What is a University Education For? Thomas Wyatt

Thomas Wyatt, University of York

According to Aristotle 'we educate ourselves so that we can make a noble use of our leisure' (Aristotle, as quoted by Grayling, 2010, pg.189) This view of education as an end within itself is at the heart of much intellectual discourse that spans the centuries. It strikes well with the old adage attributed to Socrates that 'the unexamined life is not worth living'. Fast forward in time to present day and it is clear such an ideal has undergone a significant transformation. In a world where increasing numbers of people compete over ever-decreasing resources it seems as many trained minds as possible are needed in keeping countries competitive with their neighbours. Our universities, the subject of intense media coverage over the past year, stand at the forefront of this debate. Prized by both sides as keys to their respective Utopias. The themes of the debate are by no means recent, with the Greeks making a distinction between training that prepared one for activity within the trades, described as banausic and the 'education proper' which sought 'refinement of character and the development of moral virtues'.(Grayling, 2008, pg.108) Indeed, the backdrop of the politicised motivations that frame the current debate are well augmented by Stephen Fry when describing his time at university in the early 1980's:

My Cambridge proceeded pleasantly enough without the intrusion of academic study: a university is not, thank heavens, a place for vocational instruction, it has nothing to do with training for a working life and career, it is a place for education, something quite different … Such serene and lofty views of education as against vocational training were beginning to madden the new political leadership ... Our kind of loose learning, as they would regard it, this cleaving to the elitist tradition of the Liberal Arts, this arrogant Athenian self-indulgence was an enemy, a noxious weed that required summary eradication. Its days were numbered.(Fry, 2010, pg. 122)

It is therefore clear that the transformation of the idea of a university from an institution geared to the intellectual, cultural and social flourishing of the individual to the idea of purpose, whereby these institutions must be of use. Economic use to be precise. Business models were introduced to the 'pleached groves of academe'. (Fry, 2004, pg.30) The value of a university education was deemed to be instrumental not inherent. With funding an increasing uncertainty in the current climate here lies an extremely relevant debate. The 'value' of Engineering or Chemistry courses, when viewed as commodities, are easily quantifiable. Their economic worth measured by their contribution to the expansion of GDP. The 'value' of Philosophy or English courses is less clear. Knowing and appreciating the literary might of Paradise Lost or the finer points of Hegelian phenomenology are fine attributes but will not help Britain's 'balance of payments' or in novate the development of the hydrogen powered car. What can we do but 'train' our young generations to meet such challenge with minds full of facts and a powerful work-ethic to 'compete' with the suicidal workers in a Chinese iPad factory? (Coonan, 2010)

Of course, advocates of the 'arts and humanities' are more than willing to defend their respective endeavours in terms of their ability to produce hard-working, conscientious graduates with a plethora of 'transferable skills' with which to pit themselves against the economic coal-face. I'm sure it is true that aptitudes developed during ones study of great theories and texts do hone the mind and display to potential employers ones ability to grapple with the complex. However, perhaps now is a good time to bring up the issue of how universities assess individuals, particularly those in arts and humanity subjects. It is generally considered that the exams students take at university reflect directly the amount of effort and w ork they put towards them. Alas, if only life were so simple. A few questions before we proceed – when exactly was it decided that an individual's knowledge and understanding was best displayed by them being able to write, say, a one-hour essay on a certain subject matter? Since when did society prize the ability to churn out essays against the clock above thorough analysis, consideration and respect for reason that we are told is the hallmark of a university education? Exams requiring essay answers are an insult to academia. Isaiah Berlin made a famous distinction between a 'fox', who draws on a wide variety of experiences, and a 'hedgehog', which observes the world through the perspective of a single idea. Stephen Fry borrows this analogy in his autobiography 'The Fry Chronicles' to describe how he excelled at university exams by becoming a hedgehog and 'cheating' the system. Having perfected and memorised an essay before a particular exam Fry would thus write it, regard less of the question asked, altering only the introductory paragraph to suit the question. He also describes how a fellow student worked with diligence and integrity at every question, forming considered judgements and attempting to actually answer the question set – imagine that! Needless to say, such an approach performed badly against the constraints of time. It seems that some of the worst things one can possess when sitting an exam are an interest in the subject, sound theories and an honest approach to the question. (Fry, 2010, pg. 85)

Another glaring inconsistency one sees in a university environment is the need to assert ones 'academic integrity' before being able to hand in an assessed essay. Grappling with the nuances of referencing systems at four am whilst consuming dangerous amounts of caffeine can almost unseat one's reason – I should know. However, come an exam, open season is declared and a panoply of rich academic game can be poached at will; free from all constraints, apart from father time. Is anything a greater contradiction to the notion of academic integrity?

