Academics are destroying our education system

Bruce, I presume your problem is with the utility of the ideas that are contained in the "inflated mumbo jumbo" rather than just in language itself? I presume that you wouldn't be complaining at the specific language used to describe, say, the parts of an engine should someone be training as a mechanic? Is learning to be about learning specific things or learning how to think? There are things that can be expressed simply and there are things that need to be expressed in more complicated ways. Not everything can be boiled down to concrete expression, especially if you are dealing with ideas and concepts. If it helps, think of critical language as technical language, the language that one professional uses to another in the process of their work. I admit there is a tension between academic research and academic teaching, that is probably one that isn't going to go away. The process of pursuing knowledge is not the same as communicating knowledge. I'm not going to accept your either/or proposition, though. To call for more vocational education, or education more suited to entry into a competitive labour market, does not require the jettisoning of more academic education. And, if I'm totally honest, I'm not sure that purely vocational education in the humanities or arts field is that useful, when any actual jobs will come as much from your qualities and skills of thought and creativity as they will from practical knowledge. The job that I do, for example, is a combination of all of the resolutely impractical things that I picked up here and there, combined with a certain rigour of thought. I develop ideas into funded projects for the most part, and use skills that aren't really easy to teach in a practical framework. I'm glad that I've learned how to think. Does your thesis refer to what is being taught, or how it is being taught? I'm interested in interrogating the world to try and work out why things are the way they are, and how this can be understood. I find that critical theory, basically the thinking of people much cleverer than me, helps me to think about things in different ways and opens doors to new ways of understanding and comprehending. It's a springboard that makes the world and stuff in it far more interesting. Also, for the record, I do not have a degree, but do read a lot of critical theory. Cheers, Mark

I don't think academics have a stranglehold on anything other than academia. Mark is right, it's all about learning to think. When I came out of a very vocational and entirely free of anything that could be accused of mumbo-jumbo engineering degree, I moved straight into a job for which my degree was entirely relevant and immediately found that the vast majority of what I had learned was of no use at all and I had to learn a whole lot of new specialist information. When I moved on to a different but very similar job a few years later I found exactly the same thing. What the degree had taught we was how to think my way around problems and how to learn what I needed from existing literature - now that was a useful skill, and in some ways a very similar skill to what a non-vocational humanities degree would teach. Also I have often found myself working alongside people who did entirely non-vocational hard science degrees Regards language. Beyond the broadest description I cannot adequately describe my job to someone who doesn't know the appropiate jargon. There simply are no other suitable words for "real time embedded systems development for channel branding master control"

This is an interesting thread because I hear it from Years 9-11 everyday. Why do we have to do Religious Studies, History, French etc etc. Why do we teach them anything at all beyond the basic skills needed to get a job? Because RS and other humanities type subjects are about extending the borders of the mind, giving students the critical skills to evaluate information not only in textbooks but in everyday life. These subjects offer insight into human evolution and the effects of culture. Because education enriches our understanding of the world, teaches us valuable problem solving skills and extends the borders of our minds. Believe me there are many days when I really want to turn round to those whinging students (who incidentally often have parents who say the very same ignorant things at parents evening) and say, ok, you don’t have to do RS and French and history and sociology, and lets drop maths and English for that matter, because you’ve got the basics, and we will just teach you practical skills; how to cook (but not any of that boring chemical bit about how ingredients work), how to wash your clothes (but not any of that boring stuff about how the machine works), and how to get a job in Tesco (but not the ins and outs of how businesses work or the influence of advertising products on consumer spending). But I don’t because we offer an inclusive education and that means giving all students the chance to study higher-order subjects that have elements of philosophy, psychology, analysis and critical thinking within them. And that is how it should be, because unlocking a child’s higher-order cognitive skills unlocks a perspective onto the world that will make them fulfilled, reflexive and hopefully more happy members of society. As for academic language, I think Mark has made the point clearly – you need specific language for meta-cognition (the analysis of thinking), just like any specialism its own particular language. However the government recognising that some students have problems accessing this type of curriculum (probably because their parents have told them it is a waste of time), are introducing 10 vocational diploma’s from 2008 – which are specifically designed to train 14-16 yr olds in a specific field. Of course what we will end up with is a two tier system and a further widening of the intellectual gap. With less able students pushed onto vocational diplomas and the more able pushed through the traditional academic route. So in fact the less able students will never get a chance to flex and practice their intellectual muscles, but hey whose complaining, the less educated they are the much more compliant and easy to control they are, and the less we need to pay them, cause they wont have the skills to argue! Juliet

