Re: (Fwd) Complaint about violation of academic freedom in hiring

[GGard97342@xxxxxx]

In a message dated 04/04/01 18:26:14 GMT Daylight Time,
eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Subj:  Re: (Fwd) Complaint about violation of academic freedom in hiring
>  Date:    04/04/01 18:26:14 GMT Daylight Time
>  From:    eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Harry Veeder)
>  Sender:  pkt-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Reply-to:    pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  To:  pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>  If a student exercises their "academic freedom" by rejecting
>  the teachings of the professor, by doing their own research
>  they will fail. The university does not care if the student
>  was acting conscientiously. Alas, this is the way of
>  *formal* education.
>
>
>  Harry Veeder

It can go either way, Harry. In 1946 in the Cambridge scholarship exam I
wrote an essay on "The relationship of religion to art and literature." My
viewpoint was agnostic. The Master of the College was the professor of
divinity (and a doctor of science too), Charles Raven, and I am sure he
suggested that essay title. I got the scholarship and he got my deep respect.
In one Tripos exam however I may have dropped a rung or two by disagreeing
with the professor. But in most Cambridge exams there was no firm answers to
the questions. They were not examining knowledge; it was assumed you had that
or you would not have been admitted to the university. The questions were
designed to make you think.

Here is an example from the engineering faculty:-

"Your company makes internal combustion engines whose cylinder head is
affixed by twelve bolts. Your research indicates that the engine would be
better if the head were held on by thirteen bolts. What considerations would
affect your decision to recommend or reject a change?"

Professor Bill Biggs who set that question told me he had no particular
answer in mind. He was only trying to see if the candidate could think
logically. The mind boggles at the thought of Bill's language if anyone had
asked him to compose a multiple choice paper.

Some years after leaving Cambridge, faced with the traditional question about
the "investment multiplier," I parotted Kahn's views from memory and passed
easily. I did not believe a word of it. The true multiplier is a credit
multiplier, and it does not matter a damn whether the credit is for
investment or for consumer expenditure. I confess this act of deceit with
shame. Later I am glad to say I was asked to write a paper for the journal of
the Institute which set that exam. The paper that was required was an attack
on the stupidities of academic economists. I chose Kaldor.

Kaldor was notorious in his faculty for favouring those who agreed with him.

Later I served on the Council of the Institute  and I did everything I could
to make sure that deviant views were noted and properly assessed, but it was
not easy.  I was appalled by what happened in some exams. I recall one
economics examiner in his report damning all the examinees for not getting
anywhere near his sample answer. I pointed out that the answer he was
expecting was the answer to a question he had not asked.

"Error is a hardy plant, and academic error is a poisonous one."

I now finance my own research and need do nothing to keep any University
Senate happy.

What would have happened to Darwin if he had been a salaried employee of a
Bible Belt college, instead of a very rich man whose income was so great he
spent only half of it?

Academic freedom requires money, and that is sufficent  justification  for
inequality of wealth. But it takes a long time to get it, even for a Keynes.
In his impecunious days Keynes got away with his iconaclasm because he was an
insider, born into the Cambridge elite, and, of course, fairly clever.

Geoffrey Gardiner

PS. Have I upset everybody?