She's right, isn't she?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sxttk5REkM
>Prager University
>Prager University
No, the idea behind liberal arts is to learn a wide variety of things in order to form a broad base of knowledge. Learning about multiple perspectives does that. Just reading works that other people have deemed great doesn't.
>>383804
>Learning about multiple perspectives
Should flat earth theory be taught along with Galileo? Should medical students be taught about the humours as well as modern medical knowledge?
>>383844
>Science is the same thing as the humanities
What value is there in just reading Shakespeare and talking about how great it is? Doing that doesn't teach you anything. That's part of what's starting to make philosophy such a shitty field to study. I've known tons of philosophy students that could only recite quotes from famous philosophers and couldn't synthesize anything or think for themselves. At least many of the other humanities are trying to impart critical skills to their students so they can think about things for themselves.
Some people might not like the idea of learning critical theory and analyzing Shakespeare from a feminist perspective, but at least the student that tries that is thinking for (probably) herself and applying different viewpoints. That's better than rote memorization.
>>383870
>What value is there in just reading Shakespeare and talking about how great it is? Doing that doesn't teach you anything.
It might teach you how to write a decent play.
>>383870
>Implying anyone on a liberal arts major is thinking for themselves
How many conservatives are there in the humanities these days? How many neo-liberal reactionaries? For a field that is supposed to emphasize free thought it is awfully homogeneous intellectually.
You would do better to rote memorize Shakespeare than to rote memorize feminist theory. At least that way, at the end of it, you have Shakespeare memorized.
>>383870
>What value is there in just reading Shakespeare and talking about how great it is?
Because Shakespeare is great. And applying feminist theory to any great wprl tends to not be thought-provoking or interesting at all.
>>383870
Why do you need to apply feminist theory to Shakespeare instead of analyzing his works in a circle of individual free thinkers?
I understand that critical theory supports interpretation through a lens and the intent is to help students see a work/piece through a different perspective, but doesn't a room full of different individuals have enough potential to provide multiple perspectives?
On a side note- I don't give head to Shakespeare, but his works give us something to talk about. His work is a damn influential piece of Western literary culture-and to dismiss Shake as a "dead white man" is pretty ignorant.
>>383870
>What value does Shakespeare have?
>WHAT VALUE DOES SHAKESPEARE HAVE
I think schools should require people to take a class in stopping to think about what they say before they say it
>>383922
Shakespeare is just a social construct.
I recall reading about her cherrypicking things in order to suit her narrative.
IIRC it's exploiting people afraid of SJWs
>>383978
>Why do you need to apply feminist theory to Shakespeare instead of analyzing his works in a circle of individual free thinkers?
I was using it as an example. I don't even really like modern feminist theory, but it provides an example to the classic "Shakespeare is great because I was told he was lets, lets talk about alliteration" kind of analysis that used to be common.
The idea behind a liberal arts education is to gain different perspectives. The video in the OP even says this. Picking on feminist theory is easy, because it genuinely has a lot of problems, but it still serves that goal better than just reading great works to read great works.
>>383989
Way to not understand my argument at all. Or deliberately reword it to shitpost. Either way, 2/10, made me respond.
>>383998
Okay, well, can we all agree that it's totally fine to read about different theories and use Shakespeare as a topic? Not trying to pick on feminist theory, myself, I was just using it as an example to follow up.
I'm going to get a Masters in the Liberal Arts btw. What does /his/ think?
>>383742
I don't know if she is (I suppose she is if she is just saying it so specifically) but just watching the first minute I almost got a stroke.
I mean, I'm no even english speaker and I did read a work by shakespeare in fucking secondary school.
>>384017
>Okay, well, can we all agree that it's totally fine to read about different theories and use Shakespeare as a topic?
Yeah, totally.
>>384017
>I'm going to get a Masters in the Liberal Arts btw. What does /his/ think?
Why? I"m kind of curious. I'm in social sciences (archaeology), so I don't know if humanities stuff works the same, but I thought a Masters was to gain a narrow field of expertise. No offense, but getting a generalized masters seems kind of pointless.
