#ANU

Education could change forever

College

This piece isn’t so much about Trump’s plan to do the above, but a precursor to where education is probably likely to head. Going forward, skills will be more prized than some kid with a liberal arts degree in Marxist philosophy.

The education sector needs to take a long hard look at the changes heading for it.

The declining standards in education are one thing. They are morphing into ever more political campuses, encouraged by the universities themselves. Here are 10 examples.

  1. A Cambridge professor tweeted “whites they don’t matter.
  2. A Stanford law professor testified during the impeachment hearings that she crosses the road when she sees a Trump building.
  3. The University of Texas ran a MasculinUT program built around “restrictive masculinity” and tries to encourage men to drop traditional gender roles.
  4. Yale University’s Chaplain’s Office believes a $70,000pa education requires a bouncy castle and/or cookies & colouring to reduce anxiety for students.
  5. University of Manchester’s student union voted to say “applause” is not inclusive and can distress people.
  6. Cambridge University union students deemed Remembrance Day as something that glorifies war, not about respecting the dead and those who served.
  7. UTS thinks that lowering the ATAR requirements to get more girls into STEM fields makes sense.  
  8. Academia signed this open letter supporting the Extinction Rebellion which highlighted how poor the vetting processes were in trying to appear woke. The stats spoke volumes.
  9. Prof Peter Ridd won his court case for unfair dismissal against James Cook University for his challenging of the orthodoxy about the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef.
  10. Sydney University students were being marked down by certain lecturers if students used language such as ‘mankind’, ‘workmanship’ or similar words in assignment work.

We could go on.

These much-prized institutions are hardly making a strong case for the fees they charge. We whole-heartedly agree with Bernie Sanders that education should be free. In our view if and only if this is the standard of the faculty staff. It is increasingly looking worthless against the exorbitant fees charged.

Australia makes a great case in point. It bet the farm on the surging ranks of foreign (especially Chinese) students paying exorbitant fees to get degrees from our tertiary institutions. So many thought the gravy train would never end that they expanded facilities and never made contingency plans for an exogenous shock – like coronavirus.

Downsizing of universities is inevitable. Good professors will be bid away to schools that can afford them. Many surplus-to-requirements faculty staff will be axed. With that morale will sink and internal finger-pointing will exacerbate the problem and standards will slip further.

The future of education may end up ditching $100,000s in student loans to an education business model which allows students to pick the academics they want in the fields they are interested in. We recall the MBA course taken 17 years ago. We were forced to pay $1,000s of dollars to take a course in basic economics, a subject we took 4 years to complete with distinction to attain a B Ec.

We are reminded post-GFC at the number of financial industry professionals who took up a CFA degree with the hopes of attaining a $200,000+ annual salary. Sadly, 85% of the job offers for people with that qualification were for $90,000 or less. Makes sense. Software sophistication is such that a lot of degrees have less value because AI can replace it.

Interesting that Aussie universities are planning to charge double for less useful degrees in liberal arts and less for traditional fields in economics, medicine or law. i.e. discouraging degrees that add little value in the real world.

The new model may end up looking like an educational supermarket. Someone who wants to get into marketing might want to take a course run by Prof. Michael Porter from Harvard University or someone in marine ecology could look to learn a course conducted by Prof Peter Ridd.

All we can say is that education in twenty years won’t look anything like today. Skills matter. Old systems run by faculties that push ideology over education will end up shooting themselves in the foot. The finance market has already moved to a new model where clients pay for “value” of the analyst, not the “firm”. Bring it on.

You’ll never guess WHO supports the letter urging a green recovery

Criony

Thomas Sowell once said, Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.

According to an open letter signed by 200 bodies representing 40,000,000 health workers The Guardian penned,

Chief medical officers and chief scientific advisers must be directly involved in designing the stimulus packages now underway, the letter urges, in order to ensure they include considerations of public health and environmental concerns. They say public health systems should be strengthened, and they warn of how environmental degradation could help to unleash future diseases.

Who knew?

