-conservative ideas, clueless politicians should be reminded of the fight to make education a fundamental human right.
Political policies that seek to make education more responsive to narrow business interests shortchange citizens and make universities more exclusive and elitist.
Let’s not march backward to before 1945, when universities were democratized and made accessible to the many, not just the few.
Joe Galbo
[This letter was printed in The Daily Gleaner.]
January 10, 2008
A drum! A drum!
Clive Keen doth come.
He can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not.O! This learning: what a thing it is.
His face is a book where men may read strange matters.
Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased?
Let’s make us medicine and throw physics to the dogs.Hang up philosophy; this Shakespeare was Greek to him.
The language we have learned these forty years,
Our native English, now we must forego.
This was the unkindest cut of all.Poor Clive with himself at war,
A very superficial, ignorant and unweighing fellow.
O! Brave New World, that has such people in it.*
*Fred Donnelly, the author, would like to acknowledge some help from W. Shakespeare, deceased.
January 7, 2008
A snippet of info.: it seems that Clive Keen, he who has inspired considerable wrath around this parts lately, is mighty similar to our own Rick Miner in also being a vocal lobbyist for polytechnics. Intrepid reporter Greg Cook has the goods.
It’s a small world after all.
January 7, 2008
Just a little post-script: it is ironic that Keen referred to Shakespeare as an example of a subject he regards as useless, along with medieval French history. At UNBSJ, as is no doubt the case elsewhere, courses in Shakespeare are in effect practical job-training: they are always in demand from Education students because of the focus on Shakespeare in the high-school English curriculum. In fact, at UNBSJ, Dr. Sandra Bell is soon to introduce a new course on teaching Shakespeare, designed specifically for Education students. Who says artsy-fartsy professors aren’t responsive to market demand?
Second point: talking today to a colleague in Political Science who was lamenting that she never did take a course in medieval history, French or any other kind; she said it would have been invaluable in helping to understand the current political situation in Pakistan and region.
Is that applied enough, I wonder?
Update (Jan 9/08): Talking to a colleague yesterday who told me that there are only two required history courses in the N.B. high school curriculum, and one of them is classical and medieval history. In other words, both Keen’s examples are actually necessary subject areas for many education students. Don’t you just love these “experts” from away? If we listen to them, so much for the “made in New Brunswick” solutions our president keeps touting.
January 6, 2008
[Response to Clive Keen from Militsa Doukogiannis:]
Upon reading the “opinion” piece by Nathan White entitled “Medieval French history is passé”, I was amused, angered and deeply saddened by the sheer lack in insight offered by Clive Keen. Several items struck me as noteworthy.
Firstly, I can not understand why we are engaging in an exhausting debate about whether we need a university that ‘trains the mind’ or a university that provides ‘applied education’. We need both. People need choices. Perhaps not everyone is ‘intellectually turned on’ by Shakespeare, but guess what? Not all of us are excited by the prospect of studying computer games technology or coaching science. And, guess what else? Not all employers strive to hire employees with only applied skills; many employers are willing to hire university graduates and train them. Why, Keen, you might ask? Because many employers want people who can critically analyze and problem solve. People who are fair minded, flexible and able to fully participate in office affairs and help provide solutions to problems, and be willing to compromise. People who spent their university careers learning how to learn (aka, training the mind). People who are resourceful, who want to learn, who ask questions and seek, what’s that word Keen…oh yeah, knowledge. Perhaps even for no other reason than for the fun of it.
Secondly, why is this issue being spun in such a way that it forces people to choose a side. You’re either for applied education and jobs, OR, you’re for free thought and, apparently, no jobs. It’s ridiculous. No one would benefit from a one size fits all institution that purports to be a university but really isn’t (not to be confused with a polytechnic as this term apparently renders an institution unsuccessful from the start; it has nothing to do with program offerings of course, or lack there of). Shhhh….maybe no one will notice. As long as we are creating illusions, why don’t we start calling nurses doctors to make up for the shortage of family doctors; after all what’s in a name. Right? Universities are not all about Shakespeare and Medieval French history; they teach other useful things like ethics and research and data collection and validation and leadership and accounting methods: the list goes on. (more…)
January 6, 2008
[Response to Clive Keen from Cheryl Fury:]
At a time when most students & teachers are returning to school, we have been bombarded us with doom & gloom scenarios about post-secondary education. We are told (by Clive Keen) that Shakespeare and medieval French history are passé. I have taught European history at universities around the province and such courses are some of the best attended. Students don’t share Mr. Keen’s views. Neither are they the prevailing opinion at any respectable university. These subjects will remain vital components of university education. To remove them from post-secondary education at N.B. universities would mean students will leave the province to obtain reputable degrees from recognized institutions which do offer courses in Shakespeare and medieval history. Whether studying English literature or History, such endeavours enable students to improve their writing and researching skills as well as their ability to think critically. Perhaps such things are outmoded in the Brave New World we are trying to fashion in N.B.? I certainly hope not!
