A.C. Grayling, Dawkins and more Launch Private University

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I heard A.C. Grayling on the radio earlier. He was saying: -

1. That there would be scholarships for outstanding students (20% of students on a scholarship initially - hopefully to rise to over 30% within a few years.)
2. That scholarships would either be full, or would bring the fees payable down to the average for state-run universities (about £7,00p.a.)
3. That entry would be based on a proven academic record (a minimum of 3 As at A level, or equivalent) and that all students applying that meet this minimum would be interviewed.
4. On his reasons for establishing this project, he said that recent, and ongoing, cuts in the higher education budget, along with a change towards funding for vocational and technological subjects, meant that humanities subjects were in decline.
5. The college will be a non-profit-making charitable organisation and funded by both fees and donations, with any surplus income being reinvested in the scholarship program.

Just thought that might interest a few.

Interesting, I thought there might be something like this - and it seems fair enough if that's the way they want to go - but personally I'd still rather see more investment in internet education freely available to everyone.

Why does it have to be either/or?

I am a little ambivalent to this, to be honest. I am also wondering what they will be looking for in their interviews... "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the catholic church?"

[Atheist-Lite]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

[HomerJay]

I heard A.C. Grayling on the radio earlier.

I like Grayling. A lot. But I couldn't feel too comforted by this, I wish he had justified it as a technique and a tactic for combatting the decline in humanities. Is this the best method?

[Atheist-Lite]

I heard A.C. Grayling on the radio earlier.

I like Grayling. A lot. But I couldn't feel too comforted by this, I wish he had justified it as a technique and a tactic for combatting the decline in humanities. Is this the best method?

The old ways are dying and new ways are coming. They are on a ever smaller puddle of water drying in the baking sun of a new day. They should get with the program or they'll be left behind.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdVsoS1 ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[Coito ergo sum]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

[Svartalf]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

don't try to discuss such things with Herr Doktor von Frankenstein, he has REAL SCIENCE to do.

[PsychoSerenity]

Interesting, I thought there might be something like this - and it seems fair enough if that's the way they want to go - but personally I'd still rather see more investment in internet education freely available to everyone.

Why does it have to be either/or?

I am a little ambivalent to this, to be honest. I am also wondering what they will be looking for in their interviews... "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the catholic church?"

It doesn't, of course, and that's why I'm not really bothered. It's their choice what they want to invest in - and they may well end up putting lectures online etc as many universities are starting to do. Where they focus on one-to-one tutorials obviously that can't work though. I don't know, never having had any private one-to-one tuition, I can't really comment on if it's actually worth anything to the individuals or society.

As for the religion thing - I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting known as an anti-religion university.

[Atheist-Lite]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

Yeah. Pub talk. It ain't ever gonna put a satellite in orbit is it?

[Coito ergo sum]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

Yeah. Pub talk.

Well...then I respectfully disagree with your opinion. History and literature are not pub talk, unless you want to listen to people make stuff up and/or don't understand.

It ain't ever gonna put a satellite in orbit is it?

No, but neither will the design and manufacture of bridges, roads, and houses.

[Atheist-Lite]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

Yeah. Pub talk.

Well...then I respectfully disagree with your opinion. History and literature are not pub talk, unless you want to listen to people make stuff up and/or don't understand.

It ain't ever gonna put a satellite in orbit is it?

No, but neither will the design and manufacture of bridges, roads, and houses.

Kind of proves my point when ever either of you two say anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is pointless. Unlike science there is nothing to verify here and nothing to learn. These subjects are subjective and conjecture. One mans opinion against anothers.

History? Literature? Subjective and conjecture?

Yeah. Pub talk.

Well...then I respectfully disagree with your opinion. History and literature are not pub talk, unless you want to listen to people make stuff up and/or don't understand.

It ain't ever gonna put a satellite in orbit is it?

No, but neither will the design and manufacture of bridges, roads, and houses.

Kind of proves my point when ever either of you two say anything.

Refutes your point is more like it.

Moreover, philosophy is also a very important discipline - so that people learn how to think. Similarly, knowing something about economics and finance are very important. Human life i complex.

[Atheist-Lite]

Human life is indeed complex which is why we don't need more 'elites' telling people the right way to think. Knowing something about economics and finance is the preserve of those on limited means who learn to micro-budget. You can see how wealth destroys the financial acuity of the wealth inheriting class when you look at the global debt crisis....not caused by the little guy but by your philisophical 'jerking it off in their head' class.

[Coito ergo sum]

Human life is indeed complex which is why we don't need more 'elites' telling people the right way to think. :

No, but we do need people to learn philosophy, history, literature, languages, etc., so that they learn how to think.

[Coito ergo sum]

. Knowing something about economics and finance is the preserve of those on limited means who learn to micro-budget. You can see how wealth destroys the financial acuity of the wealth inheriting class when you look at the global debt crisis....not caused by the little guy but by your philisophical 'jerking it off in their head' class.

If more people learned important things like history, philosophy, literature & the arts, language, etc., rather than focusing solely on passing the Series 7 trading test or how to bean count for banks, we'd likely not be in the same fix.

[Atheist-Lite]

. Knowing something about economics and finance is the preserve of those on limited means who learn to micro-budget. You can see how wealth destroys the financial acuity of the wealth inheriting class when you look at the global debt crisis....not caused by the little guy but by your philisophical 'jerking it off in their head' class.

If more people learned important things like history, philosophy, literature & the arts, language, etc., rather than focusing solely on passing the Series 7 trading test or how to bean count for banks, we'd likely not be in the same fix.

History is distortation and propaganda. Philosophy is the verbals. Literature is ego and a good memory. The arts are just a money pyramid. Language is hardly the preserve of this crowd. Gassing off is gassing off, no matter the context. The humanities without Brian Haw are not the 'humanities' we need right now.