Without a crystal ball, it is not possible to predict, what the true consequences of a Brexit will be. A belief in the return to the principles which forged the British Empire may be the driving force behind the advocates of Brexit. Whether or not these principles can be re-instated in a nation that has changed so greatly since the 2 World Wars is a moot point and it must be asked whether it is wise to try to turn the Clock of History backwards.
We can make some observations, based upon specific facts that are already the consequence (the fallout) generated following the Referendum announcement, and perhaps use these facts to make intelligent extrapolations about the possible repercussions of Brexit.
It is generally known that firstly, there has been substantial capital flight from the UK and that such a flight of capital out of the country cannot be as a result of the maintenance of the status quo, so it must be because of the Fear of Brexit. Secondly, there is evidence that London firms are not taking on young graduates since February 2016 as they await the outcome of the Referendum. Once again, it is illogical to assume this reluctance is due to anything else other than the Fear of Brexit. Thirdly, the value of sterling is "wobbling".
These three obvious facts lead us to the natural conclusion that Common Sense would advocate "better a known devil (the EU) than an unknown devil (Brexit)" and a deliberate leap into further uncertainty in already uncertain times isn't wise. We cannot escape the observation that the Fear of Brexit has already had negative repercussions even before the nation has voted. If in the short-term, Fear is spooking markets, it is reasonable to extrapolate that in the long term, the Reality of Brexit will generate even greater uncertainty than we have already seen, along with all its attendant negative repercussions, further intensified.
Thursday, 16 June 2016
Sunday, 10 April 2016
Financial Affairs, Salaries & Tax Returns of The Media?
Given that, for the last 20 years at least, Education in this country is controlled by Left-Wing Press & Academics, both jointly functioning as our 3rd and most Powerful Parent, I think we can safely conclude that National Corporate Ignorance provides the perfect blank intellectual canvas upon which to paint distorted pictures which will be passed off as masterpieces of Journalistic Research. (This assumption of "Control" is based upon the known fact that Education Ministers (who are not Left-Wing) are given a rough time by Teaching Unions). Let's take, for example, the story, that for the past week or so, has been boring most of us to death; i.e. the so-called Panama Papers "Scandal". Talk about flogging a dead horse!
After decades of Free Education in the UK, does the general public know the difference between Tax Avoidance & Tax Evasion & that both are different from Tax Planning? Does the general public know that Law & Morality are not linked in our modern legal system? Morality in the UK is perceived as subjective and separate from the Law (please see below). Is it therefore proper or just to give the impression of something being "illegal" simply because it is, according to the thinking of our Third Parent, "immoral"?
Thinking (if we can call it that any more) has been turned on its head by Educators & The Media over the last two decades so much so, that, the ability to do well (without the intervention of the Doctrine of Social Engineering) & to succeed is seen as inherently immoral. Do the general public realize that redistribution only functions to impoverish everyone? Are we planning to redistribute wealth & opportunity globally so that everyone has a little bit? If the global boundary is seen as our prescribed "area of re-distribution" do Left-Wing Journalists and Academics (how they love their Champagne & Junkets!)realize that their collective wealth, jobs, income, "business lunches" are "up for grabs", after all, even the poorest among us in the UK is wealthier than the vast majority of people on Earth?
It is entirely appropriate that all members constituting the self-appointed Parent & Guardian of our Corporate Morality, i.e. The Media be required to publish all details of their lives beginning with their Financial Affairs, Salaries & Tax Returns. We see media personnel on our screens all the time, so they are public personalities and are therefore no longer entitled to any privacy. Can we please have all this information asap?
PS Those instances where conscientious parents, managing their affairs responsibly & legally, are able pass on wealth/savings/something to their children, surely represent the very best that good law combined with morality, can produce. It would require a perverse & reprobate mind to disagree with this observation.
