On A.C. Grayling, odium and the Stasi
“Have you heard about this new private university that A.C. Grayling bloke is setting up?”
“The one that’s 18 grand a year?”
“That’s the one.”
“Can’t say I’ll be queuing up to pay that myself.”
“Why would you? You’re thirty-nine. You’ve had an education at the University of Life.”
“The University of Life doesn’t come cheap either, mate. Seems a bit funny, though, to pay over £50,000 for a degree based on the promise that you might get to see Richard Dawkins give a lecture. I mean, you can see Richard Dawkins give a lecture at Waterstones if you’re willing to wait for his next book tour.”
“Terry Eagleton agrees with you. I read this thing he wrote in the Guardian. He said the whole idea was odious.”
“Odious?”
“That was the word. He said that Grayling peddles Just So stories and Dawkins touts a simple-minded version of history, and neither of them are likely to turn up very often. So it’s going to be rubbish. Also, he says it’s going to be an ultra-Oxbridge, the beginnings of an educational apartheid, where rich students stroll into plush jobs thanks to their degrees from the New College of the Humanities.”
“Interesting. I suppose one of those things might be true.”
“Either of them might be true, mate. Either of them. Probably not both at once, though.”
“Smart bloke, though, that Terry Eagleton. I read his book Literary Theory once. Good stuff.”
“Yes. He says education shouldn’t be a commodity. His students shouldn’t be asked to choose between the mediocre £10 insights on Wuthering Heights and the sparkling £50 version. True words. How much did Literary Theory cost you?”
“It was £7.99 if I recall. It was a few years back, though. Paperback.”
“Paperback? And of course those Eton types would have been able to afford the hardback for twice the price. Odious.”
“At least the article in the Guardian was free. If you had an internet connection. Otherwise you had to pay. A bit of a two-tier system, come to think of it.”
“Another pint?”
“Thanks. The last round cost me almost as much as a copy of Eagleton’s Literary Theory – and it was over a lot more quickly, too.”
“So what do you reckon is going to happen to this private university?”
“I don’t know. If they’re charging twice as much as anyone else for a substandard product I expect they’ll be as profitable as a taxidermist specialising in stuffed puppies.”
“Who cares? It’s not as if it’s the Millennium Dome – I mean, we’re not paying for it, are we?”
“Probably not. Unless A.C. Grayling is backed by a loan from a nationalised bank, which is not a possibility I’d like to rule out.”
“But if it’s going to go belly up and it’s not taxpayer funded, what’s the problem?”
“I don’t know, really. Maybe the problem is that it will end up being really successful, pioneering all kinds of high-quality educational techniques, freeing up space at other universities and attracting talented academics to London from around the world, but only rich kids will enjoy the benefits.”
“I can see how it would be worrying. It would be a bit like West Germany in the days of the Berlin Wall – very inconvenient for the more community-minded citizens of the East if money-grubbing pushy types keep trying to go west.”
“I don’t think Terry Eagleton is planning to gun down would-be NCH students with a Kalashnikov, to be honest.”
“No, fair play. I’m sure not. At 54 grand for a degree I don’t think he’ll need to, either. It’s probably going to be a disaster.”
“It probably is. I suppose there is the chance that they might experiment with all kinds of new ideas, though, and discover something useful about providing a good education. And those good ideas might even be copied by the rest of the university system.”
“Don’t make me laugh. It’s not likely, is it?”
“No. It’s not likely. And it’s certainly not a chance we should take. Odious is the word.”
“Yes. Mind you, the country is full of odious things. There’s Razzle, and Frappuccino, and celebrity biographies. Look at us. A free country, and this is how we choose to spend our money.”
“Yes. A disturbingly free country. Odiously so.”
Also published at ft.com.
7 Comments
Hywel Arnold says:
Eagleton represents the very cadre that have, to pun, left us in an incorrigible establishment that has petrified even Grayling’s attitude on some issues. I welcome a truly independent university whereof many eminences may learn from pioneering students rather than merely training them for the Peter Principled “stable” society that Vonnegut caught in his tale The Handicapper General by way of allegory. Could we have a non-animal- experimenting unit to find a cure for gum disease, please?
11th of June, 2011underblog says:
Surprised that Tim totally misses the point on this occasion. Education isn’t just any other market where all consumers benefit from competition. Consumers of education are also in competition with each other for life chances, and many think that equality of opportunity is an important goal for a modern democracy to aim for in it’s education system (or at least it should seek to limit the inequalities).
11th of June, 2011I’m not saying that education is a zero sum game. But if economists tell us that equality of opportunity and increasing overall levels educational quality are conflicting goals,
the interesting debate is where that balance is to be struck. The questions is not whether Grayling is free to do this. The question is whether he is right to.
Duncan says:
From Wikipedia:
“In the Fall 2009 semester, Dr Eagleton returned to The University of Notre Dame as a Distinguished Visitor in the Department of English.” “The University of Notre Dame du Lac (or simply Notre Dame) is a *private* Catholic research university located in Notre Dame.”
Terry Eagleton, not so opposed to private universities when it suits him.
11th of June, 2011Veronique says:
It was such a treat to come across this article of yours after reading some very rabid, self-serving and ugly comments to various articles that have slated Grayling et al and the development of a new International College of Humanities.
The irony and humour of this piece at least made me smile for the first time for a few days.
So, I should tell you that I posted it from FT onto my fb page.
11th of June, 2011David Silverman says:
Of course they *might* experiment with new ideas and discover something useful about providing a good education, although I’m not sure what these ideas would be. What they are definitely doing is experimenting with a bad idea, providing an education which is unobtainable to all but a small handful of the non-rich. This is likely to get copied elsewhere for monetary reasons, but not for reasons of providing a good education. This would be a disastrous result.
11th of June, 2011Michelle B says:
Brilliantly funny approach, much nicer than what I will day here–oh, you righteous do-gooders, that know what is best for everybody, just go shove it.
13th of June, 2011James Chance says:
The point you are all missing – made by an excellent piece by Anthony Barnett on Open Democracy – is that this isn’t just a “private” university, but a “for-profit” university. As an American, I’m very comfortable with private universities – but our experience with for-profit universities has been disturbing. As Barnett argues, the distortions produced by the profit motive on the basic principles of academia – independence and open debate – are very dangerous. The other issues about price and accessibility are important, but the biggest innovation and biggest threat of Grayling’s project lie in the deeper commodification of university education than even the coalition government has pushed for. Before reading this piece, I was thinking of buying Tim Harford new book “Adapt” – but if this is the quality of his analysis, I’m not sure it would be worth the price! Lots of other quality commodities to buy…
20th of June, 2011