"Many young people leave school without a clue how to manage their finances, handle debt, deal with boredom or depression, manage relationships, cope with setbacks, respond to a crisis, manage anger or frustration, come to terms with bereavement, be a good parent, be a good citizen, be happy, plan their careers, know who to approach when they face difficulties, start up a business, have a balanced diet and a thousand and one other things." Well, no but you learn about many of these by living your life. How can you teach 'managing relatioships' in a lesson? You learn it by having some relationships. That said, my school had a decent go at all these things, I'm not clear what this has to do with whether or not academics should use complicated language to express complicated ideas.

Bruce, Like the academic you criticise, you're saying a lot of things that don't actually mean anything. "Believe me academics and the academic mindset have a stranglehold on our society. It's interesting that it is so pervasive that you don't even see it." What is the academic mindset? What are they trying to acheive? In what sense are they an organised group with common aims? Karl Marx, Milton Friedman and Martin Heidegger were all academics but they weren't really pulling in the same direction. "The vast majority of MPs have been through the academic system, they are advised by academics who have themselves been through the system. The whole thing is depressingly self perpetuating." What is self-perpetuating? People going to school? People having ideas?

"Meanwhile we have record rates of crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling addiction, debt, divorce, violence, depression, suicide." Unfortunately it is the very children and their ignorant parents ( and i use the word ignorant in its correct sense, they are ignorant of the value of education) who are contributing to these record rates. The children who don't are the ones who transcend their backgrounds and are eager to learn about alternate points of view such as the ones offered in Sociology. It is study of these subjects that gives students the ability to challenge and develop tolerance for difference. What i find depressing are parents who pick up their kids textbook and say what a load of junk, they are not teaching you anything. How devalued that child must feel, as if their efforts are ridiculous. I invite you to come and spend a day with me at my secondary school and you can see for yourself how the students who are brought up to ask questions, debate philosophical concepts are the ones who are least likely to end up inflating the depressing figures you quote. My school is in Mid-Bedfordshire, not sure where you are from - but the invite is genuine. And yes to some degree education needs to catch up but then the technological advances made in the last 30 years have been unprecedented in history. Juliet

Bruce, I'd be interested to know what world you think I come from! I'm going to lob a few quotes from Orwell's Politics and the English Language into the mix, because I think you're misrepresenting him a bit http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm "A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in." I concede that 'ready-made phrases' can slip into academic writing, but don't see that is significantly more of a problem in academic writing than any other kind of writing. Indeed, 'inflated mumbo jumbo' could fit into that category. Orwell is coming out against cliche, for instance, and for freshness and also for using the correct word in the correct place. "As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious... By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself." Again, this can be a feature of academic writing, as it can of all writing. At no point is Orwell suggesting that there is a baseline of 'simple language'. He is suggesting that there great value in formulating thoughts clearly and setting them down in the clearest way possible. " On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them... Remember, Orwell was talking about political writing, and only by extension the rest of writing. Indeed, he points out the danger of reducing thinking and writing to purely concrete: "I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Not quite the simple 'ideas expressed simply' of your argument Bruce. Academic uses of language do have specific meanings, which you have to learn like any other set of meanings. I wouldn't expect to be able to read a book on applied engineering without a good reference work alongside it to explain all of the ideas, language and usage that such a book would contain. Someone writing such a book for other engineers would assume those engineers to know the specific language of the field. And for the record, again, I don't have a degree. I was desperately unhappy at school, got three A' Levels, went on the dole, worked for a few years, went to university, never got past the first year, perversely because I wanted to do more academic thinking and writing rather than less. School (large inner city comp.) didn't suit me, nor did university life as an undergraduate. What I've always done is read widely, and punch above my weight in terms of reading matter. If that's an ivory tower, it's a particularly short, dumpy and tarnished one. Cheers, Mark