After decades of Free Education in the UK, does the general public know the difference between Tax Avoidance & Tax Evasion & that both are different from Tax Planning? Does the general public know that Law & Morality are not linked in our modern legal system? Morality in the UK is perceived as subjective and separate from the Law (please see below). Is it therefore proper or just to give the impression of something being "illegal" simply because it is, according to the thinking of our Third Parent, "immoral"?
Thinking (if we can call it that any more) has been turned on its head by Educators & The Media over the last two decades so much so, that, the ability to do well (without the intervention of the Doctrine of Social Engineering) & to succeed is seen as inherently immoral. Do the general public realize that redistribution only functions to impoverish everyone? Are we planning to redistribute wealth & opportunity globally so that everyone has a little bit? If the global boundary is seen as our prescribed "area of re-distribution" do Left-Wing Journalists and Academics (how they love their Champagne & Junkets!)realize that their collective wealth, jobs, income, "business lunches" are "up for grabs", after all, even the poorest among us in the UK is wealthier than the vast majority of people on Earth?
It is entirely appropriate that all members constituting the self-appointed Parent & Guardian of our Corporate Morality, i.e. The Media be required to publish all details of their lives beginning with their Financial Affairs, Salaries & Tax Returns. We see media personnel on our screens all the time, so they are public personalities and are therefore no longer entitled to any privacy. Can we please have all this information asap?
PS Those instances where conscientious parents, managing their affairs responsibly & legally, are able pass on wealth/savings/something to their children, surely represent the very best that good law combined with morality, can produce. It would require a perverse & reprobate mind to disagree with this observation.
Saturday, 16 January 2016
University Academic Cheating & Its Most Useful Module i.e. "How To Be A Good Game-Player"
The Times (2nd January 2016) and The Independent (4th January 2016) have now both had articles on University Academic Cheating. Sadly, I think these investigations with their national coverage are, at least, 4 years too late! From 2011, I had observed that the collusion between Staff and the Student's Union was bound to lead to all-out academic cheating with the realization that Student Lobbying works! I personally know a Dean of Faculty who actually advised Student Reps how to bully staff to get what they wanted and the mechanism for professionally destroying/eliminating staff who will not collude with a reduction of academic standards! This particular Dean of Faculty was absolutely gifted in this dubious area of student education.
Historically, powerful academics have always had certain favoured students who would be given broad hints about what is coming out in the exam etc. No doubt, that was and is unfair, in that, a student willing to "massage the ego" of an academic i.e. those willing to Stoop to Conquer (!), would do better than perhaps a more talented and honourable student who would not stoop to such unseemly means to get a better grade. That said, what we have now replaced that old "my supervisor is a god!" system with, is an industrial level, of what I term, "authority subversion" cheating system, that is rendering University education, at best, an expensive waste of time, and at worst, a breeding ground for young professional cheats of the future.
Students of today do not like having to submit to authority or indeed to even acknowledge the existence of any learning/knowledge hierarchy; after all, anything we do not know, we can "google". So, it reasoned that, the great leveller, Death (i.e. of Academic Standards), will abolish any difference between staff and students.
Staff-student liaison committees are set up to determine that academic challenging modules are irrelevant and must be "altered" (code for "dumbed down"). Merely to simplify the content alone is not sufficient and the students, through their all-powerful student union reps, will push for module assessment to be changed, for example, from 30% coursework 70% examined content module, to 100% coursework modules with 0% examined content. Thereafter, getting a First Class Degree is a matter of electronically "cutting and pasting" essays together, or better still, getting someone else to write those essays for a small payment (can we call it "smart" out-sourcing?).
There is another component to all this; I was personally present at staff meetings in 2011-2012 where we were instructed from the very top of the University hierarchy, to give 60% of our students Firsts and Second Uppers regardless of how the students performed. We were told that if our modules could not deliver this overall 60% result, then the module content and testing mechanism must be altered.
If highly placed (& highly-paid) University Academics cannot be trusted to protect Academic Integrity and are part of the collusion to reduce academic rigour, we cannot expect our students to have a regard for principle and high standards, as, our students will simply follow the example of those who are deemed their betters and their superiors; i.e. these past-masters of the Art of Game-Playing. Perhaps £9000/- a year is worth it, if you are being taught by successful experts how to become a really good Game-Player!
