Paul Sheehan on George Soros
October 6th, 2008Is the commodity bubble the next to go?
Paul Sheehan – More blind alleys besides Wall Street – SMH
Does this show the seeds of the next bubble?
America’s century: is the sun setting on an epoch?
October 4th, 2008http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/is-it-the-end-of-the-american-century/2008/10/03/1223013791575.htm
America’s century: is the sun setting on an epoch?
Peter Hartcher
October 4, 2008
October 4, 2008
In the same week that the US Treasury Secretary sank to one knee to implore a congressional leader to vote for the $US700 billion ($890 billion) package to save the American economy, Colonel Zhai Zhigang became the first Chinese astronaut to walk in space. It was a striking juxtaposition of American vulnerability with Chinese success, of US crisis with Middle Kingdom might. It was heavy with the symbolism of an empire in decline in contrast with one on the rise.
Why Economists Get It Wrong
September 9th, 2008Paul Gilding’s parting shot
September 9th, 2008Networking
July 31st, 2008http://www.smh.com.au/news/management/networking-after-the-offer/2008/07/17/1216163035523.html
SMH – The rot sets in early in the ranks of NSW Labor
July 29th, 2008http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rot-in-the-ranks-wheres-our-getup-our-obama/2008/07/28/1217097144501.html
China must free the Olympic spirit
July 24th, 2008Victor Mallet of the Financial Times writes:
In spite of the pollution and political repression that have preceded the games it is not too late for China to host a competition that acknowledges the Olympic spirit and allows athletes and spectators to enjoy one of the world’s great cities. “Smile” was the advice given by one former IOC official to the Beijing organisers. After all, there is no point in having a “coming-out party” if you are not going to come out and enjoy yourself.
The Halls of Higher Earning
July 16th, 2008Elizabeth Farrelly – The brutal reality about halls of higher earning
The university, says John Ralston Saul, is “where civilisation’s knowledge is divided up into exclusive territories”, where academics daily invent “dialects sufficiently hermetic” to preclude internecine seepage. Each faculty, discipline or research team thus becomes a kind of Da Vinci Code cryptex, and university politics an arcane strain of gang warfare.
It’s always encouraging when one of your favourite columnists starts quoting one of your favourite writers. It makes you feel like things are at peace in the world.
The most interesting aspect of Farrelly’s piece is her unanswered question:
So the question for universities now is, what kind of created place best captures and holds such enchantment in its branches? The same kind that attracts international rich kids and research dollars, or the opposite? Should universities spread or consolidate? Should they cultivate their uniqueness, or fawn on the global crowd? Should they lead or follow? Can they serve both gods?
She asks as a means of leading into the body of her piece, which centres around the architecture and expansion (or contraction) strategies of Sydney Uni and UTS – UNSW should be thankful that it was spared her wrathful gaze. However I am more interested in the implications of this question in terms of how we structure the path of learning itself.
If the muddying of the halls of learning with the boots of commerce is becoming truly worrying (and I feel it is) then what can be done? While I lamented for the bulk of my time at university the purely vocational ‘degree factory’ approach embraced by both UNSW and many of the students who studied there, I eventually had to accept that if both the university wanted it and the students wanted it then it was not a tide that could be held back.
But perhaps there is another answer. For all the criticism of Melbourne University for following the US approach in developing its ‘Melbourne Model’ (more generic undergraduate degrees, with medicine, law and engineering only offered at a postgraduate level), maybe we should acknowledge that it has promise. A blending of the US approach, in which almost everyone goes to ‘college’ before some go on to further study, with the European approach of specialised technical colleges and universities, could yield some merits:
- Vocationally focused studies could be located primarily in the undergraduate and specific streams of the postgraduate parts of the system, allowing the hordes who really only want their BCommerce to get it and get out without being a drag on the parts of the system actually dedicated to higher learning;
- Educational institutions interested in become ‘sandstone’ centres of academic excellence, rather than vocational learning centres, could self-select, and similarly those that wish simply to focus on science and engineering could become centres for excellence in these specific disciplines, without feeling obliged to conform to a system in which they are expected to offer a ‘full suite’ of degrees;
- The 2-3 years of the generic undergraduate degree would allow more scope for the inevitable ‘wild child’ period that most students go through over the course of gaining independence.
A barrier to implementing this system is weaning the ‘sandstones’ off of the corporate sponsorships and partnered funding that is currently a large part of what keeps them afloat. Such a system would significantly increase the price of a philosophy degree at a sandstone to make up for the loss of cross-subsidies gained from offering more popular and profitable vocational degrees. It would also require many of these schools to be more self-funding, which is difficult in the absence of the significant endowments seen in the top US schools.
Still, the idea has merit, I feel. I have a suspicion that Australia’s tertiary education system could be shown to be suffering from a lack of specialisation amongst its institutions. Perhaps the time has come to change that.
You missed it
July 15th, 2008OK, so maybe not entirely. But you’re fucking it up.
I have a lot to offer, and you’re not going to get to see that now. Because I’m done with this now.
It’s rare that I feel this self-aggrandizing, but on this rare occasion I feel I should point out that I’m great: I have more depth and value than is dreamt of in your philosophy, and you have been getting more than your fair share of attention for free. But it’s not a one-way street, luv. As they say in the markets, you need to speculate to accumulate.
So, I’m awesome. But you missed it.