Sociology is not my subject and i do agree the terminology can be a little intimidating and possibly some of it is unecessary but the study of society and its functions is most definetly not. The students who study it at GCSE are challenged to consider that the British way of doing things is not necessarily the universal and only way eg. what is a family, they think it consists of a mum and dad and two kids, but sociology allows them to challenge that and see how other cultural families operate, eg. extended, polygamous and so on. They are also given the tools to challenge capitalism as the only way to organise society etc. Without this theory and language then how as adults can they challenge and ultimately improve the society they live in? Thanks for your apology i also apologise if my comments seemed rude and arrogant, but i am an educationalist and not a trainer of 'monkeys' and to me the intrinsic value in knowing more about your world can only be a good thing. I get the feeling that your school days are not thought on with fondness and that is sad, many, many children do struggle at school and it is my job to ensure that every child gets some value out of education, but just as there are good teachers there are also bad, and bad teaching can turn a student off school and education for life. I agree we must challenge that. Juliet

"I obviously haven't explained myself very well. By academic mindset I mean the way of thinking that believes everything must be explained in a complicated and convoluted way. That you must use loads of long words and long sentences with lots of semicolons." No, it's not that you haven't explained, I just disagree. There are instances when - and some obviously negative reasons why - people use complicated language where plain English would do. Some of these people are academics, others are local authority policy planners, others are marketing people for major corporations, others are boorish people at dinner parties. But I think your premise that there's an ongoing battle between academics - who are deliberately confusing people with unnecessarily complicated language, rather than using complicated language to say complicated things - and non-academics gnashing their teeth outside the academic world is just wrong. And as far I as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence for your position, in plain English or otherwise.

Bruce, without the education system I suspect you wouldn't be as articulate as you clearly are. It's a shame that you don't credit it. It's also a shame that you seem to be looking to blame something or other for the state we're in instead of trying to analyse the state we're in. Academics have a "stranglehold on our society"? Blimey, you could have fooled me. I think society is a bit more complicated than that. Maybe we live in a culture massively influenced by a hegemony in favour of capitalist social relations (this vocab will be winding you up I guess) but I doubt that academics have nearly as much power in that hegemony as you think. You flatter 'them'. You think that education should prepare people for "life in the real world" - if you are what you call "left of centre" don't you think education has an important role in preparing people to critique what might be wrong about the "real world"? It happens that Cultural Studies / Media Studies /Sociology etc are some of the academic disciplines that, taught/studied well, promote this 'stretched' thinking, and at best encourage a critical autonomy. Something I bet you think you are expressing in your sometimes repetitive posts (in this thread and the Media Studies one). Why are you so afraid of theoretical expression and challenging vocabularies (which can sometimes extend the limits of thought beyond the language you want everyone to use)? There are reasons to be afraid in our current world, but I am convinced this is not one of them. I'm going to be a bit Alf Garnett-ish (like you've been Bruce) and suggest that it's more likely that anti-intellectual populism is what is "destroying our education system" (surely you ARE a Daily Mail reader Bruce?) than academics.

Hi Bruce. Yes, I have an academic humanities degree, but I now work as a business analyst in the "real" world. I agree that "inflated mumbo jumbo" can inhabit academic text books, but believe me - the world of business produces more than its fair share of tossy, mystifying language. I failed nearly all my o-levels when at school. I believe this was mostly because I chose all science-based subjects, because I was persuaded by my family and other well-meaning adults that these would be more useful to me in the real world. After I left school, I felt miserable, worthless and had no idea of what I was going to do. So I returned to full-time studies, though this time I chose subjects I was interested in: the more arty things, and yes, more academic ones. My eyes were truly opened by that experience - and I went from strength to strength and finally began to believe I was a worthwhile human being - from there I went on to A-levels and a degree. This experience enabled me to go off into society as a well-developed, right-thinking human being. I'm not using any of the critical textbooks in my job, but I can think my way towards doing a half-decent job in the world of business and commerce. I cannot agree with you that my life has in any way been ruined by academics: I truly believe those academics saved me from a dreadful life in the local cheese factory, which is where all the "good advice" would probably have got me.

