Bishop Hill Is there any point to universities?
May 14, 2015 Academia Bjorn Lomborg's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal looks at the hate campaign that saw his proposed thinktank at the University of Western Australia consigned to ashes.
The new center in Perth was to be a collaboration with a think tank I run, Copenhagen Consensus, which for a decade has conducted similar research. Working with more than 100 economists, including seven Nobel laureates, we have produced research that measures the social and economic benefits of a wide range of policies, such as fighting malaria, reducing malnutrition, cutting air pollution, improving education and tackling climate change.
Therein lay the problem. This kind of comparison can upset those who are committed to advocating less effective investments, particularly poor responses to climate change.
When you think about it, a university that doesn't want to be associated with a think tank that includes no fewer than seven Nobel laureates is probably on shaky ground when claiming to be a seat of learning. This failure of UWA in its primary role - to stimulate learning - is also a point alluded to by Lomborg.
What is the lesson for young academics? Avoid producing research that could produce politically difficult answers. Steer clear of results that others might find contentious. Consider where your study could take you, and don’t go there if it means upsetting the status quo.
Universities have always operated as a kind of filter for employers, weeding out those who lack the intellectual capabilities that are seen as imperative in order to thrive as top management in large organisations. However, now that half the population attends a university, that role is gone, or at least nearly gone.
Their other role was as centres of intellectual curiousity, where researchers would be able to thrive by asking and answering difficult questions on one subject or another. But what the crushing of Lomborg, and others before him shows is that this role has gone too (or, again, nearly so).
That being the case, what is the point of a university?
Reader Comments (89)
@abc
who is the fastest man in the world ?
the man who runs the fastest
or the man who wins a gold at the Olympics
At the STEM and other professional fields, universities are invaluable.
But the humanities have become politicized, and sometimes this bleeds into other areas of academia.
universities = lefty waterholes
I do not see the relation with education ?? That was 75y ago that.
of course lefty scum is gonna be upset if anything else but catering to lefties and their propaganda is going to happen there
please have a bit of consideration for our parasites.
Curtin University in WA has the same problem as UWA.
Their own PR department had the flipping gall to claim they had a Noble Prize winner on their staff..
""Nobel Peace Prize co-recipient Professor Richard Warrick is a part of the IIAFS"
What they meant to say was the good professor had received one of those certificates...not the actual prize.
Not much difference in green world between the two..
They changed the page after I poked them a few times..
The principal role of universities in recent times (at least in Australia) has been to keep people (a) out of the dole queues while (b) paying for the privilege.
Further in the past they had a less clear role, it seemed to be of two kinds. Some fields (e.g. maths, philosophy, history, literature, physics) were clearly for research and the joys of knowledge for its own sake. Others (e.g. medicine, engineering, law) were just as clearly vocational. Did these two kinds of study ever belong together?
And for those wanting to distance engineers from mere artisans, I think there's no shame in viewing all the vocational streams as particularly demanding branches of plumbing and carpentry. Both doctors and engineers used to be taught as apprentices. Is there any reason they shouldn't still?
I'm surprised people here are so blasé about the way this was done. The decision making bypassed the usual research grants system, and was not a choice of university management. It was an initiative from the Prime Minister's office. Not even the Education Minister. That's really playing favourites. Forget about university independence if they take that money.
Nick Stokes, would that be the University Grant System that is controlled by people who have decided the science already?
Do they publish a list of approved subjects, or do they just ban what they like, based on their preconceived prejudices about what will work and what won't, based on gossip and hearsay?
It seems as though the problem and solution, were all predetermined, and the chosen few are very blase about it provided they get all the funding.
You mean almost, but not quite, as bad as Imperial College London and LSE taking far more private cash for Jeremy Grantham's Climate Change Institute?
At least the Prime Minister of Australia can claim he was elected by the Australian people.
Who are the Nobel Laureates that Lomborg has worked with? As for economists, we surly know about Richard Tol and Gary Yohe, but Yohe certainly does not have the same take on his conclusions as Lomborg.
