On 19/06/2012 11:07, Edward James wrote:
> Also agree with Mike. Cutting scientific research and teaching funding at universities will only harm Britain's economy in the long term.
Edward, can't you see it is the other way around: Britain's economy is
not during very well in the long term is the reason we are cutting
research and teaching.
Academics spent the last 40 years telling governments that if they put
more into teaching and research that it would miraculously rejuvenate
the economy ... whilst at the same time those same academics downplayed
the important of engineering and manufacturing industry. We also had the
rise of anti-industry "science" like the climate, the end of
apprenticeships, media studies, post-normal carp, etc.
It is really the chickens coming home to roost. If academics give bad
advice which wrecks our economy**, then eventually the economy cannot
support those academics ... although if truth be told, it is probably
academics who have already retired on good pensions who sent Britain
into a decade of anti-industry "debt-oconomy" banking-boom and now we
have several decades of bust as we have to pay back that debt.
And archaeology was also part of this anti-industry trend, particularly
the post-normal ... you can think what you like luvy,
gender-archaeology, identity-archaeology, no doubt "anti-industry
Archaeology should be one of the most important tools in economic
development, because it should allow us to learn the economic lessons of
the past and vastly extend our ability to predict the future in our
uncertain would. Instead, I was being taught how to spin a more
convincing story about the past - a past which didn't seem to have an
economy, and where buildings miraculously appeared due to this or that
As I said, it is the chickens coming home to roost.
**As a simple examples the "Science and Engineering" committee of the
House of Commons became "Science and Technology". There are now
scientific advisers in each department, not one of them is an engineer.