Just thought I’d weigh into the fray with a little observation, for what it’s worth. I failed the f**king iniquitous 11+ and went to a comprehensive, where I failed abysmally. Naturally, of course. The 11+ did its work in sieving me out of the ‘academic’ system. I left school early without qualifications and started work as a farm labourer. I had this strange notion, though, that I’d been hard done by: that I hadn’t failed the system, but the system had failed me (oh, the arrogance of youth!). At 20, I took a Mensa test and registered an IQ of 158. Hmm, I thought… something there after all. I took an Access course and got into university without qualifications, doing a non-vocational degree. You see, I didn’t want to qualify for a career. I wanted education. I wanted to see what this brain I clearly had was capable of achieving. Academically, it was like learning to sprint before I’d even begun to crawl. Yes, many of the lecturers were extra-terrestrials, and much of the reading went far over my head. But I still managed a 2:1. I’d like to have done what Mark has done, but I simply don’t have the self-motivation. I need teachers and deadlines. Despite the shortcomings you’ve mentioned, Bruce, going to university was the single most important thing I’ve ever done in my life. And I still don’t feel educated. There are so many things I don’t know. It intimidates me just to think of all the things of which I’m ignorant. But at least I know HOW to use my head now – even if I don’t always use it properly. What gets up my arse more than anything is people who say ‘Have you used your degree yet?’ – as if the economic motivation is all education is about (which, largely, is the case now). ‘Yes,’ I say. ‘I use my degree every bloody day of my life.’ Perhaps another debate could be started about how secondary (and, to an extent, tertiary) education nowadays is geared more towards passing exams and less towards learning to think (uh… I sense a brickbat whizzing my way…)

Bruce, I'm not denying I was lucky to get a second chance - for that I am eternally grateful to my family. However, I find striking similarities between what you have to say and the persuasive arguments people gave me to choose the non-humanities subjects. If it wasn't for this well-intentioned but ultimately crap advice, I wouldn't have needed a second chance! Regarding the mystifying business language: it's not what comes out of text books - rather it, on the whole, evolves from acronyms and sound business principles, but can be just as daunting as anything in a university lecture. The point is: these words can be learned, accommodated and used, regardless of whether they come from a lecturer or a import/export clerk.

* .. What gets up my arse more than anything is people who say ‘Have you used your degree yet?’ * The things people will say whilst they're having sex never ceases to amaze me!

Yes, Missi... and it's a pity I'm anal retentive (erm, sorry - finicky).

ggggg-ggareth said: 'I suppose writers are in love with language and enjoy savouring interesting and challenging words. ' Why did rokkinite immediately spring to mind? Juliet OC said: 'Sociology is not my subject and i do agree the terminology can be a little intimidating and possibly some of it is unecessary but the study of society and its functions is most definetly not' You're right! Academia prepares you to speak 'the language'. It prepares you to strut your peacock-stuff in 'the real world' where each subject inherits its own jingo due to past educational standards. But it doesn't prepare you for society; only what has been observed and more-or-less agreed upon historically. Everyone is entited to pick-up the baton and change either academia...or society as they wish. Your success is dependent on luck, timing, and mutual agreement. missi said: 'The things people will say whilst they're having sex never ceases to amaze me!' So you're knowledgable in something then? What basis it has in 'real life' is a different matter! :) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Ironically enough, the 'academics are destroying education/the world' is a rhetorical and practically useless argument that consistently manages to unite a huge range of angry groups ranging from bourgeois Trotskyist students to right-wing populist politicians & media pundits. Good fun, though.

Well, Bruce... nothing worthwhile ever comes easy - especially learning. Some suffering is inevitable. But then, I'm just a sad ol' masochist.

I just don't see where you're coming from, Bruce - it seems to me that, for example, GCSE text books are far less "academic" than they were thirty plus years ago, and if you compare a modern comic with one of 50-100 years ago (e.g. the "Billy Bunter" Greyfriars stories) you will find that the children of that generation were expected to read dense text, full of long words and classical and Biblical allusions, and this for pleasure. I think the exact opposite to what you describe has happened in order to get as many young people as possible into universities. Unfortunately, getting a degree requires serious academic effort part of which is to familiarise oneself with unavoidable long words in ones chosen field, not because long words are impressive in themselves but because they convey a precise meaning whereas short words are often imprecise and convey several possible meanings; OK perhaps for poets but not desirable in the study of, say, brain surgery or nuclear physics. Don't worry, where people go over the top linguistically they can still end up in Private Eye's "Pseuds Corner"!

