In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity • Hacker News Board

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#191

Post by throw2016 » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

Some significant issues in western democracy can be traced back to the 1980's and before the fall of communism. Untill then it was important at least for appearances to show western capitalism and democracy as the best and fairest political systems for all round prosperity.

Reaganism, Thatcherism and neoliberlism of the Friedman kind unleashed a toxic ideology that legitimizes and surrenders all decision making and thinking to markets. It's like a religion and magical thinking. This disproportionately benefits those with economic power as it is intended to, but under the Orwellian use of words like 'freedom' and 'efficiency'.

This concentrated economic power is then used to co-opt dissent by economic means or disarm it to make it meaningless.

Academics along with a free press were a bulwark against unchecked power and provided dissent. Now they are too tied up with administration and securing grants to perform that role, and this is not an accident. The free press similarly have become too intertwined with entrenched interests and government and have been reduced to a mouth piece for propaganda and special interests.

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#192

Post by megaman22 » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #181

gaius wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me it is an elitist view that when you provide a service to the unwashed masses, it must be of lower quality But it must be. An institution with AAA A-level students can teach more advanced material at a faster pace than one that admits EEEs. This is surely obvious, no? It doesn’t mean anyone is better or worse in a moral sense, it just means more or less academically able.

Just because they accept them doesn't mean they need to keep them. If the students can't keep up, that's on them.

It's pretty repugnant to accept students that have no capability to perform, take their money, and boot them when they fail out because they aren't prepared or equipped.

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#193

Post by patricius » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

Systemic33 wrote: post #186

patricius wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when someone writes "the state pays your tuition", it hides the fact that people pay your tuition. Or, depending on your view, you yourself will pay for your tuition through taxes. A lot of people forget, when making a statement like that, what is called free is not in fact free. And when you give something away, we presume that it is not something you have stolen. But the money spent at the point of consumpt…

It's a cost on society, not on the individual pupil, just like how the education is a gain to the society at large, while the individual effort of the individual may seem negligble. So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income…

> It's a cost on society, not on the individual pupil, just like how the education is a gain to the society at large, while the individual effort of the individual may seem negligble.

What is society in this sense but a collection of many individuals that pay, through taxes, to a common pool? Perhaps society gains, perhaps it does not. We can never know. The services are still paid for.

> So of course it's free. You are not paying. And you don't pay it over taxes, society does. Think of it this way: If you didn't go to university, and just learned on your own, then you still pay the same taxes if you reach the same income level. So taking a university does not increase your taxes. Ergo free.

If I learned on my own, I would just receive less public services for the amount of money I pay in taxes. It doesn't make it more free that my taxes do not increase. It would just make the amount of services that I do receive more expensive.

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#194

Post by jmoss20 » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #176

wastedhours wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is that, yes, the non-academic staff help with the mountain of non-academic work lecturers would otherwise have. I used to work in a support role at a university, and although many of the roles will inevitably be automated away, you'd be amazed at how much administration a student on a course requires (from room bookings for lectures, enrolment information, pastoral support, cleaning, cooking, supporting w…

> the non-academic staff help with the mountain of non-academic work lecturers would otherwise have Sometimes the academics create lots of extra work for the non-academic staff with their sub-optimal decisions. I used to work for a university in their IT services, and as a developer I was exposed to a lot of the business rules around enrolment, course prerequisites, degree/major requirements, which we recorded and en…

I would certainly hope they wouldn't dumb down their rules...for the sake of the computer system?

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#195

Post by BeetleB » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:07 PM UTC

patricius wrote: post #45

remedan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I live in the west (continental Europe) and you can attend a good university for free here. The state pays your tuition.

I know this is a trite comment, but no, you still pay through taxes. The state has no money. I too live in a country with tax-financed universities.

You and others may thing you are being pedantic, but you are not. You are simply wrong.

If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me.

The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free.

