Ah, Mercurius, your two articles here on OLO amount to a shameless attempt to claw back some recognition and self-determination for teachers. This needs to be nipped in the bud.

It’s very naughty of you to point out that the conservatives, who claim to value decentralised power and promote decision-making at the lowest possible level, are leading the charge to have centralised curricula, standardised testing and cardboard-cutout benchmarks: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4597

It’s subversive of you to question the value of qualifications, when everyone knows that these are the only real value propositions in our education system. University degrees are rungs on the ladder of prosperity. Questioning them risks reducing the value of other people’s investments in marketable qualifications.

And it’s downright seditious to undermine the values of our aspirational middle class.

Teachers are paid to do a job, and that is to teach what they are told to teach. Departing from the script, declining to give students career advice, and suggesting that teaching kiddies to climb the social ladder is less important than teaching them to think is professional negligence. Teachers who dare to question the received wisdom, or worse, encourage their students to think critically about the system, should be sacked unconditionally.

It’s a blessing that you haven’t made it into the education system yet. We’ve spent years grinding teachers down, so we certainly don’t want any uppity characters like you influencing our young folk. Hopefully your influence on your fellow trainee teachers can be contained, otherwise they might end up thinking like this bloke: http://www.teachandlearn.ca/blog/2006/07/14/unending-conversation/

Then we’d have not only uppity teachers to deal with, but thinking students as well.

w, thanks for the blog ref. Michael Oakeshott, quoted in the blog, was one of my teachers at LSE. At that time (1961-64) about 6% of each cohort went to uni. Most of those who taught me were, like Oakeshott, leaders in their field, and still get cited. You can't have that quality of teaching in a vastly over-expanded tertiary system. In a recent economics paper, I slated a UQ paper, of which the head of a Qld uni economics dept was a co-author. The lead author is now at LSE, I sent him my draft for comment; he accepted all of my criticisms, and says he now laughs at his Qld experience, he's given far more responsibility at LSE and says he's learned a great deal there. Those such as Labor MP Craig Emerson who advocate even greater expansion of university entry need to explain exactly how this will benefit the students and society.

With all the middleclass kiddies getting degrees what next shock horror the dirty working class and poor kids as well!! I suppose the idea of an egalitarian society is a bit too much, where everybody has access and ability to use the same skills and knowledge ( I dont know about U of S but every other university teachs skills) The idea that university is another tool in the endless competitive rat race called life is ludicrous, it makes a mockery of the idea of academia and the universal pursuit of knowledge. The authors objection of course centres around that neo-con bug bear, critical thinking. Australia is a better society when all its members have developed the skills to add meaningful debate on subjects of national importance. Not all of us have the luxury to lecture to young children and expect mindless obedience. Now that the education is teaching critical thinking in schools maybe our authour is already seeing that getting his degree is redundant.

The historical development of Uni education as the 'new' vocational training we have to have, is now starting to be challenged by smaller uni's offering liberal arts degrees where one gets trained to think.

Whether employers value the fact that such students have gone to learn for the sake of learning - at their own expense - and whether these same people are better critical thinkers and potentially better employees for more specific vocational training will be interesting to see.

The whole purpose of life is to learn... and to keep learning - life after life after life...

People will continue to learn, even in a future when universities no longer exist. Access to the internet will change things dramatically for everyone.

A "top" skill in an overly-informed world will be the power of discernment. Often taught at tertiary level.

I hope that when you actually complete the excellent degree that your university offers you may know a bit more about sociology and the role of education in liberating the disadvantaged. Hopefully you will look back in shame at the absurd and simplistic interpretations you put on these things - maybe more time on your studies would help.

Of course, maybe you are just trying to protect your own position in the orer of things.

If you believe in a natural social order why are you entering teaching? to ensure it stays that way?