"At least the Prime Minister of Australia can claim he was elected by the Australian people."
People have fought long and hard for universities to be free from political control. Even from elected politicians.
Now we have a politician's office saying - if you want climate funding, you have to put person X in charge.
The common wisdom is that there is no proposition so absurd that two Nobel laureates cannot be found to endorse it , but it should be remembered that the award is not made by a committee of Nobel Prize winners, but an assortment of bien pensant Swedes and a posse of Norwegian politiicians.
Universities are a place of learning, not a platform for Bjorn Lomborg's anti-science brigade to spread its disinformation.
The warmists are out in force. Seems they don't recognise when their buddies shoot themselves in the foot. Sceptics have been saying for ages that the academic field is a biased, closed shop and UWA go to the trouble of proving it. Thanks guys!
"Universities are a place of learning, not a platform for Bjorn Lomborg's Universities are a place of learning, not a platform for Bjorn Lomborg's anti-science brigade to spread its disinformation.
"anti-science brigade to spread its disinformation"
Pray, why don't you enlighten us chuck?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apart from a few specialist colleges, what are universities for and I am sure I don't know unless they are finishing schools designed to further agitprop which is to inculcating young minds and filling them with spavined Cultural Marxist
dogmatrivia and lies.Tertiary academia by its very nature has to be elitist and it's not is it?
Furthermore, could any parent with university aged kids not worry about British University campuses which are becoming recruitment centres for fundamentalism of all types of religious and non religious zealots? Where the deans and boards of UK universities sell out to the highest bidder ignoring the wider implications of inviting in such monies whose provenance is deeply compromised and here I am thinking mainly of Gulf, dodgy billionaire Yanks, EU and Chinese sources.
Often, university deans are turning a blind eye to the shenanigans of Islamist student bodies doing seemingly as they please.
Plus, don't go to university if you a bloke and like to play rugby union. Surely thanks, to its total surrender to lunacy of Political Correctness - the NUS is one of the most deviant, rabble rousing, radicalized herd in todays' Britain.
Universities, are no longer universal nor, are they primarily centres of learning and if they ain't that any more - places of learning then, what are universities for?
Nick
Did UWA disapprove because they felt the grant process was compromised or was it because they essentially didn't like Bjorn Lomberg?
If it was the former I can see their point as they want the money process to at least be reviewed.
It is enough to drive Lomborg to scepticism ... welcome Bjorn, there is a home for you here amongst us.
It seems the Prime Minister of Australia has really annoyed some people.
If I was Australian, I would have more faith in him, as a result.
The people attacking Lomberg are only trying to protect their self interests, which are numerous, and lucrative.
SI units in science used to help scientists help each other.
Self Interest groups in climate science just help climate scientists help each other to other people'ss money, without any obvious benefit to anyone else.
Most academics are a complete waste of time! And increadingly most areas of study are a complete waste of time.
We're getting some really good stand-up comedy this morning, I see.
Thank you, Eli, for the evidence that the Consensus Centre was not designed purely to reflect Lomborg's, or anybody else's, views on climate mitigation.Chuck: come back when you know what you're talking about. Since Lomborg accepts the findings of the IPCC, either the IPCC is spreading disinformation or you're talking crap. No prizes for guessing which. (Though when I think about it, both is a possibility.)And that is different from "if you want climate funding, you have to put a person who believes unquestioningly in AGW in charge", how exactly, Nick?More, more!
Mike Jackson
When Eli AND Nick Stokes turn up to argue morality around climate science funding, and Oreskes and Lewandowsky are doing the rounds telling climate scientists what words they are not allowed to use, it sums up the the state of the 97% consensus.
Stay tuned next week, for the weather forecast, from Nostradamus and Mystic Meg, and an astrologers expert advice on the chance of success in Paris, for financial fleece manufacturers.
golf charlie
Where Lewandowsky is concerned I keep being reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's line: "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons".
See the article just posted. The man is so up himself he strains credulity every time he puts pen to paper (metaphorically speaking).
Nick and Eli demonstrate to a T the warmist belief that dealing with climate change has to be done their way or no way.
