<snip>

I must confess that I have alternated between thinking this first guy
is being sarcastic in the Swiftian vein that Bob alluded to, and
thinking he is serious. I really cannot decide which, mainly because
this view is one I have heard/seen expressed before by similar people.
I have seen real Profs in real establishments really argue that we
could get foreigners to do our science for us, after all their nations
then bear the expense of training them, and we import them with our
big Western salaries (ha!) and reap the benefits.

I have yet to experience that particular pain so I may be a little less
biased than you in this instance so can see the sarcasm a little
clearer. That's not to say that I'm any fairer or smarter than you, I
just have a different perspective.

Oh I am quite happy to concede that you are most likely smarter and
fairer than me! (In fact there is evidence for this, see below!)

I do see where you (and Bob) are coming from with the sarcasm, like I
said it had occured to me, especially taking into account the final
paragraph and the sig. It's just that I have heard this argument
promoted in all seriousness before from people in a similar position
to the distinguished gent who wrote this stuff. This is why I am
teetering between taking him seriously (albeit noting his perhaps
humourous mode of expression) and laughing along with him.

AHA! I have just noticed an email from the listserv I belong to, from
the author of the piece, it is humourous:

"Reply from Christie Davies:

I have been amazed at how many scientists have taken seriously my
piece ' Why should children have to learn science?' . I deliberately
planted some irrelevant absurdities in the text to show it was
humorous. My occasional serious writings about science, notably in
opposition to the anti-science post-modernists , discourse analysts,
social construction of science wallahs etc. who infest my own field
have been entirely on the side of the scientists.
Much of the rest of my work concerns humour , to the study of which I
have tried to apply scientific methods to establish a testable set of
principles and to demolish those who think there is no such thing as a
truth claim. Indeed they do not think the world exists outside their
own feelings about it
Please read my research to see how I did it . It has been published as
Christie Davies, The Mirth of Nations, New Brunswick NJ, Transaction
2002"

So that answers that, and I have the egg on my face as you say in
English, ja! (Ok so I am not German, but it's well known they have no
sense of humour so I am using it as my excuse. Oh and I'm kidding
about the Germans having no humour, just in case I later think I
wasn't ;-))

The second guy is, I am sure, more serious, and a more serious threat
to science education in the UK. Basically his whole premise is a
misguided argument from what is most popular being what is best. Egad!
More media studies students! ACK! {ASIDE: Can't they get their
degrees done in a year? Up the contact hours to 12 per week and 2
books read per fortnight instead of the one. C'mon, it surely
shouldn't be that hard! Philosophers excepted on grounds of bias on my
part}

Yah, the second guy is more serious and unfortunately not in the US. I'm
a bit concerned that his attitude which is much like RW US has spread to
the UK.

As for the second guy, I take Alex's points about universities bending
to market forces and the issues of government funding etc. The thing
is that universities are actually making money, and there are ways to
turn non-profitable departments into profit making entities (spin out
companies are one way that spring to mind). The issue I take with what
the gent in question says is not the market forces angle that Alex
alludes to, but the fact that he is partly arguing that chemistry
depts can be closed on the basis that chemistry is no longer relevant
or popular (both harrowingly untrue as any cursory glance at the
figures will show).

His argument also touches on the regional university issue. Simply put
this is that a/the university in a specific region (let's say Wales
becuase Swansea chem dept is probably closing) need not offer a full
range of courses because companies in that region can recruit from
elsewhere. While that is undeniably the case it misses the larger
picture, and the more serious point. With the introduction of some of
the fee for a university place being paid by the student by this
government, a significant number of people will have to attend
university closer to home so that they can live with their parents.
Again, from what I remember of the data collected on this matter, this
trend has already begun. Should all the deptartments of a certain kind
close in a region this disadvantages potential students in that region
who might wish to study that subject and are less blessed with cash.
The political ideology of that aside, it is an impractical solution at
best.

Prof Sir Harry Kroto made similar points in a recent article (which
for some sodding reason I can't find, when I do I'll post it). Anyway,
work is now screaming to be done so I have to leg it.

Louis


<snip sigs>

Oh I am quite happy to concede that you are most likely smarter and
fairer than me! (In fact there is evidence for this, see below!)