When stories appear in the media about the energy hub, we are told we are on the cusp on an economic boom in Saint John and N.B. as a whole. When stories appear about education in the province, we are then told that we are in demographic decline and that New Brunswick will be something akin to the 3rd World very soon. Either way, we will need a populace which is diverse and well educated to take us forward.
The real crisis is that New Brunswick is dead last among the provinces in funding post-secondary education. This is part of a long-term trend: politicians claim they value education but few are willing to pay for it. The only road to the much lauded goal of self-sufficiency will be paved with additional scholarships and financial assistance to students, better funding for our universities and community colleges, and continuing access to an array of post-secondary education options for all New Brunswickers.
Cheryl Fury
[Versions of this letter were printed in both the Telegraph-Journal and The Daily Gleaner.]
January 5, 2008
[Response to The Daily Gleaner from Miriam Jones:]
A recent editorial in this newspaper claims that “normal” people don’t want or need to go to university.
Apparently “normal” people don’t need to learn about the wider world.
They aren’t interested in art or culture.
They aren’t interested in how things work.
They don’t need to learn about where they came from, or think about where they might go.
They don’t need to develop flexible habits of thought in order to thrive in this changing world.
They don’t need analytic skills; they don’t need to know how to research; they don’t need to learn how to learn.
I guess I’m not “normal.” And I don’t know any “normal” people, either.
Thank goodness!
Miriam Jones
[A version of this letter was printed in the The Daily Gleaner.]
January 5, 2008
[Response to Clive Keen from Jonathan Simmons:]
Education Red Herring
In the article “Medieval French history is passé” Clive Keen targets medieval French History and Shakespeare as examples of the kind of nonsense that “average” learners are being forced to learn in traditional liberal arts and science programs. His use of the word applied causes me concern, suggesting that universities rely on abstract and impractical approaches to education.
Embedded in Keen’s criticism of New Brunswick’s universities is a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism that continues to color the debate over post secondary education. In this case, anti-intellectualism rears its head not in opposition to abstract and esoteric knowledge, but critical reading, writing, and thinking skills that do not belong in an environment that caters to manufactured employees, and now, if certain people get their way, students.
A university is neither an Ivory Tower nor a trade school for plumbers. Trying to force it into a box that won’t hold it is counterproductive and disingenuous. I agree that a university education is not for everyone, but turning it into something it’s not will only deepen what many people fail to acknowledge as a complex issue riddled with ambiguity and devoid of simple solutions.
Jonathan Simmons
[A version of this letter was printed in the Telegraph-Journal.]
January 5, 2008
[Response to Clive Keen from Debra Lindsay:]
If Mr Keen is correct in his assessment of the wants and needs of today’s students, namely that they are more concerned with training for the job market than with an education, then what twist of logic facilitates his claim that universities must offer applied programs to satisfy requirements for job training? Is it not the case that our community colleges fill that need?
If job training is the goal, and a certificate or diploma in an applied field of study will provide access to a job, then there is no need for a B.A. or B.Sc.
Or is there?
Perhaps today’s students do want a degree. Perhaps they are not as instrumentalist as employers (in particular) would have us believe. Perhaps they are interested in Shakespeare.
Being an enrolment manager does not qualify Mr Keen as an expert on what students want. When they arrive at university, many students are themselves uncertain as to what they want—and that is as it should be. Most of them are 18 or 19 years of age. They are embarking on a journey of intellectual discovery—in which the university is the vehicle and they are in the driver’s seat.
Moreover, Mr Keen suggests that if we just follow his suggestion to offer more applied programs the universities will thrive. When did the argument become about the survival of the bricks and mortar? By definition, the university refers to the relationship between faculty and students. The classrooms, labs and offices, as well as the administration and staff are there to facilitate the educational process—that is, learning.
When Keen states: “Because so many people desire to go to university, and the economy is becoming increasingly reliant on knowledge, there’s great hope for universities if they can appeal to more people” he betrays himself. His concern is not with the students—or with faculty who are students first, last, and always—but with ensuring that the underpinnings of our current economic regime are preserved.
Now Keen is someone in favour of the status quo.
Debra Lindsay
[This letter was printed in The Daily Gleaner.]