Bruce- The way I see it, the only way to improve is to stretch yourself. If a person broke both their legs and you bunged them in a wheelchair but never encouraged them to try to stand and walk again do you think they would. (Wow, I accidentally used a metaphor.) If you stay within your comfort zone you will not expand. If everything was handed to you on a plate you'd never learn to use the cooker, etc.

Sorry, Bruce, but you’re arguing from a false premise there with your examples of disabled or visually-impaired people. Whilst I agree with you that certain areas of study carry a higher than average ‘bullshit baffles brains’ quotient, I don’t subscribe to the idea that academics are deliberately conspiring to make their disciplines difficult to understand. What would be the point of it? Broadly speaking, anyone capable of passing A levels (even if they don’t actually take the exams) should be capable of getting a degree. They learn to sort through the bullshit as they go along. Every academic discipline – as others have pointed out – has it own terminologies and critical frameworks. These have been formulated over time, in many instances through cross-pollination with other disciplines (Film Studies and psychology, for instance). Even in a more ‘orthodox’ subject, like English Literature, you will find terminology that may seem intimidating to those unfamiliar with critical analysis. T S Eliot’s idea of the ‘objective correlative’ is a particular example. Just the sort of thing you might expect to spring from the mind of an uncompromising intellectual elitist like Eliot – yet when you come to look at the meaning of the phrase, and set it in the context of the argument he was presenting, you see that it is quite succinct and accurate… and it makes sense. You don’t need to agree with the argument, of course. But then, that’s what much academic work is all about: constructing an argument, using all supporting evidence, and presenting it as a thesis. Such work may involve borrowing ideas from other disciplines, and even perhaps creating new terminologies as a way of encapsulating your ideas. I think the problem that you are highlighting is more to do with style than content. Many academics, deeply learned though they are, are unable to communicate in a generally accessible way. The guy who wrote the set text on genre in my Film Studies course was an example. He’d probably have problems telling you how to boil a kettle without reference to molecular biology and thermodynamics. Thankfully, though, there weren’t too many like him. Many of the other academics I encountered at university were clear communicators and good teachers who – for me – helped push open the door to intellectual discovery. You’ve made some pretty bold statements about academia. In some respects, I can understand your concerns. But I think you need to come up with some convincing evidence – studies, statistics, etc – to justify your broader assertion. Sorry, but what you’ve said so far doesn’t make an entirely convincing case to me.