In a later comment you say "Well, if we can redefine free to mean "I will let someone else pay for it" or "I will pay for it at some later date", then sure..."

"I will let someone else pay for it" is true, and it is not redefining free. It is free and someone else paid for it. Don't construct a world view where they are opposing each other.

And no, you will not pay for it at some later date. That's a loan, and is what we in the US often do for school. You may pay the tuition for other students who come after you, but there are usually ways to opt out of that with no penalty. And even if you do end up paying for others, it is not a reciprocal transaction. You are not paying for others' education because you received a free one. You would still pay for it even if you opted out of university.

Yes, the education is free.

Why am I taking the time to write this out? For two reasons:

1. Often (but not always) people like to make this point because they want to have a discussion of the wider economic system, and often about the pros and cons of that system. Yet you have not really made an effort to have that discussion so it may not have been your motivation.

2. If we go with your notion of what "free" means, then we should be consistent and realize pretty much nothing is for free. A plank fell off my fence. I could have paid someone to fix it, but instead I took a hammer and nails and got the work done for free. "Oh no!" says the listener. "Don't think you got it for free. You paid for it in labor, and in buying the hammer and nails." You respond with "Well no, I found the nails and hammer in the trash - someone was moving out". "Yes, but he paid for it, so still the work you did was not free."

These conversations never happen in real life. No one disputes that I did it for free.[1] So why do we allow ourselved to get sidetracked with the issue of whether health care or education is free - especially when it is not the purpose of the conversation at hand?

Well, OK - some people will question whether my time was worth it vs just paying someone, but that's the extent. And the analogue to "free" education would be "No it wasn't free. You spent 4 years of your life there - you need to consider the opportunity cost"

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#196

Post by candiodari » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:07 PM UTC

Malarkey73 wrote: post #173

candiodari wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes we must have social justice above all ! At the very least above average performance for all ! Are you really willing to believe that ability is randomly distributed among the population ? Because, frankly, that disagrees with a great many studies on the subject. But of course, what you can do, is lower the level of pupils until the difference between them disappears. You cannot lift everyone's level, that just do…

1. I don't mention nor advocate social justice. 2. I don't anywhere imply everyone should be average. 3. I don't say ability is random among the population but I don't actually understand what you are getting at here? 4. If we couldn't lift the ability of pupils or indeed people generally then we would still be living in caves. If we educate more people better then more people will be better educated no matter their…

> 5. Did the government make everyone smarter or lower standards you ask? I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that moving from 3.4% to 50% University population has possibly diluted the fraction of geniuses within academia but greatly increased the number of geniuses within academia and improved education and academia as a whole.

(in all honesty, this is not about the UK)

No you can't. I mean how can you actually believe this ?

So why does 50% of the population now pass ? That's impossible if the standards were the same and therefore that cannot be what is happening ...

Anecdotally, there are also many articles and other sources of information that point out that lowering the bar is indeed what is happening.

As for my anecdote, being able to theoretically derive statistics from number theory was a required ability for any math degree, any CS degree, and even more than a few engineering degrees. Now you're lucky if a student mumbles out "just use anova" because that means they at least attended the work sessions. Knowing what the preconditions are is essentially unheard of, understanding why those are required preconditions (and therefore where & why you can "cheat") ... I have not seen a single student that was able to do that in a decade.

Now you can discuss whether this is required by the marketplace or not. But I was part of the decision to remove it and ... that was not the reason. "Everybody fails" (which meant slightly over 70%) was the reason. Needless to say, nothing was put in it's place, and no hard subject was ever introduced into the curriculum.

And that's not even the worst of it. Almost any degree now has an easier version associated with it. Frankly, that's how initially the university defended itself. Statistical calculator, roughly translated to English. But there's backlash. You see, employers realized that these people can't do statistics, they can only work SAS. Guess what the pressure is demanding ... Is this pressure that we now demand that these people now get a full math degree, and learn theoretical mathematics ?