I do see where you (and Bob) are coming from with the sarcasm, like I
said it had occured to me, especially taking into account the final
paragraph and the sig. It's just that I have heard this argument
promoted in all seriousness before from people in a similar position
to the distinguished gent who wrote this stuff. This is why I am
teetering between taking him seriously (albeit noting his perhaps
humourous mode of expression) and laughing along with him.

So that answers that, and I have the egg on my face as you say in
English, ja! (Ok so I am not German, but it's well known they have no
sense of humour so I am using it as my excuse. Oh and I'm kidding
about the Germans having no humour, just in case I later think I
wasn't ;-))

The second guy is, I am sure, more serious, and a more serious
threat to science education in the UK. Basically his whole premise
is a misguided argument from what is most popular being what is
best. Egad! More media studies students! ACK! {ASIDE: Can't they
get their degrees done in a year? Up the contact hours to 12 per
week and 2 books read per fortnight instead of the one. C'mon, it
surely shouldn't be that hard! Philosophers excepted on grounds of
bias on my part}

Yah, the second guy is more serious and unfortunately not in the US.
I'm a bit concerned that his attitude which is much like RW US has
spread to the UK.

As for the second guy, I take Alex's points about universities bending
to market forces and the issues of government funding etc. The thing
is that universities are actually making money, and there are ways to
turn non-profitable departments into profit making entities (spin out
companies are one way that spring to mind). The issue I take with what
the gent in question says is not the market forces angle that Alex
alludes to, but the fact that he is partly arguing that chemistry
depts can be closed on the basis that chemistry is no longer relevant
or popular (both harrowingly untrue as any cursory glance at the
figures will show).

His argument also touches on the regional university issue. Simply put
this is that a/the university in a specific region (let's say Wales
becuase Swansea chem dept is probably closing) need not offer a full
range of courses because companies in that region can recruit from
elsewhere. While that is undeniably the case it misses the larger
picture, and the more serious point. With the introduction of some of
the fee for a university place being paid by the student by this
government, a significant number of people will have to attend
university closer to home so that they can live with their parents.
Again, from what I remember of the data collected on this matter, this
trend has already begun. Should all the deptartments of a certain kind
close in a region this disadvantages potential students in that region
who might wish to study that subject and are less blessed with cash.
The political ideology of that aside, it is an impractical solution at
best.

Prof Sir Harry Kroto made similar points in a recent article (which
for some sodding reason I can't find, when I do I'll post it). Anyway,
work is now screaming to be done so I have to leg it.

Louis


<snip sigs>

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:27:09 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis):

I had my attention drawn to this blog by the Public Understanding of
Science list serv people. I thought I'd share. My immediate reactions
was simply "WOW". Then I became slightly annoyed, vitriolic and
argumentative missives are being completed.

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000166.php

One should read this article with the writings of Jonathan
Swift, especially his "Modest Proposal", firmly in mind. The
concluding sentence should make the basic nature of the
article crystal clear:

"By long tradition anything disagreeable in Britain is
always done by foreigners, so why not science? For talented
scientists in poor countries or ones where there is little
personal freedom the tedious work done in a laboratory in
free and wealthy England is an escape to paradise. All they
need are scholarships, contracts and visas. I look forward
to having 100,000 new Hindu and Chinese neighbours."

In a similar vein another article shocked me to the core.

http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/story.jsp?story=548112

This one, OTOH, seems to be a genuine proposal. It seems
incredible to me that a statement such as...

"Universities should be left free to respond to student
demand. If they are to continue to grow and develop new
areas of knowledge then it is essential that older, less
popular courses and departments should be closed. If that
means the early demise of chemistry in some regions then,
trust me, not even the chemists will notice the loss."

....should be seriously made by the Vice-Chancellor of a
university (who *should* know that the university is
supposed to be better able to judge what constitutes an
acceptable education than the prospective students), but I
guess if most students wished to major in Video Gaming he'd
be amenable to that; after all, the wishes of the students
are obviously more important than the experience and
knowledge of the university staff.

Obviously, as a chemist, I have a vested interest. Even if I didn't
the shockingly poor arguments and reasoning are abhorrent enough.

Isn't it enough that we have ridiculous postmodernists, new age
believers of any old bollocks, arm chair critics ignorant of even the
simplest science yet violently opposed to it, the frothing end of the
god-botherer spectrum, and now loony "social scientists" shouting
their mouths off. Were I a rabid christian I would have developed a
really unhealthy persecution complex....

Any comments on the articles?