So good to see you back, Lee! I agree, it would be great if we could have a better view of the collateral damage of the imparted non-curriculum wisdom.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that we can all remember some teacher or even teachers if we are > lucky, that had profound effects on our learning andf growing as human > beings. Now my schooling was frankly shit but even I can name two teachers > who have had such a marked effect on me, even into adult life. > > I think most teachers manage to impart a little of their ummm 'non > ciriculum' wisdom to their students, at least in my opinion the goods ones > do. > > > Not quite an answer to your question I know. > > As far as simple morality goes, heh I think those of us who have spent > even a little time looking at the subject, must delcare it a minefield and > hence not simple at all. > > > On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 18:39:09 UTC, archytas wrote: > >> I hope to spend the next 5 years "not teaching" - a difficult >> financial decision as this is my 'ready-to-hand' income. Some years >> back I tried to take and stick to a decision not to teach 'ideological >> rot' - broadly the mainstream of business and economic subjects. This >> might seem a fairly easy personal, moral decision; yet it isn't. >> >> The interesting issues don't concern the easy morality of doing what's >> right. One can find plenty of material, from Critical Theory through >> to deconstructive approaches to behaviour and critical psychology - >> and once, very critical management books like Peter Anthony's >> 'Foundation of Management' and sort programmes out on the basis of >> these. Thus one could teach material one might feel credible and >> stretching, broadly aimed at students learning critical reasoning. I >> do offer modules based around writers like David Graeber, Steve Keen >> and modern blogs at the moment. >> >> What muddies the waters is a combination of streamlining costs in HE >> and more or less the extirpation of syllabus control by academics, >> along with a massive dilution of student brain-power and the >> connection of student success with the numbers we pass. This >> situation makes moral judgement very difficult and academe has >> collapsed altogether as a moral place. >> >> Economics has long been taught as a science - an utter farce - and >> management theories are only fit for ridicule (excellence, kwality and >> anything with 'strategic' in it). The world works around power and >> rhetoric, and this is the only real content of such "theories". >> >> The madness that underlies all this is that we never address what the >> real issues might be. Accumulated wealth is clearly a problem for >> democracy as it inevitably means some will benefit by doing nothing >> while others work and that the wealth will be used to influence >> politics and the very ground of commercial competition. Yet with no >> consideration of this we leap into "theorising" in a system that >> applauds the creation of excess wealth in few hands as a 'good'. >> >> One can try to teach what one believes is true and in simple morality >> this is what one ought to do. The actual situation is much more >> complex. The jobs available in teaching (apart from a few little >> eddies I have occupied) are nearly all to do with teaching the rot, >> because this is the cheapest way universities can devise. The moral >> choice of not teaching rot changes to a choice not to teach (and get >> paid) - partly because your own students will be examined on the rot >> because you are teaching as part of a 'team' and all students are set >> the same questions as part of standardisation. If you don't teach the >> muck you put your students at a disadvantage. >> >> I see no answers to the moral conundrum - other than just to walk >> away, putting distance between oneself and the madness. >> >> >> >>
