All too many university students today languish in a condition of moral turpitude, according to Professor Steven Schwartz in a report in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph.
“Plagiarism, incivility, rudeness and reneging on legitimate debts – all these are depressingly common among university students”, he is reported as claiming.
“How can we begin to expect them to analyse ethical issues such as stem cell research, nanotechnology, euthanasia or gay marriage when we cannot get them to understand that they should be polite to others and that they should meet their obligations?” he is reported as having lamented.
To improve the moral tone of university life, Professor Schwartz bids university teaching staff to set a personal example. “We must meet our classes on time, return assignments promptly, and mark fairly” he proposes.
Professor Schwartz is well placed to comment on the moral calibre of today’s university students. As well as heading the Government’s working party on University Admissions, he is also Vice Chancellor of Brunel University
Should Professor Schwartz be correct about their state of moral laxity, and there is little reason to doubt his word, it is puzzling why he be should be as keen as he manifestly is to attract as many young people as possible to these dens of iniquity, especially those whose families have no previous history of university education.
Yet it is precisely that on which Professor Schwartz seems hell-bent, forgive the pun.
On the very day the Daily Telegraph reports him deploring the moral character of today’s university students, he is reported in the Times as proudly announcing plans to open at Brunel a city academy for 16 to 19 year olds “to encourage inner-city students into higher education”.
Exactly why Professor Schwartz should be keen to attract youngsters into institutions like his if the latter are the sin-bins he claims they are is deeply puzzling. The Times says he was inspired by the need to show pupils that university “is not just for toffs”.
But was it worth exposing these youngsters to the dubious moral company he claims they are sure to find there just to disabuse them of the notion university is only for toffs rather than louts?
Or did Professor Schwartz want these youngsters admitted in the hope their presence at university would raise the moral tone there? Again, however, is it not more likely any virtuous but impressionable minority of young students would be dragged downward by being made to keep company with rogues than elevating the rogues by consorting with them?
Or, as seems more realistic, if Professor Schwartz supposes the moral character of the newcomers he wants to bring into universities is no more elevated than that of those whom they will find there, one wonders why he and his like should be as keen as they are to expand university numbers through ever-widening university participation.
Surely, these places should, rather, be closed down, given the corrupt and expensive educational charades all too many have become through their reckless over-expansion at the behest of unscrupulous politicians and maverick educational entrepreneurs, masquerading as senior academics, who have forced them to admit manifestly unable students who, in consequence, have been driven to cheat and to which teaching staff at them have been encouraged, if not ordered, to turn a blind eye to maintain state funding.
Comments (4)
I was interested by the comment 'reneging on legitimate debts'. Who says they are legitimate? I have two children at university and not only are they running up debts on their student loans, my husband and I are running into debt to pay fees and living expenses (they had to choose London universities!)
They are being taught by people who all left university with no debts (or very small), paid for by a society which appreciated their hard work. Now the students pay for it themselves, in large groups and less teachers, ending up penniless and in debt at a stage where buying homes/having children loom large. They also watch kids with no qualifications and perhaps a baby being given pensions, accommodation, etc etc - free and gratis, never to be paid back.
Is it really any wonder these students do not really feel supported or appreciated by the wider society? My daughter (with 3 As and 1 B at A level),was turned down by one major London institution for two courses, one course only requiring 2Bs and 1C - the VAST majority of places went to overseas students. This country cannot afford for its brightest students to attend the best universities!
And they are supposed to be polite and supposedly doff their caps to the people who created this mess?
Posted by SashaM | January 18, 2005 2:26 PM
Posted on January 18, 2005 14:26
Yup, as illustrated above, it's all going to the dogs.
We should revert to the good ol' days, when we educated the top 20/30% properly, and let the remaining 70/80% fester in the good ol' sink schools.
The elite can then direct the serfs as they used to do, with no dissent. Discourse was polite and well reasoned amongst the top dogs, whilst the rest grunted to each other.
Women ought to get back to the kitchen, so their menfolk can resume there proper position in the great scheme of things.
What a wonderful world it was, and can yet be.
Posted by stardasher | January 17, 2005 9:56 AM
Posted on January 17, 2005 09:56
The students' buildings are like everywhere else now, chambers for degrading people. At Birmingham one cannot even sit down for a breakfast without half-a-dozen television screens disturbing one, showing some false pop group acting out a role to titillate and degrade young people.
I suppose there are a couple intelligent young people at Oxford and Cambridge, but the rest of them?
Posted by David Howells | January 15, 2005 12:38 PM
Posted on January 15, 2005 12:38
These educational estblishments are the ideal training ground for future employees of the bloated public sector, where non-jobs attract ever better wages.
Posted by simmo | January 13, 2005 5:39 PM
Posted on January 13, 2005 17:39