Historically, powerful academics have always had certain favoured students who would be given broad hints about what is coming out in the exam etc. No doubt, that was and is unfair, in that, a student willing to "massage the ego" of an academic i.e. those willing to Stoop to Conquer (!), would do better than perhaps a more talented and honourable student who would not stoop to such unseemly means to get a better grade. That said, what we have now replaced that old "my supervisor is a god!" system with, is an industrial level, of what I term, "authority subversion" cheating system, that is rendering University education, at best, an expensive waste of time, and at worst, a breeding ground for young professional cheats of the future.
Students of today do not like having to submit to authority or indeed to even acknowledge the existence of any learning/knowledge hierarchy; after all, anything we do not know, we can "google". So, it reasoned that, the great leveller, Death (i.e. of Academic Standards), will abolish any difference between staff and students.
Staff-student liaison committees are set up to determine that academic challenging modules are irrelevant and must be "altered" (code for "dumbed down"). Merely to simplify the content alone is not sufficient and the students, through their all-powerful student union reps, will push for module assessment to be changed, for example, from 30% coursework 70% examined content module, to 100% coursework modules with 0% examined content. Thereafter, getting a First Class Degree is a matter of electronically "cutting and pasting" essays together, or better still, getting someone else to write those essays for a small payment (can we call it "smart" out-sourcing?).
There is another component to all this; I was personally present at staff meetings in 2011-2012 where we were instructed from the very top of the University hierarchy, to give 60% of our students Firsts and Second Uppers regardless of how the students performed. We were told that if our modules could not deliver this overall 60% result, then the module content and testing mechanism must be altered.
If highly placed (& highly-paid) University Academics cannot be trusted to protect Academic Integrity and are part of the collusion to reduce academic rigour, we cannot expect our students to have a regard for principle and high standards, as, our students will simply follow the example of those who are deemed their betters and their superiors; i.e. these past-masters of the Art of Game-Playing. Perhaps £9000/- a year is worth it, if you are being taught by successful experts how to become a really good Game-Player!
Tuesday, 5 January 2016
Of Chemistry Minds and Motives
The article "A Mind-Blowing Legacy" by Mark Peplow (RSC Publication Chemistry World July 2014) throws up some interesting concepts of "motives" when looking for new compounds. Shulgin's research into psychoactive compounds was probably motivated initially by pure scientific curiosity and then I wonder whether the addictive power of the chemicals he was working with (mescaline and MDMA) did not seduce him into a search for more mind-blowing compounds to try out on himself and his friends, all in the name of science. Was there a point at which the researcher was no-longer master of the "The Search" but instead had become the servant of "The Search"?
Mescaline, a plant alkaloid, is a compound available in nature as are the compounds cannabis, morphine and cocaine. Nature has provided us with a range of psychoactive compounds. However, scientists have also created totally artificial compounds such as MDMA (Ecstasy). Pure research into mind-blowing compounds is all very interesting initially but there must be some real point to it i.e. motive. Taking nature's natural psychoactive compounds and turning them into "molecules of salvation", such as morphine into a pain-killer for the suffering ........ gives meaning to the pursuit of science. It is simply awesome that altering one chemical group (an ethyl for a methyl) can lead to such an alteration of properties where a compound stops being a mind-blower and instead becomes a healing compound. This kind of highly technical and difficult chemistry can sometimes be boring compared with the excitement and entertainment of talking about "withdrawal" and "euphoria" (accompanied by graphic photographs) which now constitute the main subject matter of Drugs Chemistry in Forensic Science courses at some universities. Indeed the title Medicinal Chemistry is sometimes considered to convey subject matter that is too complex, and the more street-savvy word "Drugs"!! with all its promise of illicit excitement has replaced the word "Medicinal". University professors are known to be complicit in this change of focus.
