Let me try and engage again Karl, on your terms ...
You points (1) and (2) - unassailable - how could anyone disagree ?
(What I call no-brainers / motherhood and apple-pie.)
But this cannot translate simply to
"the BEST education; how it can be provided for ALL students"
Equality of opportunity is one thing (again, a no-brainer), but at
some point we have to agree a pragmatic basis for evaluating better
and worse components of education and allocating these to better or
worse students (in potential and practical outcomes).
Inevitable - a "brute fact" as I might say - unless we're talking some
ideal world of unformity and perfection.
Distasteful and politically incorrect though this is, these value
judgements are unavoidable, and IMHO, the basis for these values is
valid business for FoW ? (And lest there be any doubt my view is
"objective numbers" form the worst basis for any such judgements.)
Sincerely
Ian
On 3/5/07, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Just to recap, to see if we have reached some agreement regarding some of
> the purposes of the university, would you agree that two of the purposes
> of the university are:
>
> (1) To provide all students with the best education that resources permit,
> rather than reserving the best education for a privileged few;
> (2) To conduct research in ways that benefits society as a whole, rather
> than in ways that only benefits a narrow range of interests.
>
> If you agree with me, then do you agree that the question of the purpose
> of the university is one of understanding what constitutes "the best
> education", how it can be provided for all students, and what "benefits
> society as a whole" -- in other words, these purposes of the university
> require an understanding of human well-being, both in its individual and
> societal aspects.
>
> Would not such a process of developing this kind of understanding be what
> Nick has termed "wisdom-inquiry"?
>
> Karl.
>
|