I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education.
But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere. There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level. So public syllabi - something that was very common in 2000's but going out of style today - are critical for anyone choosing the university to go to.
So, that sounds fine in theory.
What's happening in practice, though, is a group of people (like Campus Watch) are looking specifically for anyone teaching gender, trans issues, race, and religion, and analyzing the coursework through their ideologies and harassing professors on account of it. And they're going through past years as well as present.
Not sharing course outlines is not going to help make this problem better. Better to face those groups head on than hide.
"I think political interference is a horrible thing for university education."
The University of California is one of the largest universities in the US. It is governed by a Board of Regents. The majority of those Regents are appointed by the state Governor.
Do you consider that 'political interference'?
One of the things those Regents did was vote to end the use of SAT scores in admissions. They did during a meeting in which several spoke of the value of the SAT. And they acted against the recommendations of the Academic Council's Standardized Testing Task Force.
You might think that the staggered and long terms protect against political interference/influence. But if that's the case, how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
> how do we explain how so many votes are unanimous when, on the day of the vote, some regents express opposing views?
That reminds me of the Politburo voting scene in The Death of Stalin. Small group politics at their finest.
Anyway, the UC Board of Regents is full of political hacks and corrupt cronies. Diane Feinstein's husband was famously a regent, while simultaneously serving as Chairman of both CBRE and his own leveraged buyout private equity firm.
Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
Nobody (roughly) is choosing the university to go to based on the syllabus. They choose it based on cost, exclusivity, and networking considerations.
> There are actually universities who _claim_ to have great math (or physics or other science) program, but actually just teach it at "advanced high school" level.
What do you mean by that? And could you give an example?
It's hard to imagine any university teaching science majors at 'advanced high school' level, as I understand it. I could see a US community college or almost any university teaching intro courses that way. I can't iamgine what a 4th year chemistry major would be studying that fits the scope of 'advanced high school'.
> But that particular part - "laws requiring professors to publicly post their course outlines in searchable databases" - is great, and should be done everywhere.
You have to think about the consequences.
It seems like a great thing until doors are smashed down and people are taken away for discussing topics the current regime doesn’t want discussed.
I am just so glad my time at university was in the late 1960s. Not only was it an exciting time to be alive but the thought of universities and professors under this kind of surveillance and being frightened to speak out couldn't have been further from our thoughts.
Universities have always had their critics and back then was no exception. Complaints centered widely from about the ratbag student element causing troubles, to critism of subsidiaries/what universities cost the state, and about the spoilt and privileged class, and that universities were a hotbed of political activism—which at the time they were—but nothing approached this level of intense scrutiny.
We students and those teaching us could say what we wanted without retribution. I remember being cheered by the student body after giving an anti-Vietnam War speech in the student union building and I suffered no repercussions, and that's how it was for everyone, staff and students alike.
It was a wonderful time to be a university student, and 1968 was very special.
McCarthyism wasn't long before that time
I think its important that everyone learn to recognize the 14 points of fascism.
https://public.websites.umich.edu/~rsc/Editorials/fascism.ht...
In this case, we can recognize: "11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts".
Surveillance of publicly funded activity is due diligence.
https://archive.is/HJa8N
This reminds me of something I read about the STASI.