It would be good for students to be in awe of the specificity of brain receptors and the wonderful way very tiny changes (requiring a huge amount of work by synthetic chemists) in a chemical molecule can have the most profound effects in the brain and how this knowledge can be applied intelligently to enhance the quality of life of others. For example, MDMA targets the 5HT receptors in the brain which are normally switched on by serotonin. Prolonged use of MDMA can lead to the depletion of serotonin. Serotonin is nature's brain chemical for keeping us happy. We do not want our serotonin levels to be depleted as it can lead to depression.
Shulgin had ample time to move from pure scientific curiosity and self-experimentation to the worthwhile application of his knowledge. Pure scientific knowledge must of course be acquired as a precursor to application. Do scientists have any responsibility for their work? I think they do; after all, scientists are also people, and as people, we all have a responsibility towards each other. Shulgin, knowing the power of the molecules he was working with, should have felt concerned. Is it possible that, after some time, any reservations he may have had about these molecules were slowing being eroded? Were the mind-blowing molecules he was working with not only driving him on to look for more mind-blowing molecules while at the same time relieving him of any sense of accountability? Servants obey their masters. Servants take orders and are not required to question or take responsibility for their actions. Scientists need to be masters of their search for knowledge; their motives need to remain constantly under self-scrutiny. When motives no longer matter, when research surges forward unquestioningly with a momentum of its own, dragging the researcher in its slip-stream, then the scientist has become the servant of the "The Search".
On a more mundane note, the discovery of these molecules leads naturally to the question of the use/misuse of these chemicals and whether to legalize their use such that valuable police time is freed up from the official pursuit of those using/mis-using these substances. The knock-on effect of allowing all these molecules to be accessible with impunity, will inevitably add to unwell people who will have to call upon our already over-burdened NHS.I think there is a junior doctors' strike looming. What a tangled web we weave!
Mescaline, a plant alkaloid, is a compound available in nature as are the compounds cannabis, morphine and cocaine. Nature has provided us with a range of psychoactive compounds. However, scientists have also created totally artificial compounds such as MDMA (Ecstasy). Pure research into mind-blowing compounds is all very interesting initially but there must be some real point to it i.e. motive. Taking nature's natural psychoactive compounds and turning them into "molecules of salvation", such as morphine into a pain-killer for the suffering ........ gives meaning to the pursuit of science. It is simply awesome that altering one chemical group (an ethyl for a methyl) can lead to such an alteration of properties where a compound stops being a mind-blower and instead becomes a healing compound. This kind of highly technical and difficult chemistry can sometimes be boring compared with the excitement and entertainment of talking about "withdrawal" and "euphoria" (accompanied by graphic photographs) which now constitute the main subject matter of Drugs Chemistry in Forensic Science courses at some universities. Indeed the title Medicinal Chemistry is sometimes considered to convey subject matter that is too complex, and the more street-savvy word "Drugs"!! with all its promise of illicit excitement has replaced the word "Medicinal". University professors are known to be complicit in this change of focus.
It would be good for students to be in awe of the specificity of brain receptors and the wonderful way very tiny changes (requiring a huge amount of work by synthetic chemists) in a chemical molecule can have the most profound effects in the brain and how this knowledge can be applied intelligently to enhance the quality of life of others. For example, MDMA targets the 5HT receptors in the brain which are normally switched on by serotonin. Prolonged use of MDMA can lead to the depletion of serotonin. Serotonin is nature's brain chemical for keeping us happy. We do not want our serotonin levels to be depleted as it can lead to depression.
