Friday, 10 December 2010
Soft subjects R4 the bin?
So they did it. They actually did it.
The British Government has voted to extend the cap on tuition fees (in England only – Wales and Scotland found the money elsewhere) to £9,000 per year. F#(kers. Almost all of them.
Here is my biggest problem with the vote, the coverage in the media and the generally projected “mood of the nation”...
Whenever a “man in the street” or a “didn’t he used to be-“celebrity on some panel show is asked about the situation, desperate to appear middle-of-the-road they decry the violent minority, applauding the intellectual students who kept their heads. They suggest paring away soft subjects like “David Beckham Studies” and subsidising “useful” degrees. They suggest that maybe this government isn’t legitimate, yeah? Right on. Then they shut up and look for the next story about a cat in a bin.
To all these blethering dickwads spewing such arse from their facecracks I have to suggest that they shut the frog up and possibly ... go frog themselves.
HOW DARE ANYBODY* suggest what types of education consist useful or beneficial use of time? Scientific research can't only go after "useful" subjects. You don't know if it is useful until you've done it. That's what research is.
Subjects such as History, Philosophy, Sociology and Journalism are all seen as soft options but ALL of them have a vital part in ensuring that the country as a whole is not lied to. At least not successfully lied to. These four subjects all involve teaching a skill-set of analysing data provided and dismissing unwarranted conclusions (obviously not all students will necessarily gain these skills).
Fully qualified doctors can fall prey to dreadful data analysis that can lead them to piss away their careers on alternative medicine. A single semester on the Philosophy of science would have steered them clear of such fallacies.
News channels keep reporting about the surprising amount of non students on the marches lately. Any attention paid by a worthwhile graduate of Journalism or Sociology (insert joke here) would be able to point out that current students will be largely unaffected by the changes. It is the students of the future – children – who should be protesting, but obviously and thankfully others have taken on that burden.
These “utterly useless” degrees like David Beckham Studies are usually tabloid fables. If anything, they are only poorly titled modules on a course with a little more weight.
Students of all four of the above disciplines (but particularly History) will be able to tell you that once such a cull of apparently “useless” subjects has happened it will be next to impossible to bring them back. If these subjects are left underfunded they will be the province of the idiot rich (who, historically, would enter the priesthood and, currently, take English degrees**) and the rigour they currently enjoy would dissipate, leaving them the kind of cartoon subjects the tabloids imagine them to be.
Any numpty on the street can see through Nick Clegg’s pitiful Clegging*** that “we promised to do this if we got into power but we didn’t so we’re not.” The LibDems were never going to get into outright power, nor did we expect it – we expected pledges to be a statement of behaviour to be followed in parliament and we were not wrong to do so. The excuse “we didn’t know how bad it was” makes Clegg either a liar or inept. They might as well have promised us flying cars and sex robots.
Before politicians, with their economics and politics degrees, decide to flail about through the wreckage of this country’s education system they should look at their own qualifications. Both those degrees are essentially fiscal or political History, but seen through a single filter – the leading theory (or possibly theories) of the day. Intellectually empty exercises. If an Economic or Political theory were viable it would be able to predict events. It can’t.
Actually the only politician I can think of who foresaw the current state of affairs – where promises made could be horse traded with the Tories until the Liberals get their voting referendum – was Nick Clegg. The clever, devious bastard. “Have some sex robots. Oh, actually now that I’m here they look dangerous. I’m not sticking my cock in that thing. No sex robots – and it’s for your own good.”
And he studied Social Anthropology.
*Oops. Shouting. Sorry about that.
**Sorry. Couldn’t resist. It seems that the Human Resources departments of large companies are run by typical English graduate types - “I got a degree, therefore, I am clever. What is your degree? ... Shit, it actually sounds intellectual. Can’t have you sniffing around my desk.”
***to Clegg; to excuse the indefensible. “Sorry I had to piss in your mouth but in these tough economic times one has to seize opportunities – your mouth was open and my bladder was full.” (Thanks to Charlie Brooker)