I followed Kevin Marshall's link to his altercation with ATTP earlier and wondered if I'd fallen into a parallel universe. ATTP appears not to realise that his misunderstanding of what Lomborg is doing is so total that he actually agrees with Lomborg's approach while denying that that is what Lomborg is advocating.
Pavlov would have had great fun with these people!
Mike Jackson, I do not know about Pavlov and his dogs, but climate scientists only want the Pavlova, no matter how fat they get on it.
Nick,
You are coming into this argument rather late and - apparently - without looking at the issue. The VC of UWA has stated that they were very pleased to secure the funding for this centre and only refused it when the furor over Lomborg from within UWA built up. The issue of Tony Abbot being unpopular with the left wing in Australia (hardly surprising, given he is from the other wing of politics) had been dealt with quite happily by the University.
The issue is when does a university VC effectively censor research and debate due to pressure from a certain section. Read the following link and see if there is any suggestion that the funds were somehow tainted by anything other than anti-Lomborg pressure:
http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201505087564/message-vice-chancellor-australian-consensus-centre
Compulsory primary and secondary education was a formidable force for equality, promoting universal literacy and hence universal suffrage. University education for a significant minority has an opposite effect, promoting intolerance and contempt for the uneducated masses below and the ignorant generations who went before.
When such (largely unconscious) opinions are held by a large proportion of the population which also considers itself radical and progressive, the consequent cognitive dissonance is unbearable. It becomes necessary to invent an ideology which is radical in its implications, scientifically based, and which confers power on those with the superior intelligence necessary to comprehend it. Enter climate change.
Eli Rabett May 15, 2015 at 4:20 AM says
I quick bit of research will find six by searching the list here. They are
Douglass North
Finn Kydland
Vernon Smith
Robert Mundell
Thomas Schelling
Edward C. Prescott
The seventh is also on the list, but has not got "Nobel" against his name. I spotted him straight away, but can anyone else?
Nick Stokes May 15, 2015 at 5:54 AM says
That is true, but you are on the wrong side. Liberal democracies rely on political pluralism. When a group of political extremists (relative to the general population) seek to claim a monopoly on ethics, political priorities and economics within academia by excluding others, then any government that believes in democracy ought to act to give a counter-balance, particularly where that academia is in state-funded institutions. Stephan Lewandowsky inadvertently showed how extreme the political views are of climate alarmists by conducting two opinion surveys. The first was on alarmist blogs (the infamous Hoax paper) and the other of the US population. Political opinions of the bloggers were predominantly left-authoritarian, whilst the US population had a more normal distribution of beliefs. I have graphed here.
Thanks Kevin. FWIW all economists of the librarian persuasion.
Nice one, MJ. I've copied that to the hall of fame.
I graduated from the University of Washington in Seattle in 1991 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. In the US that is considered a decent enough school. I had a very good GPA, and was fairly proud of my intellect, and considered myself a hot shot.
It wasn't until, I started work in a very remote industrial plant in Nevada in 1992 (at the base of the black rock desert for you burning man fans), that I began to learn the vast chasm between the theory I learned in school and the real life practical application. At that time, the plant did all of their own construction for everything. I had responsibilities of a real engineer, but also a project manager, an expediter, and an accountant. I had to figure out all of the steel, to buy, I-Beams, Channel, figure out conduit and where it would go, plumbing and air lines and dust collection lines and where it would go including the lengths and kind of bends it could do, I had to calculate the loads and stresses for building additions including calculations for wind, and thermal, figure out dimensions, wiring cables, motors, drives, valves, bolts, washers, bearings, and even concerns on how to power it with our already overloaded transformer. I even had to both learn to design circuit boards, build relay panels, and program PLCs. I had to make the parts lists, and find vendors, and order them all, after developing an accounting system with monetary justification for doing the projects in the first place. I was responsible for all these things at 24 years old. There were so many details. But the day I truly learned that I knew nothing was the day that I dropped my arrogance of being a hotshot engineering math whiz, and really started listening to what the 70 year old not even a high school grad had to say about how things really get built in the real world. He took me under his wing, and taught me the art of machining, and welding, and how things really come together in the real world. Then I befriended the non-college educated electricians who knew each and every single wire in the plant, and how to wire anything to accomplish any task. After that, I befriended every mill wright, electrician, every ironworker, welder, anybody with real life skills and experiences.
