Sir John Daniel cites David Kirp, "Embedded in the very idea of the university... are values that the market does not honor: the belief in a community of scholars and not a confederacy of self-seekers; in the idea of openness not ownership; in the professor as pursuer of truth and not an entrepreneur." It seems to me that traditional scholars have argued for their presence at every step of increased openness; academics would be needed to vet materials, to regulate admissions, to manage curricula. But in a process well-documented in this talk, they (or at least Daniel) have come grudgingly to accept that common people could manage these for themselves. There is no doubting the usefulness of a community of scholars. But the suggestion that "a community of scholars" is not "a confederacy of self-seekers" is quaint at best, naive at worst.
Today: 0 Total: 16 [Direct link] [Share]
