the intellectual lament of respect for tradition
Sometimes I get asked why I am so eager to get out of Australia's higher education environment in favour of a close cousin on foreign shores. Usually an answer is easy enough to feign, "Not good enough for them here until you've been 'over there'." But then you get moments like this that offer up more precise reasons for wanting to flee the (un)lucky country:
Plato and other great philosophers could be removed from Australian University syllabuses, according to an Education Department report leaked to The Australian *Uncut* this week. The tough prescription comes as part of changes associated with the new ‘Research Quality Framework’ (RQF) aimed at changing the culture and standing of Australia’s publicly-funded Universities. ‘All government reforms have unintended consequences’, the report observes: ‘but sometimes you have to roll with the punches. We’re confident this change will have a positive growth effect on GDP over the next five year cycle.’
That's a verbatim snip from PLATO, OTHER GREATS SET TO GO AS RQF WIELDS NELSON'S
RAZOR
From The Australian *Uncut*, September 24 2007
By Hennis Ackeridson
Plato and other great philosophers could be removed
from Australian University syllabuses, according to an
Education Department report leaked to The Australian
*Uncut* this week. The tough prescription comes as
part of changes associated with the new ‘Research
Quality Framework’ (RQF) aimed at changing the culture
and standing of Australia’s publicly-funded
Universities. ‘All government reforms have unintended
consequences’, the report observes: ‘but sometimes you
have to roll with the punches. We’re confident this
change will have a positive growth effect on GDP over
the next five year cycle.’
Education Minister Julie Bishop has declined to
comment to The Australian *Uncut* concerning the
leaked document. A spokesperson for the minister
would only say: ‘ask Brendan’ [the former Education,
now Defence Minister Brendan Nelson].
Australian Universities have spent much time and money
over the last two years gearing up for the
implementation of the RQF, set to ‘roll out’ later
this year. After the inevitable big government
stuff-ups (reported doggedly by this paper), a final
format now appears set. Each academic is to nominate
their four best publications, and make a short case
for its impact on the field. The aim is to stop
academics and journalists from amassing large numbers
of low-quality, politically motivated articles in
outlets owned or run by their mates.
‘And it’s all about impact’, Minister Nelson
explained. ‘Several members of the committee
[deciding on the RQF] were really impressed by that
big budget film *Deep Impact* … You know, it’s one of
those great US flicks where a massive comet is set to
hit the earth, destroying everything. And there’s a
love interest too. But then the humans nuke the comet
- like, show it what a real *deep impact* is.’
‘The great thing about those films is that people
really band together in the face of such a
catastrophe. Not like socialists, but in a way
consistent with a vibrant economy.’
The rapid changes the Howard government has
implemented in the University sector since 1996, the
Minister explained, have been designed to engender a
similar effect, although the RQF looks to take things
one step further.
According to the report, the problem with the
so-called ‘great’ philosophers is that they simply
would not pass muster as ‘research active’ in today’s
environment. ‘Young Australians deserve better
examples.'
Plato, the report notes, published only 35 ‘dialogues’
over a career spanning between 40 to 60 years, and
scholars suspect many of these were the product of
research assistants. Then there are 13 *letters*,
only two of which are agreed to come from the founder
of the first academy. ‘Plato seems to have spent
about half his time on sabbatical to Egypt-with
questionable results-and the other half trying to get
a job as a political advisor in Italy. Then look at
his *Academy*-those guys clearly knew nothing about
auditing, quality monitoring, or the new public
management.’
Other philosophical ‘greats’ hardly fare better. ‘You
take Socrates’, Nelson elaborated to us on Friday,
‘the guy walked around the city with bare feet,
getting paid by his elite buddies. Then when they
wanted to kill him, like, he said they should give him
a pension! He was just so down on making money, too.
Have you read the *Republic* lately? The Australian
government is 80% sure Socrates had trade union
connections-Hockey’s on top of it.’
Descartes is described in the report as someone who
‘rested on his laurels’, making only several
ground-breaking advances in mathematics and
formulating the modern scientific method in a career
spanning several decades. Kant’s impact is described
as 'maybe OK', although the Report cautions that Hegel
(Kant’s greatest respondent) was 'one of history’s
greatest advocates of an expansive public sector, with
disastrous consequences for German economic growth.'
‘Again I say to academics, it’s all about impact’,
Nelson emphasised. ‘I mean, many of Plato’s dialogues
had no real impact in the West for like 1600 years!
