I never thought I’d agree with Queensland Liberal Senator George Brandis on anything (well maybe with the exception of his interesting comparison of the Prime Minister with a rather disliked small animal last year), but hey, credit where it’s due:
At a time when so much of the focus of public debate is, for understandable reasons, upon vocational education, I also want to say a word in defence of pure learning, the pursuit and and advancement of knowledge for its own sake. Because, without a philosophical and institutional commitment to the advancement of learning as an end in itself, there will not be the beneficial application of that knowledge to the advancement of mankind [sic], nor will there be the intellectual excellence for which Australia’s elite universities are internationally respected
Matt Price, writing in The Australian [no link yet available], lauds this as Menzian if not “high Elizabethan”. Well, Brandis is no Marlowe or Shakespeare, and it’s remarkable that what a few years ago would have been unsurprising sentiments have now become so rare that they attract such ardent praise. Price, however, is quite right to contrast Brandis’ position with the nonsensical and stupid analogies beloved of Dr “Planet Common Sense” Nelson, and also with the apparent desire of the Prime Minister to drive our school retention rates down even further than they’ve already sunk in the Howardian era. But what pass have we come to when any expression of respect for education for its own sake is noticeable as sailing very much against the prevailing wind?
Do you really mean ?”fulsome praise”?
Sorry, personal mission. That, and the word “problematic”.
Next personal mission: punctuation.
Right. I feel very dumb now! In a post on education! Yikes! Will fix.
Btw – Zoe, there’s some good punctuation on Normblog.
I think its in some respects fair to say that the federal Liberal party are currently experiencing something of an identity crisis. One the one hand, they have JWH at the helm and are doing consistently well electorally against an opposition that has turned madly on itself as a result.
On the other hand, under Howard they have shirked much of what it means to be a liberal government in the classic sense. Yes, they are winning, but they are not being the party they should be, and when dawn finally breaks and they lose power it may well be a torrid realisation for them.
Umm.. just out of curiosity, as a young undergrad entering the big bad world of the humanities, am I the only person who feels there isn’t anything particularly wrong with ‘mankind’ in this context?
Hence the [sic] after mankind.
Even as a postgraduate scholarship-holder I’ve never been comfortable with the idea of education for education’s sake. It too much brings to mind the images of Oxford and Cambridge undergraduates studying Tacitus during the Depression.
“Usage note: … But the word is also used, particularly in the expression fulsome praise, to mean simply “abundant,” without any implication of excess or insincerity.”
Oh, all right. I’ll put “reading all of links put up to make stupid point when blogging in the middle of the night” on the personal project list, too. A fair call.
This would never happen at normblog.
(soon, over it soon)
Damn straight!
This is an interesting piece by Louise Dodson in today’s SMH – ‘Divergent views vital to Howard’s broad church’.
This is an interesting piece by Louise Dodson in today’s SMH – ‘Divergent views vital to Howard’s broad church’.
I’m my field of Biology there has been a stupefying trend since the 80′s to only fund applied Science. Buzz words like “cancer” used to be enough, but now grant applications contain words like “Bio-terrorism” to get the money flowing.
Applied research (whether its science or humanities) needs to be build on a solid foundation of pure research, otherwise it gets top heavy.
Hope my grammar doesn’t cause to much offense.
I’m my field of Biology there has been a stupefying trend since the 80′s to only fund applied Science. Buzz words like “cancer” used to be enough, but now grant applications contain words like “Bio-terrorism” to get the money flowing.
Applied research (whether its science or humanities) needs to be build on a solid foundation of pure research, otherwise it gets top heavy.
Hope my grammar doesn’t cause to much offense.