However, maybe such an education is preparing us perfectly for 'the real world'. Success in banking, commerce, the Civil Service, Parliament, journalism, the Law Courts and any number of careers rewards highly the ability to select and subjugate a source in line with what one wants to get from it and prizes the bludgeoning of facts to fit preconceptions. To perform this with alacrity, ease and assurance is surely a guarantor of 'success'. In the words of the late, great Professor Donald Trefusis - 'education prepares you for life, it is therefore incumbent on you, in order to succeed, to cheat, copy, steal, paraphrase, adopt, adapt and distort.' (Fry, 2004, pg.29) Furthermore, if we focus on philosophy specifically, in seems that the subject has lost its 'narrative arc', the idea that it has been employed for use at the most key intellectual advances of history. At the moment, there is the concept of the subject as divided into specific academic 'specialisms' and 'research projects', perhaps into the nature of 'mind', that have no public utility whatsoever. Crass words I'm sure many will say – alas, I feel this detracts from the idea of philosophy as being of vital importance to the modern world as well as the ancient. For example, a pressing issue foe the modern age is how businesses can behave ethically towards the environment and towards people – especially as resources will have to be extracted from increasingly delicate ecosystems. Students now must graduate into an over-populated market, an uncertain world where emerging super-powers and climate change will arbitrate the status quo. Indeed, in times past students received healthy grants with no fear of debt and could afford to engage in the activities that Christopher Hitchens describes of his time at university:

I do not believe that they were entirely squandered ... Let us say one quarter of the time annexed to political confrontations and dramas, another devoted to reading books on any subject except the ones I was supposed to be studying, another quarter on seeking out political and intellectual heavyweights who commanded artillery superior to my own, with the residual twenty-five per cent being consumed by the polymorphous perverse. (Hitchens, 2010, pg.123)

Of course, it's easy to talk of the lofty ideals of the Liberal Arts, of the 'well rounded' person, to reminisce about campus protests and the the ubiquity of Che Guevara posters. Except, except. When the human race has fulfilled its long held desire to master this planet, rape it of its resources it will stand tall – wealthier and more prosperous than ever before- and ask, what for? People have cars, air-conditioning, electronic tin-openers, wi-fi, constant access to information. They have the things that the television said would make them happy, so what do they do next? It is obvious that as humans we need more than commodities or the essentials for existence to live fulfilled lives. This has been true since the dawn of humanity. It surely follows that a university education that encourages free enquiry and debate is an education for life and not just for work. This debate strikes at the heart of an ancient conflation of work and life. To equate life with work and vice versa is to maximise mass productivity but in doing so minimise his humanity. That is not to say that work is the antithesis of the good life, but that a life dominated by any single factor is impoverished one. With the encroaching commodification of education students are reduced to mere factors in an economic machine larger than themselves, their universities and indeed their country. The arguments have been well rehearsed and substantiated on either side, on one hand viewing education as a liberating force intellectually and the other economically. Surely this points to the fact that the greatest challenges facing humanity in the twenty first century, climate change chief amongst them, require all the wit and skill of man and everything a university education can offer. In the words of Professor A.C. Grayling:

 

Society certainly needs engineers, physicists, doctors, computer specialists, biochemists and geologists. But it also needs its lawyers, journalists, politicians, civil servants, writers, artists and teachers - and it needs everyone on both sides of the science-humanities divide to be a thoughtful voter, good neighbour, loving parent, responsible citizen. In short, society needs to have a civilised conversation with itself about its values and about what is to be learned from the experience of mankind. Informed and reflective minds, educated by contact with the great traditions of thought and literature in civilisation, are a priceless asset: and this is what the humanities are about. To diminish this aspect of our social self-educati on is to do ourselves a great injury.(Grayling, 2010)

 

So, after this brief foray into the semantics of academe I think we are safe in concluding the obvious – that all areas in the quest of intellectual endeavour are vital to humanity's common narrative, and to diminish one area in favour of the other is to commit a grave error, for the continuation of ideas relies inherently on their proliferation through the public sphere. We, as guardians of the flame of reason, must protect truth from those who would wish to subjugate it to their own ends. A university education is the uniquely placed to help us perform this role with confidence and humility.

Bibliography.

Coonan, Clifford., 2010, 'Focus: Tenth Worker at iPad factory Commits Suicide', The Independent [online 26th May 2010], Accessed on 07.05.2011, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/tenth-worker-at-ipad-factory-commits-suicide-1982897.html. Grayling, A.C., Ideas that Matter, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2008). Grayling, A.C., Thinking of Answers, (London: Bloomsbury, 2010). Grayling, A.C., 2010, 'Focus: Universities Challenged', New Statesman [online] 26th October, Accessed on 09.05.2011, available at http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2010/10/humanities-training-needs Fry, S., The Fry Chronicles, (London: Penguin Books, 2010). Fry, S., Paperweight, (London: Arrow Books, 2004). Hitchens, C., Hitch 22, (New York: Twelve Books, 2010).


Created on: December 20th 2011

Updated on: December 20th 2011