Archive for the ‘Education’ Category
Oxbridge University Press is pleased to announce our new Shakespeare Today® series. Our aim is to eliminate all the awkward and pretentious Elizabethan English that makes the bard virtually impossible for modern college students, especially those who’ve been educated in American secondary schools, to read. After all, did Shakespeare’s original groundling Globe Theater hoi polloi audience — London’s fishmongers, shop-keepers, and chimney-sweeps — need dictionaries to look up all those weird words? Did they have to ponder over the complicated sentence constructions? No, it was ordinary language to them. We think it’s in the true spirit of Shakespeare to translate his works into a modern vernacular that today’s semi-literate readers can relate to.
Please enjoy the following sample from our edition of Hamlet, which shows Shakespeare’s original wording followed by our clear, modernized version:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Should I just stick my head in an oven?
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
I mean, is it better, brainwise,
to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
to put up with the bullets and missiles of a hypothetical personified power that unpredictably determines events,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
Or instead to get a bunch of weapons and fight back like Rambo?
To die: to sleep; no more;
Death is sleep.
And, by a sleep to say we end the heart-ache
A sleep where we end acute symptoms of coronary artery disease,
and the thousand natural shocks
and the large number — probably not less than 800 (or else we’d say ‘hundreds’), or more than 1999 (i.e., ‘thousands’), and not astronomical (e.g., ‘millions)’ — of annoyances
that flesh is heir to,
that our bodies are genetically programmed for.
’tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d.
To die, to sleep;
Recap: death is sleep.
To sleep: perchance to dream:
Wait a second — when you sleep, you dream.
Ay, there’s the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
Who knows what lousy dreams there are
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
once we’ve wriggled out of our skin like a snake or frog?
Must give us pause.
Better slow down, dude.
There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life;
That’s why we take all this bullsh*t.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
For who’d put up with letting time first spank and then look down its nose at us,
the oppressor’s wrong,
the proud man’s contumely.
being harangued by a**holes,
the pangs of dispriz’d love,
feeling crappy because your girlfriend or boyfriend dumps you,
the insolence of office,
diplomats who double-park but don’t get tickets,
the law’s delay,
cops never being there when you need them,
and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes,
and bad people pushing you around, no matter how many patience points you’ve earned,
When he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?
when he could make it all go away with an awl, or a stiletto-shaped steel hairpin, or, by extension, any dagger or dagger-like object?
Who would fardels bear,
Who’d carry piles of sticks around on their backs,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
To perspire and make pig-like noises when really tired?
But that the dread of something after death,
If we didn’t get nauseous thinking how it could actually be worse
The undiscover’d country from whose bourn no traveler returns,
beyond the boundaries of that place for which Travelocity only sells one-way tickets?
puzzles the will,
It makes us give up and look for the answers at the bottom of the page,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?
And ask like “Why fly to Rio, only to get kidnapped there or worse?”
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
Thus, either (1) a socially-conditioned mental function that inhibits expression of natural instincts, or (2) an innate moral faculty which some associate with the ‘image and likeness’ of God, makes us all chicken.
And thus the native hue of resolution
And the red face we get, like an indigenous person, when we’re fired up and rarin’ to go
is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
is plastered over the sick look of someone who thinks too much.
Wherever I go in California these days I meet young people who either can’t afford to attend college, so they don’t, or else are going to college and taking out huge student loans. (I don’t know which group I feel more sorry for, though I think the first group are smarter.)
The thing is, none of this is necessary. The problem, of course, is the unrealistic and outrageously high tuitions at colleges and universities today. And while I’m scarcely a knee-jerk ‘free market solves all’ libertarian, in this case I think the principle applies. The reason tuitions are so high is because we have a closed system, a monopoly of players in collusion who control higher education. The racket works like this:
- Universities convince people that they need a diploma to get a job.
- Employers collude with universities, so that they do in fact require diplomas.
- Further add the requirement that the diploma must be granted by an accredited university.
- Control which colleges and universities get accredited and which don’t, thereby limiting competition. In particular, make the accreditation process so expensive that small independent colleges are excluded.
The net result is that the service (education) becomes virtually mandatory, but only members of the monopoly can supply the service. Consequently the members of the monopoly can charge (or extort) unrealistically high tuitions and get away with it.
So there are two related problems that go into making higher education a monopoly: accreditation, and the use of diplomas. My proposal is that we should seriously consider eliminating both. By eliminating accreditation we would open the marketplace to free competition, the result being lower prices. By eliminating diplomas, at least at the undergraduate level, we would teach people because they want to learn, not because they want a piece of paper.