Shulgin had ample time to move from pure scientific curiosity and self-experimentation to the worthwhile application of his knowledge. Pure scientific knowledge must of course be acquired as a precursor to application. Do scientists have any responsibility for their work? I think they do; after all, scientists are also people, and as people, we all have a responsibility towards each other. Shulgin, knowing the power of the molecules he was working with, should have felt concerned. Is it possible that, after some time, any reservations he may have had about these molecules were slowing being eroded? Were the mind-blowing molecules he was working with not only driving him on to look for more mind-blowing molecules while at the same time relieving him of any sense of accountability? Servants obey their masters. Servants take orders and are not required to question or take responsibility for their actions. Scientists need to be masters of their search for knowledge; their motives need to remain constantly under self-scrutiny. When motives no longer matter, when research surges forward unquestioningly with a momentum of its own, dragging the researcher in its slip-stream, then the scientist has become the servant of the "The Search".
On a more mundane note, the discovery of these molecules leads naturally to the question of the use/misuse of these chemicals and whether to legalize their use such that valuable police time is freed up from the official pursuit of those using/mis-using these substances. The knock-on effect of allowing all these molecules to be accessible with impunity, will inevitably add to unwell people who will have to call upon our already over-burdened NHS.I think there is a junior doctors' strike looming. What a tangled web we weave!
Tuesday, 11 February 2014
Has the Educational "Berlin Wall" Received A Fatal Blow?
The long overdue scrutiny of Ofsted is happening now amidst a great deal of 'smoke-and-mirrors' political activity. It is irresponsible for the comfortably-off older generation to play politics with the education of our young. If Ofsted had been doing its job properly, we would not be dealing with the sorry results of the OECD findings. Therefore, it is entirely proper that new leadership be sought for Ofsted. Competent leadership at Ofsted is part of the business of returning Education in this country to the very high standards of the past. Competent environmental management might have mitigated the dreadful scenes of flood devastation we are all witnessing. We can no longer rely on the many unaccountable and expensive Quangos that supposedly run things for us. These highly paid professionals are more concerned with "looking good" rather than "being good". Whether in Educational or Environmental management, at the moment, success seems to measured not by results, but by the persuasiveness of the rhetoric.
Michael Gove's plans for State Schools are idealistic; we need idealism, vision and courage to take on the advocates of the "low, one-size-fits-all curriculum and let's socially engineer University intake" ideology. That we still have top-class Universities shows the resilience of past high standards, as even our best Universities have been under pressure to select students based on perceived potential "poor thing she/he comes from a disadvantaged background" rather than actual achievement. If Michael Gove's plan comes to fruition, in future, it will allow all selections for University candidates to once more be based upon true merit and achievement rather than on nebulous judgements flowing from SAQ profiles that accompany UCCAS applications.
Longer school hours, more academic content in the curriculum, removal of soft wishy-washy subjects, a broad-based baccalaureate-type selection of subjects and a range of extra-curricular activities for all students is, I believe, the tried and tested way to ensure all young people in this country benefit from this country's first-world status. It isn't trendy I know, but other successful countries know that this solid approach works. The return to tried and tested maintenance of our rivers by dredging may not have the glamour of the trendy "let's preserve our wildlife", but it just may save livelihoods and homes by increasing the capacity of our waterways.
The question remains whether Mr Gove's vision can ever be implemented. As I look at the army of flood victims and weary volunteers who are doing their best in these dire circumstances, they remind me of concerned (pushy?) parents who have struggled over the years against a tide of low expectations and the contrary winds of professional indifference. These parents are just like flood victims trying to do their best for their families. The desire to survive and succeed cannot come from the top alone, no matter how well-intentioned. Ultimately, the job only gets done because individuals (salaried or not) simply roll up their sleeves and get on with the job.
PS Talking of salaries, on the 13th of March 2014, The Times Health Correspondent, Chris Smyth, has written a seriously depressing article about an NHS chief (HR manager) who has quit the NHS but will continue to get £310,000/- for the next two years from the NHS whilst also drawing a salary as an "organisational development consultant (whatever does that mean?)" to the University of Leeds. Her area of expertise is apparently HR, training, leadership development and communication which she is passionate about. Heaven help the poor put-upon conned taxpayer, who I am certain, in a crisis, will not be able to call upon these "passionate" over-valued individuals, paid huge double salaries to do public sector non-jobs.