And we only got Aristotle via the Moslems, which many
Australians today would find unacceptable.’
‘And many philosophers were exiled and killed by their
communities (say Spinoza), or had to put smarmy
letters at the front of their books begging favour
with the elites of the day - you look at Machiavelli’s
Prince or the first Critique ... Now you just don’t
have to do that stuff if you’re making a real
practical impact, or you've got nothing to hide.’
Aristotle is cited by the report as the one potential
exception, and may be retained in some Australian
syllabuses, pending further inquiries. The deciding
issue will be whether, as Alexander the Great’s tutor,
Alexander’s military conquest of all the known world
should count as ‘impact’ or ‘prestige’ for Aristotle,
and for his Lyceum.
‘’W’ had it right when he said history is in the past,
man’, Nelson told The Australian *Uncut*. ‘Australian
academics are going to have to get used to the fact
that today *even the meaning of change is changing* -
there, you see, that’s philosophy! You could put that
on a Uni ad, a management statement, or work up a
Linkage, get some connectivity going, if you know what
I’m saying …’
Nelson refused to comment on rumors that he is set to
take over a merged Education-Defence department named
‘The Department for the Defence of a Beleaguered
Australian Mainstream’ (DD-BAM) which will form the
new vanguard in the culture wars, if Howard is
re-elected later this year. ‘I mean, there’s no
guarantee that heading such a merged department gets
you any closer to Kirribili’, Nelson reflected
philosophically: ‘Hawke and Keating merged a lot of
departments, but we didn’t get to see their Ministers’
‘Big Pictures’ in the 90s, did we?’
What then will be left for Australia philosophers to
teach and research? The report is clear:
‘philosophers, if they must philosophise, should stick
exclusively with the latest journals. Sure, they can
footnote the older figures if they must. It gives
articles a kind of prestige vibe, which can be good
for esteem maximisation. But any more than four or
five references per article and you’re beginning to
lose relevancy [sic.]…’
As the report concludes, ‘The deep impact of the
changes of the RQF on Australian Universities are set
to project Australia forward, like a comet, into the
ether of the new global economy. Australian academics
can be part of that. But only if they’re willing to
become more ‘future-driven’. In other words:
Aristotle if you have to, but less of those other
research-inactive guys!’
(and no, that's not a Simpsons reference).
Onwards and outwards!
~Niveau
Plato and other great philosophers could be removed from Australian University syllabuses, according to an Education Department report leaked to The Australian *Uncut* this week. The tough prescription comes as part of changes associated with the new ‘Research Quality Framework’ (RQF) aimed at changing the culture and standing of Australia’s publicly-funded Universities. ‘All government reforms have unintended consequences’, the report observes: ‘but sometimes you have to roll with the punches. We’re confident this change will have a positive growth effect on GDP over the next five year cycle.’
That's a verbatim snip from PLATO, OTHER GREATS SET TO GO AS RQF WIELDS NELSON'S
RAZOR
From The Australian *Uncut*, September 24 2007
By Hennis Ackeridson
Plato and other great philosophers could be removed
from Australian University syllabuses, according to an
Education Department report leaked to The Australian
*Uncut* this week. The tough prescription comes as
part of changes associated with the new ‘Research
Quality Framework’ (RQF) aimed at changing the culture
and standing of Australia’s publicly-funded
Universities. ‘All government reforms have unintended
consequences’, the report observes: ‘but sometimes you
have to roll with the punches. We’re confident this
change will have a positive growth effect on GDP over
the next five year cycle.’
Education Minister Julie Bishop has declined to
comment to The Australian *Uncut* concerning the
leaked document. A spokesperson for the minister
would only say: ‘ask Brendan’ [the former Education,
now Defence Minister Brendan Nelson].
Australian Universities have spent much time and money
over the last two years gearing up for the
implementation of the RQF, set to ‘roll out’ later
this year. After the inevitable big government
stuff-ups (reported doggedly by this paper), a final
format now appears set. Each academic is to nominate
their four best publications, and make a short case
for its impact on the field. The aim is to stop
academics and journalists from amassing large numbers
of low-quality, politically motivated articles in
outlets owned or run by their mates.
‘And it’s all about impact’, Minister Nelson
explained. ‘Several members of the committee
[deciding on the RQF] were really impressed by that
big budget film *Deep Impact* … You know, it’s one of
those great US flicks where a massive comet is set to
hit the earth, destroying everything. And there’s a
love interest too. But then the humans nuke the comet
- like, show it what a real *deep impact* is.’