What is the rational basis for accreditation? One can see why, perhaps, we should require physicians to be licensed — we don’t want quacks endangering the lives of unsuspecting patients. But do students need to be protected from ‘incompetent’ colleges? Can’t we let students themselves decide which colleges are supplying adequate service?
Consider the power of consumer choice in other areas. Does a hamburger chain need to be accredited, or can it just sell hamburgers, competing with other chains, succeeding if it satisfies customers and failing if it doesn’t? Do you check to see where your car mechanic is trained before doing business? Or do you choose based on demonstrated skill and reasonable price? If you can make your own choice of mechanics, restaurants, and movies, why are you deemed incapable of discriminating between excellent and lousy colleges? Why do you need an accreditation organization to do this for you?
Let’s look at another reason people claim to need accreditation: to control admission to professional and graduate schools. So accredited doctoral programs require bachelor’s or master’s degrees from accredited universities so they can turn out PhD’s qualified to teach at accredited universities. It is egregiously self-serving.
I hate to disappoint my fellow academicians, but I have a little confession to make. I went through a fully accredited PhD program. But the truth is that I learned almost nothing in my classes. There were a few good professors, but more often than not they were pompous bores. What I did learn I mainly learned by checking statistics books out of the library and reading in my own time. I taught myself Fortran, developed skill as a programmer, and wrote statistics and simulation programs. That was how I got my education. And I could have done just as well at an unaccredited university — or for that matter, if supplied only with a library pass and computer account.
It surprises me that people aren’t challenging employer diploma discrimination in court. It is a flagrant injustice, if not a clear-cut abuse of civil rights. Take two identical twins. Send one to an accredited university for four years, give the other a computer and internet access. Let them both read the same books and articles. Let one attend in-person lectures, let the other buy lectures from The Teaching Company. After four years you will likely find two equally well educated people. Then have them both send job applications to the same company. The non-degreed twin won’t even be granted an interview; his or her resume won’t be read or sent out of the HR department. Does anybody seriously believe that is legal?
It amazes me that so much interest and energy gather around an issue like gay marriage equity, while everybody sits silently and tolerates diploma discrimination, which is arguably much more serious, because it amounts to rich vs. poor discrimination, unmitigated elitism, and exploitation.
I’ve just completed a new White Paper on public higher education policy in California. Here is an abstract:
For the last 50 years, a belief that building a robust and competitive state economy should predominate California’s public higher education goals has become increasingly prevalent, and today it is taken as an unchallenged assumption. This White Paper emphatically rejects that assumption, and argues that broader cultural and social goals are of equal, if not greater importance for Californians’ well-being than purely economic ones; and that to achieve these broader social goals we must place more emphasis on humanities and the classical model of liberal education.
California State Senator Darrell Steinberg is co-sponsoring SB 520, titled “California Virtual Campus.” The Senate Bill would potentially enable California students to receive credit at public universities and colleges (UCs, CSUs, and CCCs) for courses taken online from any source. This would presumably stimulate competition, lower course costs, and make higher education available to more Californians.
Predictably, there is resistance from faculty associations. The Berkeley Faculty Association, for example, is circulating a petition to oppose SB 520. The petition states that SB 520 “will lower academic standards (particularly in key skills such as writing, math, and basic analysis), augment the educational divide along socio-economic lines, and diminish the ability for underrepresented minorities to excel in higher education.”
This, of course, is all nonsense. Nearer the truth is that the Berkeley Faculty Association wants to protect faculty jobs. It is sad indeed when they place their own job security ahead of sensible efforts to make higher education affordable and accessible to more Californians.
That said, anything the State Government touches will be tainted by money. No doubt many private online universities (e.g., Univer$ity of Phoenix) will jump at the new chance to make money. Whether online universities are actively lobbying State Senators is anybody’s guess (but what do you think?).
What we ought to do is to simply eliminate expensive and needless accreditation requirements for undergraduate colleges, whether brick-and-mortar or virtual. Consumers and market competition would then assure the highest quality courses for the lowest price. We should similarly eliminate four-year degrees, which are meaningless. People should take classes for the purpose of learning, not to get a degree. If undergraduate education were completely de-regulated, everybody – minorities included – would follow their natural inclinations to educate themselves, and select high-quality vendors. A world-class college lecture series would cost no more than to rent a Blu-Ray movie.
This infographic, sent to me by some colleagues, documents in clear and sobering terms the scope of the college tuition crisis and soaring higher education costs. It’s a very creative and effective way to get the message across, don’t you think?
The full article can be found here.