Problems with talking about 'education' as a whole, or 'academe' is that we all only have our own experiences of it, and they are not necessarily the same thing, or come from the same place. I have noticed this, as a teacher, when people talk about 'teachers' - what they are really talking about is one or two teachers they had at school who made their lives a misery... They are most certainly NOT talking about teachers in today's education system, or school as it is today, of that I'm sure. Reading stuff in the news about how schools are and how teachers are and how pupiils are is not enough to have an opinion on it. I am sorry but it is not. For example: Every pupil at secondary school should be doing PHSE which involes a whole 'life skills' section, including how to manage finances, how to deal with personal situations, the law etc. All trainees are expected to assess the learning capabilities and styles of every single pupil they teach. The government calls it 'Every Child Matters'. This means that when I hand in all my lesson plans (yes we even do lesson planes, a minute by minute explanation of what will happen in the class and more importantly - why), I have to differentiate between the various abilities, learning styles and achievement levels. I have to show activities that will help a visual learner, a kinesthetic learner (learning by 'doing' or being 'active' jargon fans), a musical learner etc etc. All pupils at Key Stage 3 (that's ages 11- 14 jargon fans) are assessed on a series of Levels. These levels explain why each level is what it is, what you need to do to get to that level, and why it is there. The whole Assessment for Learning initiative is all about constantly being aware of what pupils are learning (this does not mean exams, or tests, but a constant evaluation of each child's progress lesson by lesson) - it also means pupils being aware of what they are learning, and self assessment, peer assessment and assessment of the teacher. I have seen a Year 7 class with some of the poorest reading skills assess each other on the Level scale after performing in a music lesson: 'I think Jimmy is a Level 4 because he got most of it right but he paused in the middle for too long, and then played the next bit faster.' 'I think Jane is a Level 5 because she played at a steady pace and got all the notes right.' 'I think Bobby is actually a level 4, even though he played it perfectly, the music said 'tune for a left hand' and he played it with his right.' I think this stuff is amazing. Teachers are not allowed to write 'Good', 'Excellent', 'Poor', or 'Could do better' on a child's work anymore. Not unless they explain why, or even better, get the child to explain why. The best one is when a child says they deserve a higher level and tell you, precisely and in definite language, why. Great. Key words are useful if a person is to articulate a point of view. There is no point me teaching Muslim marriage to a Year 11 class if I do not use words like Nikah or Mahr or Wallimah or whatever... I do not think vocabulary excludes. Bruces points about academic langauge being excluding and complicated are not necessarily true. I would say it can be the case some time. I would say language in council documents are far more complicated than many text books for students. Of course there will always be evidence of both, but I really don't think one is able to make a sweeping statement. But then, I think that about everything, not just this particular argument. I haven't seen evidence the language being excluding at all... teaching A level Philosophy and Ethics (jargon title ahoy), the pupils have to study Paley and Equinous and Aristotle, they have to talk about Darwinism, the design argument etc etc etc. They, mostly, love it. They get to talk about things that interest them (how did we get here? What is all about? Is there a God?), and they get to see how what they think compares to thinkers from the past and present. It doesn't need to exclude them if taught well. I don't agree that there is such a thing as an academic 'mindset'... all you have to do is get three academics in a room and you'll see the arguments, disagreements and different ways of doing things. Um, funnily enough I am supposed to be writing a 6000 word essay on 'Learning styles in the classroom'. I have to use words like 'behaviourism' 'metacognition' 'schema theory' 'constructivism'... all 'jargon' does Bruce, I argue, is take something that would require 15 words to describe and give it a word to condense and simplify. Some people might argue that teacher training would be better without the academic portion.. that the best way to learn is to be in the classroom - and it's true I have learnt the majority of my stuff from being in the classroom, it is the only way to really learn - BUT - writing this essay is making me consider the reasons why the strategies I have developed in the classroom work, and put them into a context which allows me to acknowledge them, recognise them, and talk about them to others. But then again, maybe I am just some kind of academic wanker. Who can tell? Oh and one last thing on this: 'Most of the subjects our kids are being taught could be mastered more quickly if textbooks were written in plain everyday language, if teachers spoke in plain everyday language and if students were encouraged to write essays in plain everyday language.' I disagree with this fervently for various reasons. 1) Modern textbooks are designed to be child friendly - they really are the best textbooks that have ever been. Do you remember the ones in the fifties with no pictures, nothing? 2) Many teachers don't use textbooks that much in class. We spend hours creating our own resources that are tailored to each specific class. Sometimes we create different resources for different pupils. In the same class. 3) Teachers do talk in plain every day language. They are also aware of the importance of vocabulary when discussing something in detail. Bruce did you even know teachers have to start each lesson discussing learning objectives for the lesson, and that at the end of the lesson have to check they have been met?

Um, funnily enough I am supposed to be writing a 6000 word essay on 'Learning styles in the classroom' I wasn't counting words but I think you managed it on this thread! There is more of beauty in a moment's silence than in all the works of tongue or pen...

