(2) On postmodernism
As a skeptic of much “postmodernism”, I point to the http://xkcd.com/451/ entitled “Imposter”

Here’s the text version (courtesy http://www.ohnorobot.com/archive.pl?comic=56&show=2&page=15)

My Hobby: Sitting down with grad students and timing how long it takes them to figure out that I’m not actually an expert in their field.
Engineering: / Students: Our big problem is heat dissipation / Me: Have you tried logarithms? / 48 seconds
Linguistics: / Me: Ah, so does this Finno-ugric family include, say, Klingon? / 63 Seconds
Sociology: / Me: Yeah, my latest work is on ranking people from best to worst. / 4 Minutes
Literary Criticism: / Me: You see, the deconstruction is inextricable from not only the text, but also the self. / Eight papers and two books and they haven’t caught on.
{{Alt/title text: If you think this is too hard on literary criticism, read the Wikipedia article on deconstruction.}}

Turn about is fair play…

Also , though I would agree PoMo is now thankfully dead or dying, it was still alive and kicking around five years ago. I have the attacks on anarchism and anarchists on disk to prove it. Available by request.

there was a letter in “Nature” a few years ago which argued that Wittgenstein was seriously unhinged, and that his “profundities” arose from a mental illness: his inability to speak clearly (or write?) was a symptom of major illness rather than brilliance. With some of these blokes, how would you know??

Which happens often enough. It’s amazing how many scholarly points of disagreement can be found when you don’t like somebody personally.

In a philosophical century full of bungalows, yes indeed, one would be rather hard-pressed to find any such ‘towering’ figure.

Was it US President Wilson who said, “Disputes in Universities are all the more bitter, because the stakes are so low.” ??

Often attributed to Henry Kissinger, but actually first stated by Columbia University political-science professor, Wallace S. Sayre, who coined a somewhat more elaborate version: “Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”

University politics are infinitely more bitter and vengeful than ‘intellectual’ disputes, except for the inevitable instances when political vendettas start becoming pursued upon the academic battleground.

The problem is, for students and those who are just starting teaching or doing research, the stakes of departmental disputes are sometimes very high - it can be about their livelihood. A couple of badly-timed attacks by irresponsible - and basically unaccountable - senior staff and it can be a huge setback in terms of future prospects or employment.

I suppose it could be institution-specific, but I hear about far worse things than I’ve seen personally, going on elsewhere.

I recall a heated discussion about a current academic/management issue, decades ago. The Law lecturer suggested the staff union should sue the Director; the sociologist said, “you have to understand the social background of the Council members”; the accountant said we should examine the costs; on it went. Now you could say this was a useful cross-disciplinary discussion, each bringing her own skills and knowledge.

I have to say (as an ousider) that disputes within Arts Depts seem to reach a level of vindictiveness, shrillness, fury, etc not seen in most other Depts. An Arts participant in some furore told me, “That’s because language and rhetoric are our stock in trade!”.

I’m not so sure that the explanation is adequate. But I could be wrong. Was it US President Wilson who said, “Disputes in Universities are all the more bitter, because the stakes are so low.” ??

It doesn’t take Frank Furedi’s son to tell us that, via his Dad. You wonder if these people ever get out and about. Some news-hacks seem even more closeted and “ivory tower” than the most insular of the fabled “professors”.

Indeed. Although I’m less concerned with ’standards’ - my experience of an honours year in cultural studies was that I had to work very hard - harder then I’ve worked before or since - to get a first class, and the thesis was seen by both internal and external markers. It was a process that rewarded rigour, albeit of an interdisciplinary sort.

My real interest is in the culture of the different areas of study. The humanities and social sciences in some Australian universities, seems to have a certain inescapable ugliness in how staff behave towards each other and towards students (except sometimes for their particular pets, who are then attacked by other staff members). Hence it came as little surprise to me that Kitching would use students in this way.

“But words are now viewed as psychological weapons,” Furedi said.

Heh, Gummo.

Panel member Frank Furedi also knows something about our pusillanimous surrender of Enlightenment values. Debate is closed down by claiming that words, ideas and arguments cause offence to people… His young son was told recently not to use the word retard because it had offensive connotations. His son knew that, which is why he used the term. “But words are now viewed as psychological weapons,” Furedi said.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

Cool, Paulus. Unfortutately, I have a hankering to read Frow’s riposte, if it as good as Mark says. Does it mean I have to fork out the dosh to do so? The Horror.

I conclude that the Oz is now contructing its audience as Liberal voting climate sceptics who are practicing christians. Must be plenty of them out there.

Perhaps, but I’m not one of them, and I don’t feel like being patronised by the Oz’s stable of flying monkeys, and most of the good stuff is available online. So I bought the AFR instead.

Do you mean I’d have to thoroughly understand the assumptions, methods, predictions and experimental tests of Quantum Mechanics? Oh, bugger that! Haven’t got time.

Now if it’s really a question of sensing that a Dept has poor teaching, or doesn’t edit and assess Honours theses very rigorously: as others have said, that’s a matter to be dealt with inside the Dept, not paraded for public ridicule. University Depts are still supposed to be self-governing in academic matters and the taxpayer would expect intelligent persons to have devised methods that suit the particular discipline, to achieve fair and defendable outcomes.

Klaus wrote: “Selling out your own students and junior colleagues, bullying, ‘public’ humiliation, are all par for the course in certain institutions. I wonder, is it better in the sciences? It does seem to be, but maybe it’s a case of the grass being greener on the other side of campus. Perhaps I’ll retrain as a biologist.”

Klaus, I’ve observed a number of science Depts, and a poor first or second draft of an Hons thesis would generally come under heavy scrutiny I think. Partly because standards need to be maintained. Partly because everyone recognises that an Honours grade is crucial for a student applying for postgrad scholarships. In many science Depts at least one Hons examiner is external to the Dept.

Not sure if that helps you in deciding whether to pursue biology? It’s not always the case that biology is destiny, Klaus