Michael Gove's plans for State Schools are idealistic; we need idealism, vision and courage to take on the advocates of the "low, one-size-fits-all curriculum and let's socially engineer University intake" ideology. That we still have top-class Universities shows the resilience of past high standards, as even our best Universities have been under pressure to select students based on perceived potential "poor thing she/he comes from a disadvantaged background" rather than actual achievement. If Michael Gove's plan comes to fruition, in future, it will allow all selections for University candidates to once more be based upon true merit and achievement rather than on nebulous judgements flowing from SAQ profiles that accompany UCCAS applications.
Longer school hours, more academic content in the curriculum, removal of soft wishy-washy subjects, a broad-based baccalaureate-type selection of subjects and a range of extra-curricular activities for all students is, I believe, the tried and tested way to ensure all young people in this country benefit from this country's first-world status. It isn't trendy I know, but other successful countries know that this solid approach works. The return to tried and tested maintenance of our rivers by dredging may not have the glamour of the trendy "let's preserve our wildlife", but it just may save livelihoods and homes by increasing the capacity of our waterways.
The question remains whether Mr Gove's vision can ever be implemented. As I look at the army of flood victims and weary volunteers who are doing their best in these dire circumstances, they remind me of concerned (pushy?) parents who have struggled over the years against a tide of low expectations and the contrary winds of professional indifference. These parents are just like flood victims trying to do their best for their families. The desire to survive and succeed cannot come from the top alone, no matter how well-intentioned. Ultimately, the job only gets done because individuals (salaried or not) simply roll up their sleeves and get on with the job.
PS Talking of salaries, on the 13th of March 2014, The Times Health Correspondent, Chris Smyth, has written a seriously depressing article about an NHS chief (HR manager) who has quit the NHS but will continue to get £310,000/- for the next two years from the NHS whilst also drawing a salary as an "organisational development consultant (whatever does that mean?)" to the University of Leeds. Her area of expertise is apparently HR, training, leadership development and communication which she is passionate about. Heaven help the poor put-upon conned taxpayer, who I am certain, in a crisis, will not be able to call upon these "passionate" over-valued individuals, paid huge double salaries to do public sector non-jobs.
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Public Service, Social Work, Charity & Goodness
I have been recently informed that people who make charitable donations are not "good" but only give to charity to avoid tax. This point of view was made known to me, during a lunch party last week, by a fully paid-up member of the Labour Party. The previous day, while having dinner with two young adults of ambivalent political inclinations, I was amused by their unfettered admiration for another individual who worked with autistic people and is paid handsomely by the government to do so, describing that individual as "good".
Is it possible that there is a general confusion about "goodness"? It is my understanding that when people give to Charity, they no longer have the use of that money for their own needs. This often means that they do without something; if the donation is small, it may be the sacrifice of a mere bar of chocolate. If the donation is big, it may mean doing without a holiday abroad. In contrast, when a person works with autistic people and receives a good salary for it, as this activity has entailed no sacrifice and indeed has been remunerated, it is clearly not an act of charity.
I believe that those who make sacrifices for others in Charity giving, have a greater claim to the description "good" than those who work for a salary in an area of public service that helps others. After all, if an individual has an inclination for working with the handicapped, the ill and the disadvantaged and does so at no sacrifice to themselves, then they are in fact doubly rewarded in finding a suitable niche and being well-paid to enjoy that niche. They cannot possibly be described as "good" as they are no different from any other person in the work-force and they are consumers of public wealth rather than the creators of public wealth.
Contrast this with creators of public wealth who regularly give to Charity; any excess money left over to such individuals can only be taxed up to a maximum of 45%. If these individuals choose not to give to Charity, then the 55% still remains available for personal consumption and enjoyment once 45% has been surrendered to the taxman/woman. Please also note that wealth creation happens in the private sector, with all the stresses of risk-taking and fearfully long hours of work; this is in stark contrast to the comfort and security of the wealth-consuming public sector
My blog-posts are usually about educational and academic matters. Could it be a sign of a defective education (might it be a subtle form of brain-washing?) when the fundamental differences between the true goodness of Charity-giving and shrewdness of well-paid employment in the "caring" part of the Public sector get confused? To go back to my starting point, all the three individuals who have prompted this blog are highly educated. I find worrying that, despite being so well-educated they may be mistaking shrewdness for goodness.