"I think the problem that you are highlighting is more to do with style than content. Many academics, deeply learned though they are, are unable to communicate in a generally accessible way." Yes, for example, Noam Chomsky - internationally respected linguist and political commentator - while a wonderful and extremely accessible verbal communicator is simply a bad writer. It's not a conspiracy, he's just no good at it. So much so that publishers have resorted to publishing books of interviews with him, written by people who are good at writing. "It would be good if at least one member of the pro-academia lobby would now directly address these two points. Point One The academic way of doing and writing stuff in the UK is highly excluding." I don't accept the premise that there is an 'academic way'. I accept that people - both consciously and unconsciously - do exclude other people by choices of language in a wide range of different settings but you haven't provided any evidence either that academics are more guilty of this than other professional or social groups, or that they generally have less justification for doing so. "People with learning difficulties, non-native speakers of English, those who are intelligent but do not have an academic mindset are all victims of this. For them the barriers to entry (understanding) are just too high." Are you saying that because people with learning difficulties can't understand, for example, semiotics, no one should study semiotics? I can't imagine that the inaccessibility of PHD study is high on the list of problems faced by most people with learning difficulties. That said, last year the University of Glasgow produced a report on the problems faced by people with learning difficulties in the job market. An accessible version of the final report was produced - my company was loosely involved - using a combination of simple language and representative pictures to enable the people who had taken part in the study to read the end product. That's a good thing and more broadly it's right that people with learning difficulties - and people in society in general - are given comprehensible explanations of things that are being said and done in their name. There's a lot of room for improvement, there but I can't see how that's an argument to be aimed specifically at academics. "Are you really happy to see this exclusion continue? Isn't that at odds with what you would say in any other discussion about making society more inclusive?" No, because inclusion doesn't mean everyone having the same abilities or interests or taking the same paths. It means giving people the opportunity to have as much control as possible over their own lives and the decisions that affect the way their life develops. I chose to leave school at 18 to work as a journalist - partly because I didn't enjoy academic study. That was the right choice for me. Academia can't and shouldn't exclude people on the grounds of race, class, gender, sexuality, wealth or any other irrelevant factor but it can exclude people on the grounds that they're not interested in, or very good at, academic study. In the same way that professional football clubs exclude people on the grounds that they can't play football or don't want to attend training. "Point Two The academic way of doing things is needlessly complicated. Considerable time is wasted in schools and colleges on students trying to grapple with the densely written prose of modern academics and the ponderous thoughts of intellectual giants from the past." As Neil's suggested, in the case of modern schools this is just wrong. If anything, I think GCSE textbooks in humanities subjects are often too simplistic for cleverer students to get a full understanding of what's being discussed. "It's almost as if the academic world is collectively saying, if you want to learn, you have to suffer." It's not suffering for people who enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, you don't have to do it. Once you get to university as, once again, others have suggested, you're there because you want to be. If you want to learn about complicated theoretical concepts, you have to do some hard reading and some hard thinking. I didn't really enjoy academic study and chose not to carry on doing it but others do enjoy it and lots of good things come - both directly and indirectly - from their studies. Some academic prose obviously is badly written, as is some poetry and some popular fiction but you haven't provide any suggestion of how it could easily be made less complicated. Are you suggesting that most 'thoughts of intellectual giants from the past' - or indeed the present - could all just be re-written in simple English while retaining their original meaning? Or are you saying we should just junk them altogether?

Sorry to be a million miles behind the discussion but the ignorant parents at parents' evening comment reminded me of an anecdote. My cousin, an English teacher said at a parents evening, " X needs to improve his spelling and grammar..." Mrs X replied, "Well he is dyslexia you know." As far as academia goes, I think there should be more rote learning. I got a top grade GCSE geography and am crap at Triv Blue questions because instead of making me learn long lists of capital cities, currencies, river locations etc, they made me learn all about the LA Dam flood control system (science, economic imapact etc). Rote learning is underestimated . They say 'you can look it up' but I think having facts to hand is important. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I'm all for simplifying. All things should be simplified as far as they possibly can be. But complexity can be fun... ... and what's the point of living without fun? {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

There's no fun in your life!

I beg to differ. {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

All things should be simplified as far as they possibly can be. Yes, but your on-line persona (and possibly 'real' self) takes this a tad too far, donchya think, amoeba-brain?

I think you should make like an amoeba and split! There is more of beauty in a moment's silence than in all the works of tongue or pen...

erm, you're not very bright, or one of wit, are you?

To claim I'm short of wit With no defense for it Just goes to show What you must know That you're a total twit! There is more of beauty in a moment's silence than in all the works of tongue or pen...

Now c'mon, X, to call someone "amoeba-brain" takes a level of wit of such unprecedented cunningness (?), that most of us here would quiver in the shadow of Heckle's intellectual boots... {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

Us? You make the mistake of thinking you're part of some select coterie, when in fact the only group you're a part of is the 'children and dumbfucks gang at ABC'. But hey, I'm being somewhat uncharitable in this season of good will to all men, perhaps I'll follow the lead of those enemies in WW1 and call a truce over Christmas.

Now where would be the fun in that? Did you have a good one then, Missi? {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)