What better way to cash in on a pandemic by claiming outrageously false representation of members in an attempt to secure funding grants. The irony of this pandemic is that it has exposed the very authorities – who we dare not question – as amateurs in the very fields they claim expertise.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the revenue growth of the RACGP far outstrips that of the AMA? Should the AMA question why its membership has fallen from 95% of doctors to around 26% as it has taken on the role of a climate and social justice activist rather than the RACGP’s approach to be an advocate for better health?

How many of the 40 million health professionals described above believe the orthodoxy? It is bogus to say all followers willingly endorse what these membership bodies make blanket claims about.

Perhaps we should indulge the medical and scientific communities’ request by benchmarking their supposedly superior predictive powers against their howlingly inaccurate models produced during the coronavirus which have undoubtedly done more harm to the economy than good. Take Australia. We were told 15 million may be infected and 150,000 could die. The result to date. Less than 7,200 and 100 deaths. So much for listening to the professionals.

If we are to listen to intellectually superior academia in these fields, should we just accept the Australian National University’s latest plan to have climate change listed on death certificates?

Taken to its logical conclusion, this is an ideology speaking, not science.

We have already had decades of research to support just how flawed climate science models have proven. None of the catastrophic claims of being engulfed by rising sea levels or having to tell our kids they’d never see the snow has happened. Even hardened environmental activist Michael Moore concedes the ridiculous extent to crony socialism behind the green movement.

In February we documented the story of the National Climate Emergency Summit held in Melbourne. The mainstream media led us to believe that the best of the best scientific minds congregated. We pointed out that the list of speakers was largely devoid of scientific experts. 40% were activists, 16% were from the media, 12% were politicians, 11% were academics, 4% high school students and 3% doctors. Biased much?

Yet we have seen this type of shallow content activism before, especially with respect to open letters.

We reported that 268 Australian academics cosigned an open letter supporting the climate activist group, Extinction Rebellion.

While the content was predictable, the statistics were anything but convincing. We noted,

Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter was Matthew Flinders of Flinders University. Unless the university website has another Matthew Flinders listed as an active member, our esteemed explorer seems to have navigated his way back to life…simply adding to the total lack of credibility of the cabal of 268 academics who believe they have some sort of intellectual superiority over us. If one ever wanted proof of our judiciary leaning hard left, 12% of the people that signed this document were in law-related fields.

“…Many of the woke academia come from fields such as stand up comedy, poetry, arts/education, sports management, archaeology, LatAm studies, sex, health and society, social services, veterinary biology, culture, gender, racism…are you catching the drift of those supporting XR? Even Monash University’s Campus Operations Manager and Telephony Application Administrator signed it! Wonderful individuals but should we hold our educators to such high standards when anyone’s opinion will do?”

“…Eerily, over 90% of the signatories do not appear to be renowned experts in teaching science, much less climate science. Which means, why weren’t the scientists in these universities willing to commit their names to a cause that fits their ideology? Who needs them when one faculty member from Monash University deals with ‘Imaginative Education‘?…”

What has been happening in practice? Mexico has already announced that renewables subsidies are out. It has recognized that intermittent energy has no place in rebuilding the economy in a post-pandemic world. Alberta’s energy minister Sonya Savage said with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, “Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people…” Actions, not words. 

Which brings us back to the point of blindly submitting to expert opinion which is little more than brazen activism.

The World Medical Association (WMA), the International Council of Nurses (ICN), the Commonwealth Nurses and Midwives Federation, the World Organization of Family Doctors and the World Federation of Public Health Associations, as well as thousands of individual health professionals, have signed this letter. 40 million others have not.

The proof is in the pudding. If the WMA  believes what it signed so strongly, why isn’t it included in its press releases as we publish? Admittedly it has upped the statement on its Twitter page to the 12,900 followers, a microbe in comparison to its supposed flock of 10 million physicians it represents. The ICN – which claims to represent 20 million nurses made it all too clear as to why we should dismiss it entirely – the WHO supports and promotes the letter. One wonders whether experts from the Chinese Ministry of Propaganda helped in its drafting. Afterall, China would be the biggest beneficiary were governments to fall into line.

Bes sure to read the quotes from the experts here.