Is it possible that there is a general confusion about "goodness"? It is my understanding that when people give to Charity, they no longer have the use of that money for their own needs. This often means that they do without something; if the donation is small, it may be the sacrifice of a mere bar of chocolate. If the donation is big, it may mean doing without a holiday abroad. In contrast, when a person works with autistic people and receives a good salary for it, as this activity has entailed no sacrifice and indeed has been remunerated, it is clearly not an act of charity.
I believe that those who make sacrifices for others in Charity giving, have a greater claim to the description "good" than those who work for a salary in an area of public service that helps others. After all, if an individual has an inclination for working with the handicapped, the ill and the disadvantaged and does so at no sacrifice to themselves, then they are in fact doubly rewarded in finding a suitable niche and being well-paid to enjoy that niche. They cannot possibly be described as "good" as they are no different from any other person in the work-force and they are consumers of public wealth rather than the creators of public wealth.
Contrast this with creators of public wealth who regularly give to Charity; any excess money left over to such individuals can only be taxed up to a maximum of 45%. If these individuals choose not to give to Charity, then the 55% still remains available for personal consumption and enjoyment once 45% has been surrendered to the taxman/woman. Please also note that wealth creation happens in the private sector, with all the stresses of risk-taking and fearfully long hours of work; this is in stark contrast to the comfort and security of the wealth-consuming public sector
My blog-posts are usually about educational and academic matters. Could it be a sign of a defective education (might it be a subtle form of brain-washing?) when the fundamental differences between the true goodness of Charity-giving and shrewdness of well-paid employment in the "caring" part of the Public sector get confused? To go back to my starting point, all the three individuals who have prompted this blog are highly educated. I find worrying that, despite being so well-educated they may be mistaking shrewdness for goodness.
Sunday, 5 January 2014
The New "Boy" Network in Academia
I think that there is a network in operation in this country, which I call the New "Boy" Network. "Boy" is in inverted commas because it is really a network of men and women. Having duly railed, ranted and stood against the Old Boy Network of "toffs" and public school gentlemen for decades, we now have, in its place, a much more pernicious network which I believe is willing to be anti-meritocratic in order to achieve certain social engineering ends. It is my observation, (and here, I will be delighted to be proved wrong), this network exercises freely, the last allowable form of political incorrectness, where it is acceptable to discriminate against people who have the appearance of coming from a certain so-called "posh" background. In a bizarre reversal of snobbery, such so-called "posh" individuals are the new social lepers and the very whiff of this background is sufficient to exclude the individual.
My blog-posts are invariably linked to academia and I specifically write about University academia. The proliferation of professors and senior academics in the last decade or so, draws candidates exclusively from the New "Boy" Network pool. Having sat on interview committees, I recall being embarrassed by the after-interview banter amongst those of us on the interview board, where I noted the impolite and scornful comments, the distaste, the clear prejudice and resentment that automatically eliminated people (men and women) who came across as "posh". Whether these people possessed the requisite qualifications or not, the moment they presented themselves and opened their mouths, speaking with what used to be called RP, there was not the slightest chance that these so-called "posh" people would be allowed to move onto the next stage of the application process.
In any true meritocracy, there will be a spread of ability amongst people of all backgrounds. It is logical then to expect that the recognition and reward of true meritocracy ought to lead inevitably to diversity in all organizations. It is my observation, however, that this diversity is no longer found in Academia. I have anecdotal evidence that certain other Public Service professions also suffer from this lack of diversity.