‘The great thing about those films is that people
really band together in the face of such a
catastrophe. Not like socialists, but in a way
consistent with a vibrant economy.’
The rapid changes the Howard government has
implemented in the University sector since 1996, the
Minister explained, have been designed to engender a
similar effect, although the RQF looks to take things
one step further.
According to the report, the problem with the
so-called ‘great’ philosophers is that they simply
would not pass muster as ‘research active’ in today’s
environment. ‘Young Australians deserve better
examples.'
Plato, the report notes, published only 35 ‘dialogues’
over a career spanning between 40 to 60 years, and
scholars suspect many of these were the product of
research assistants. Then there are 13 *letters*,
only two of which are agreed to come from the founder
of the first academy. ‘Plato seems to have spent
about half his time on sabbatical to Egypt-with
questionable results-and the other half trying to get
a job as a political advisor in Italy. Then look at
his *Academy*-those guys clearly knew nothing about
auditing, quality monitoring, or the new public
management.’
Other philosophical ‘greats’ hardly fare better. ‘You
take Socrates’, Nelson elaborated to us on Friday,
‘the guy walked around the city with bare feet,
getting paid by his elite buddies. Then when they
wanted to kill him, like, he said they should give him
a pension! He was just so down on making money, too.
Have you read the *Republic* lately? The Australian
government is 80% sure Socrates had trade union
connections-Hockey’s on top of it.’
Descartes is described in the report as someone who
‘rested on his laurels’, making only several
ground-breaking advances in mathematics and
formulating the modern scientific method in a career
spanning several decades. Kant’s impact is described
as 'maybe OK', although the Report cautions that Hegel
(Kant’s greatest respondent) was 'one of history’s
greatest advocates of an expansive public sector, with
disastrous consequences for German economic growth.'
‘Again I say to academics, it’s all about impact’,
Nelson emphasised. ‘I mean, many of Plato’s dialogues
had no real impact in the West for like 1600 years!
And we only got Aristotle via the Moslems, which many
Australians today would find unacceptable.’
‘And many philosophers were exiled and killed by their
communities (say Spinoza), or had to put smarmy
letters at the front of their books begging favour
with the elites of the day - you look at Machiavelli’s
Prince or the first Critique ... Now you just don’t
have to do that stuff if you’re making a real
practical impact, or you've got nothing to hide.’
Aristotle is cited by the report as the one potential
exception, and may be retained in some Australian
syllabuses, pending further inquiries. The deciding
issue will be whether, as Alexander the Great’s tutor,
Alexander’s military conquest of all the known world
should count as ‘impact’ or ‘prestige’ for Aristotle,
and for his Lyceum.
‘’W’ had it right when he said history is in the past,
man’, Nelson told The Australian *Uncut*. ‘Australian
academics are going to have to get used to the fact
that today *even the meaning of change is changing* -
there, you see, that’s philosophy! You could put that
on a Uni ad, a management statement, or work up a
Linkage, get some connectivity going, if you know what
I’m saying …’
Nelson refused to comment on rumors that he is set to
take over a merged Education-Defence department named
‘The Department for the Defence of a Beleaguered
Australian Mainstream’ (DD-BAM) which will form the
new vanguard in the culture wars, if Howard is
re-elected later this year. ‘I mean, there’s no
guarantee that heading such a merged department gets
you any closer to Kirribili’, Nelson reflected
philosophically: ‘Hawke and Keating merged a lot of
departments, but we didn’t get to see their Ministers’
‘Big Pictures’ in the 90s, did we?’
What then will be left for Australia philosophers to
teach and research? The report is clear:
‘philosophers, if they must philosophise, should stick
exclusively with the latest journals. Sure, they can
footnote the older figures if they must. It gives
articles a kind of prestige vibe, which can be good
for esteem maximisation. But any more than four or
five references per article and you’re beginning to
lose relevancy [sic.]…’
As the report concludes, ‘The deep impact of the
changes of the RQF on Australian Universities are set
to project Australia forward, like a comet, into the
ether of the new global economy. Australian academics
can be part of that. But only if they’re willing to
become more ‘future-driven’. In other words:
Aristotle if you have to, but less of those other
research-inactive guys!’
(and no, that's not a Simpsons reference).
Onwards and outwards!
~Niveau