Or is the pressure on for hiding the difference between people with the (very hard) theoretical understanding and the ones with just a few practical skills ?

What do you think ?

But I'm sure that you're right and in fact just a slight change in government policy was all that was required to make the entire population smarter, more precise and more able in theoretical maths. How lucky are we that we have a government that cares to make such a tiny change with such miraculous results !

Were you born in 1984 ?

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#197

Post by frgtpsswrdlame » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #56

It's the infestation of 'market' philosophy that is the grindstone on the academic values. Everything gets beaten into submission of an amoral self-referential quantitative utility framework. This has become so ingrained that many, if not most, don't even see it as a choice but simply accept it as some sort of universal law.

>amoral self-referential quantitative utility framework

My goodness, that's quite a phrase. What do you actually mean?

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#198

Post by patricius » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #195

patricius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a trite comment, but no, you still pay through taxes. The state has no money. I too live in a country with tax-financed universities.

You and others may thing you are being pedantic, but you are not. You are simply wrong. If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free. In a later comment you say "Well, if we can re…

> If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me.

The difference is that you don't end up paying for your Rolex. But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector. So how is it free? At the point of consumption someone else will be paying for you, but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe. If you never paid any taxes, then yes, you could consider your education free.

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#199

Post by Malarkey73 » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #196

Malarkey73 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I don't mention nor advocate social justice. 2. I don't anywhere imply everyone should be average. 3. I don't say ability is random among the population but I don't actually understand what you are getting at here? 4. If we couldn't lift the ability of pupils or indeed people generally then we would still be living in caves. If we educate more people better then more people will be better educated no matter their…

> 5. Did the government make everyone smarter or lower standards you ask? I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think that moving from 3.4% to 50% University population has possibly diluted the fraction of geniuses within academia but greatly increased the number of geniuses within academia and improved education and academia as a whole. (in all honesty, this is not about the UK) No you can't. I mean how can yo…

If I understand you correctly. Nobody had run a 4 minute mile before Roger Bannister.

Now lots of people have so standards must have dropped.

Re: In UK universities there is a daily erosion of integrity

#200

Post by BeetleB » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 3:37 PM UTC

patricius wrote: post #198

BeetleB wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and others may thing you are being pedantic, but you are not. You are simply wrong. If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The fact that someone paid for it is not contradictory to it being free. In a later comment you say "Well, if we can re…

> If I get a Rolex watch as a gift, and a friend asks how much I paid for it, I would not be wrong to say "I got it for free." The fact that someone else paid for it doesn't change the fact that it was free for me. The difference is that you don't end up paying for your Rolex. But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector. So how is it free? At the point of co…

>But you do pay taxes during your life time and in return you get services provided by the public sector.

And my education is not one of them. I pay for other people's education, and not for mine. I benefit from their education, which is why I pay for it. To me, it is a big distinction from your perspective. And as I alluded to, there are usually ways not to pay those taxes (legally). So my education really was free for me.

Yes, it is a service I get from the public sector. But I do not pay for the service I receive.

>but in the future you can be said to be paying back what you owe.

That's not the reality - it's just a convenient way some people look at it. The reality is I'm paying for others. One key difference which I pointed out is the scenario where I didn't go to university. I would still pay the same amount for others (taxes) if my income is the same. That alone kills the notion that I'm paying what I owe. If I cannot get out of that payment scheme because I opted out of university, it is very clear that I am not paying for my education.

Social Security is the same. People think they pay SS so that they can get benefits when they're old. While there is some grain of truth to it, the reality is that mostly you are paying SS to cover the currently elderly folks' welfare. SS is not a pension plan. And due to the declining population growth, when I get old I likely will have far reduced benefits than the people I am paying for now. It is critical for me to know what I am paying for - SS payments are not for me - I am paying for others.

Frankly you are ignoring the most important part of my comment - the very reason I decided to post the comment.