It is significant that Public Sector organizations have quantities of information and vast resources ploughed into Equality and Diversity Policies and Dignity at Work Protocols. Is it possible that the existence of these policies and protocols allows an organization to convince itself that it is in reality practising Equality and Diversity and showing Dignity to all? I feel that when an organization needs vast quantities of documentation to set out in detail what constitutes discrimination, and how to exercise fair-play, such an organization has conceded that it is, in fact, made up collectively, of people who are not merely immoral ((i.e. possessing a defective moral compass) but in fact amoral (i.e. possessing no moral compass at all).
The end result of the parochial and sometimes vengeful conduct of the New "Boy" Network, is that, this country as a whole, will lose out rapidly in the international race, relative to other countries who are hungry for global success. This will happen because, although a little of this sort of New "Boy" Network mentality can be safely absorbed throughout the country, once the subverted motives in candidate selection reaches a certain critical mass, (and I believe we are at that point now in Academic and Educational establishments in this country), we have set in motion, events that will lead to a downward spiral away from excellence throughout the whole country.
When uber highly-paid public servants, occupying the highest offices in our academic institutions, respond resentfully, with depressing regularity, in a "Pavlovian" fashion (recall Pavlov's dog experiment) to the sound of an RP accent, I cannot help wondering whether there is any point to Education in a moral vacuum. If the Old Boy Network was accused of cronyism and the much more destructive New "Boy" Network is most certainly guilty of both anti-meritocracy and cronyism, what are we going to do? Should we not be concerned about the urgent need to dismantle the New "Boy" Network for the greater good of this country's global academic standing?
My blog-posts are invariably linked to academia and I specifically write about University academia. The proliferation of professors and senior academics in the last decade or so, draws candidates exclusively from the New "Boy" Network pool. Having sat on interview committees, I recall being embarrassed by the after-interview banter amongst those of us on the interview board, where I noted the impolite and scornful comments, the distaste, the clear prejudice and resentment that automatically eliminated people (men and women) who came across as "posh". Whether these people possessed the requisite qualifications or not, the moment they presented themselves and opened their mouths, speaking with what used to be called RP, there was not the slightest chance that these so-called "posh" people would be allowed to move onto the next stage of the application process.
In any true meritocracy, there will be a spread of ability amongst people of all backgrounds. It is logical then to expect that the recognition and reward of true meritocracy ought to lead inevitably to diversity in all organizations. It is my observation, however, that this diversity is no longer found in Academia. I have anecdotal evidence that certain other Public Service professions also suffer from this lack of diversity.
It is significant that Public Sector organizations have quantities of information and vast resources ploughed into Equality and Diversity Policies and Dignity at Work Protocols. Is it possible that the existence of these policies and protocols allows an organization to convince itself that it is in reality practising Equality and Diversity and showing Dignity to all? I feel that when an organization needs vast quantities of documentation to set out in detail what constitutes discrimination, and how to exercise fair-play, such an organization has conceded that it is, in fact, made up collectively, of people who are not merely immoral ((i.e. possessing a defective moral compass) but in fact amoral (i.e. possessing no moral compass at all).
The end result of the parochial and sometimes vengeful conduct of the New "Boy" Network, is that, this country as a whole, will lose out rapidly in the international race, relative to other countries who are hungry for global success. This will happen because, although a little of this sort of New "Boy" Network mentality can be safely absorbed throughout the country, once the subverted motives in candidate selection reaches a certain critical mass, (and I believe we are at that point now in Academic and Educational establishments in this country), we have set in motion, events that will lead to a downward spiral away from excellence throughout the whole country.
When uber highly-paid public servants, occupying the highest offices in our academic institutions, respond resentfully, with depressing regularity, in a "Pavlovian" fashion (recall Pavlov's dog experiment) to the sound of an RP accent, I cannot help wondering whether there is any point to Education in a moral vacuum. If the Old Boy Network was accused of cronyism and the much more destructive New "Boy" Network is most certainly guilty of both anti-meritocracy and cronyism, what are we going to do? Should we not be concerned about the urgent need to dismantle the New "Boy" Network for the greater good of this country's global academic standing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)