What I learned in college was a lot of theory, but also a very good background in mathematics. I learned very real skills about how to solve very real problems from people who would be considered uneducated. In my older years, with knowledge and experience I have learned how to combine theory,and practical experience, there is a place for all of them.
Robert Wykoff, exactly how it needs to be.
I was lucky in that I did a thin sandwich course, so I went into industry as a student, not as a graduate so I had no barrier between me and those with real knowledge. I learnt to be respectful of experience before I gained the arrogance of a degree and they didn't clam up because they resented a no nothing graduate assuming authority I hadn't earned.
Even though my degree was relevant to what I did, most of what I learnt that was ultimately useful could have been crammed into a couple of months.
Eli Rabbett,
When you dismiss out of hand recognized experts in the field of economics, can I take it you are of same mold as blogger ...and then there's physics? That is dogmatically dismissing those ideas of which you are in ignorance, but challenge your beliefs about the world - and unblinkingly accepting the incoherent ramblings of those that support your beliefs?
To a lesser or greater extent we all apply similar prejudices - it is part of being human. That is why in any free society those who value that continued freedom must promote pluralism in the academia. If one set of ideas is vastly superior to all others, then those ideas will either win the debates, or (in the empirical sciences) stand out by predictive successes and by increasing precision and rigor.
" People have fought long and hard for universities to be free from political
control. Even from elected politicians."
Really? but thy take money from the public, which is obviously very dependent on the current people running the government. The best defence against any political involvement is not too take any public money for research. Degrees could be funded by fees and scholarships (the public might be happy to fund some of those). Research could be funded by charity for example, or I'm sure there would be plenty of money invested in obviously 'worthwhile' research. It would also have the advantage of reducing the large amount of crud being studied
Rob Burton, climate science is happy to accept money for research from any source, it helps demonstrate how open they are. But if anyone dares to give a penny to anyone who does not share their belief system, they are to be excluded from everything, and damned for eternity, which demonstrates how closed and greedy their minds are.
Shutting down debate in schools and universities, is standard tactics for desperate causes.
40y ago the consensus on the campus
Was that mao and stalin were the great enlightening
Examples
Our lefty scum never wants to be reminded
Of that one
Kevin, there are indeed reasons for dismissing the opinions of librarian economists out of hand, especially those associated with George Mason University
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2015/03/report-tobacco-institutes-1-million.html
including some Nobel Prize winners. They tend to cost a bit more
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yug93b00/pdf
Eli,
So, on the basis that a small minority of economics professors supplement their income supporting the tobacco industry - only a few being highlighted - from the tobacco growing areas of the USA - then the whole output of economics should be disregarded? That seems what you are saying. Yet without the approach of economists of getting the best use out of limited resources and allowing for alternative political motivations and political bargaining - any policy to combat climate change will fail. Morally, it is the equivalent of the medical profession having diagnosed cancer totally ignoring pharmacy - as the big pharmaceutical companies make lots of money and some highly disreputable investors. Then prescribing an untested treatment program without regard for the effectiveness or the side effects, nor adjusting that program in the light of response from the patient.
From a human point of view, I would suggest that you have a similar response to economics to those of earlier generations had to the scientific advances from those of the wrong political, national or religious background. Your shallow reasons for the total dismissal of a subject that has been around for over 200 years are further confirmation for the promotion of pluralism by State-financed Universities.
Kevin,
Eli believes the description of what you are doing is denfining deviancy down
Political indoctrination.
esmith
Since the material covered in general chemistry and general physics is very different today than in the 1960s and 70s, this is hardly a surprise. For example, there is much less emphasis on descriptive chemistry and much more on bonding and atomic structure (Eli still has his copy of Sienko and Plane to prove it).