#jamescookuniversity

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.

Who’d a thunk?

Dr. Rex Fleming, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) atmospheric scientist has broken his silence on the cabal running the show. He has left the administration citing,

– data was manipulated inside NOAA by numerous individuals under the Obama era. They changed ocean data, atmospheric data. They wouldn’t own up to weather stations which would give inflated data to support their warming.

– the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) refuse to publish scientific papers from scientists (including Fleming) it considers “deniers“. Fleming was forced to go to Europe to have the 2018 paper peer-reviewed and published. So much for seeking balance.

– CO2 has risen because of warm temperatures. Not the other way around. 420,000 years of zero correlation of CO2 leading temperature. Can’t all of a sudden claim correlation of C02 leading temperature. Therefore it can’t be a cause.

– He said many scientists within NOAA agree that this is the truth yet are afraid to speak out. He said many scientists risked being fired for speaking out against the orthodoxy. This is why many are speaking out when they leave NOAA.

– more scientists are making no effort shifting away from anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW)because they are “in this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger computer systems to run these massive climate models. And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change.”

Where have we seen this before? James Cook University bullying Professor Peter Ridd for not towing the party line? To have them lose a court case against him and to then double down by telling the judge he is wrong and spending another $600,000+ on a retrial.

The podcast can be found here.

Peter Ridd wins unfair dismissal action

Congratulations to Prof Peter Ridd, who has won his court case for unfair dismissal. Ridd, who was unceremoniously dumped by James Cook University for challenging the orthodoxy about the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef, exposed the Marxism rife within our government funded universities.

The whole point of university is to encourage new thought and fresh ideas. Not sack those who disagree. So much for mounting a credible argument to debunk Ridd’s assertions. If anything he has proved the faculty couldn’t disprove him with facts.

He has won on all counts with respect to unfair dismissal. Will the Dean move to sack/sanction/demote those who encouraged the sacking?

Never let the facts get in the way of a story

82B78F90-ECE3-4DD3-95FE-38CCE2A0261A.jpeg

This story was run yesterday by two US news outlets, NY Times and CNN, based on a study from James Cook University (JCU) which actively sought to muzzle and fire a fellow professor, Peter Ridd, who criticized their poor standards of peer review.  While JCU was adamant in the quality of its study that  Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coral had fallen 15% due to “global warming, Ridd said the data showed 10% growth.

Ridd was summarily threatened by his colleagues who trawled his emails looking for dirt. Instead of being proud of the level of research that would simply prove the study of bleaching coral with data driven fact and rigour, silencing dissenters was simpler. Surely scientists would be proud to rest on the laurels of integrity and quality of analysis. One can only surmise that when agendas are at stake, facts should never get in the way of a good story.

Ridd’s blog notes,

In mid 2017, Ridd contributed a chapter in the book “Climate Change: The facts 2017” where he argued that thermal bleaching from climate change was a very unlikely threat to the GBR. He also made the point that much of the science that claims damage to the reef has been insufficiently checked, tested or replicated. He pointed out that there is a widely acknowledged “Replication Crisis” in science in general where replication tests are finding around half of the recent important scientific literature has serious flaws.”

In the day and age of Google, surely CNN and NY Times might have used their own journalistic integrity to fact check what they publish. Then again they’re climate alarmists too so best just publish anything that fits a narrative than report the truth,