I generally don’t go into the financial side of university corruption, but The self-destruction of the academy by John Sheldon gets into the ugly nitty-gritty.
[If you want to shave off two expensive years of this moral morass, search for “CLEP Gary North”. He also has a nice set of low-cost, accredited distance learning universities to offer, alloying you to save even more money and get that job license.]
University Loyalty Oaths
I just have to mention just how highly today’s modern, intensely secular (…or at least anti-Christian…) universities value the conscience and intellectual liberty of the students.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by a U. C. Davis mathematician described a kind of “Inquisitorial Manual” now used for vetting prospective University of California faculty. As she points out, the Berkeley manual requires a sort of “loyalty oath,” like the one that disgraced the university during the McCarthy era. The Berkeley Manual resembles the “39 Articles” of the Church of England, although admittedly shorter (1100 words, to 4000 or so) and with a more questionable pedigree.
This unpleasant document, an inquisition for admission to the insidious religion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), asks questions about a candidate’s Knowledge about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Track Record in Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and Plans for Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Unsatisfactory answers include: “Seems uncomfortable discussing diversity-related issues. May state that he or she ‘just hasn’t had much of a chance to think about these issues yet,’” “Participated in no specific activities, or only one or two limited activities (limited in terms of time, investment or role),” and “Vague or no statements about what they would do at Berkeley if hired. May even feel doing so would be the responsibility of someone else.”
These questions are even more intrusive than the 39 Articles in that they require not just belief but action, by prospective faculty whose proper interests should be elsewhere, in teaching and their field.
* * *
Cracks in the Ivory Tower usefully emphasizes the economic costs and benefits of university practices. But absent from the book is any consideration of the intrinsic value of the academic endeavor. Remaining is a vacuum that is filled by two things: the university as a business; and the university as a social activist. Both are destructive of the proper purpose of a university.The self-destruction of the academy by John Staddon
I recommend that you go with the universities following the business model: but be sure to check them out first like any smart customer, including accreditation, graduation rates, and employment rates.
And a business knows whose boss: the customer. Unlike the “higher social cause” universities, which set themselves up as People Who Know Better, ready to take your child’s mind and your money, to benefit themselves and their ideology.
Even in medieval times, universities were there for three reasons: to provide a gateway to good jobs in the church and the state bureaucracy; to provide an avenue for young elite men to go a’whoring and a’drinking together (bonding together the ruling class); and to preserve assorted Greco-Roman flavours of statism, pagan mysticism/demonism and perversion behind an exalted air of intellectual superiority.
(The one good thing Darwinism did for humanity: it destroyed the power of the classics and their delusion of “natural law” and “superiority”.)
Christians should not bother with the university (“state-licensed elitist guild”) model. Especially as many forms of decentralized, results-oriented learning and apprenticeships are now doable.
(Not available, not yet. Christians need to get of their butts, and build the future.)