Comments on: Economics of Higher Education: Sophism versus Virtue http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/17/economics-of-higher-education-sophism-versus-virtue/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:10:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Donald A. Coffin http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/17/economics-of-higher-education-sophism-versus-virtue/#comment-69546 Donald A. Coffin Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:05:02 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1379#comment-69546 One of the things I've contended for some time is that the "university," in its more-or-less modern sense (i.e., beginning in the middle ages in Italy), has always been a vocational/professional training institution. Early on, the professions were law, the clergy, and (maybe) medicine. What's happened over time is that we've adopted a progressively more expansive concept of the professions for which we are educating people. I'd say that the sophists have won decisively, although a lot of higher education rhetoric remains Socratic/Platonic/Aristotelian. But the sophists have won. And it's a good thing. One of the things I’ve contended for some time is that the “university,” in its more-or-less modern sense (i.e., beginning in the middle ages in Italy), has always been a vocational/professional training institution. Early on, the professions were law, the clergy, and (maybe) medicine. What’s happened over time is that we’ve adopted a progressively more expansive concept of the professions for which we are educating people.

I’d say that the sophists have won decisively, although a lot of higher education rhetoric remains Socratic/Platonic/Aristotelian. But the sophists have won. And it’s a good thing.

]]> By: Rafe Champion http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/17/economics-of-higher-education-sophism-versus-virtue/#comment-69545 Rafe Champion Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:06:58 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1379#comment-69545 It sounds as though the issues have been over-simplified. It is reminiscent of a local writer who claims that the dreaded neo-liberals are conspiring to subvert the civilising function of the universities in favour of narrow commercially oriented studies. He starts with the Kantian model of the universities as his frame of reference. For Kant the “higher” function was to serve the interests of the government and the “lower” function was to look after the interests and development of the particular sciences (essentially all fields of scholarship). For Kant the “lower” function was all-important as a domain of free play of ideas and criticism where the state had no business to interfere, in contrast with the “service” faculties which have to be useful in immediate and practical ways. In those simple times the higher faculties were theology, law and medicine while the lower was philosophy, bearing in mind that everything under the sun came under the heading of philosophy. Similary “science” did not have a narrow or techncal meaning but simply meant a disciplined and systematic approach to a topic, whatever it might be. He seems to think that governments are increasingly acting under the influence of the subversive, neo-liberal view to displace and devalue education in the humanities, just because that kind of education is low in the scale of values of neoliberalism. The whole book is a worry, not just that chapter, which is the focus of this review. http://www.the-rathouse.com/shortreviews/revUsandThem.html It sounds as though the issues have been over-simplified. It is reminiscent of a local writer who claims that the dreaded neo-liberals are conspiring to subvert the civilising function of the universities in favour of narrow commercially oriented studies. He starts with the Kantian model of the universities as his frame of reference.

For Kant the “higher” function was to serve the interests of the government and the “lower” function was to look after the interests and development of the particular sciences (essentially all fields of scholarship). For Kant the “lower” function was all-important as a domain of free play of ideas and criticism where the state had no business to interfere, in contrast with the “service” faculties which have to be useful in immediate and practical ways.

In those simple times the higher faculties were theology, law and medicine while the lower was philosophy, bearing in mind that everything under the sun came under the heading of philosophy. Similary “science” did not have a narrow or techncal meaning but simply meant a disciplined and systematic approach to a topic, whatever it might be.

He seems to think that governments are increasingly acting under the influence of the subversive, neo-liberal view to displace and devalue education in the humanities, just because that kind of education is low in the scale of values of neoliberalism.

The whole book is a worry, not just that chapter, which is the focus of this review. http://www.the-rathouse.com/shortreviews/revUsandThem.html

]]>