>>383870
>Some people might not like the idea of learning critical theory and analyzing Shakespeare from a feminist perspective, but at least the student that tries that is thinking for (probably) herself and applying different viewpoints.
curious
give me a list of interesting things that come from viewing shakespeare from a feminist viewpoint
>>383742
The last time you posted this commercial advertising we noted that she grossly misused the concept of tragedy. For someone trying to uphold a classicist view of culture, this refutes her ability to make the claims on an informed basis.
They should've never abandoned the Trivium and Quadrivium.
Yes, she is right.
Best thing I did was to get out of academia and get a Masters in supply chain management. My love for history and humanities become a hobby and I make more money without dealing with ideologues and ass kissers.
>>384026
It's going to be 8K total, I will be part of an academic community and I will have read an assload of great works.
At the end, I want to have a comprehensive idea of Western ideology and I want to be able to reference great thinkers and philosophers directly--instead of reading chunks and pulling quotes.
I know Liberal Arts are broad and generally a Masters is supposed to make one an expert, but if anything, this program will help make me an expert on the "greats" of the West
>>384033
>we
>/his/ is apparently two people
>>384032
I have no idea. I'm not in the humanties, and I don't particularly care about feminist theory (see: >>383998). I just picked it out of my ass as an example of a popular theories that the OP is talking about. I didn't even say that it was useful, just that people who like it are thinking critically and in multivocal terms, which has always been the point of liberal arts (as stated in the video).
In other words, I was using something brought up in OP's video to show that it was wrong on its own terms, not mine.
>>384048
To what end, though? To look smart to your friends?
I mean, I'm in a field that a lot of people think is useless, but at least I know how to do a job. Eight grand a lot of money, it should go towards something that's going to benefit you in a tangible way. If you can find a way to make it work for you, cool, but it might no be the best thing to do just because you think it would be cool.
>>384033
>since someone was wrong in the past they are wrong now
here, take a couple minutes and go through this.
>>384073
You should ask people things before making baseless implications
I think that Shakespeare is put on some holy pedestal. It's not that I don't think Shakespeare's plays and sonnets are great, they truly are. Hamlet is one of my favorite pieces of fiction ever put to paper. But what does reading Shakespeare and discussing Shakespeare, just for its own sake, actually teach, besides the science of reproducing Shakespeare?
The worship of the past produced a culture that was continually gazing backwards. Putting the classics on an untouchable pedestal is just as ridiculous as immediately dismissing them.
Note: I do not agree with feminist critical theory, I think it is an ultimately shallow way to look at history and works of fiction. But it's still a different way of looking at things, at the end of the day. You people blow these things way out of proportion.
>>383742
I see nothing wrong with needing to take Critical Theory when you're an English major. Being able to interpret and critically study a text is pretty important.
The other requirements are pretty bullshit and have no business in an English literature program.
>>384083
>You should ask people things
That's what I was doing. Seriously, I wasn't trying to be rude or imply anything. I asked a question (maybe too bluntly?), and then put that question in context. I wasn't trying to insult anyone.
>>384050
You're ESL or you've not done a degree.
>>383742
>The American founders drew on an astonishingly wide range of historical and philosophical sources
Wasn't she literally just complaining about people complaining that the sources being taught weren't wide enough. because every single source is a European male? That's a very small sample size.
>>384128
I understand. I'm just referring to these parts of your post:
>To look smart to your friends?
>but it might no be the best thing to do just because you think it would be cool.
People tend to say these things when they've already formed some judgment about it before even asking the guy why he's pursuing such a degree. My mistake
>>384085
Engaging with them isn't putting them on a pedestal, it's demanding one be familiar with the foundational works of the English tradition if one wishes to be an English Major Academic.
>>384113
"Critical Theory" isn't just "theory of how to be critical", it's a Marxist perspective-based sociological field that is based around learning how everything has to be "criticized" via Marxist notions.
It's basically a course in how to have circular logic and ideological tunnel vision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
>>383978
>Why do you need to apply feminist theory to Shakespeare
Kiss me, Kate.
>>384048
Just make sure you read new criticism, benjamin, gramsci, lukacs, althusser, marcuse, adorno, derrida, deleuze, kristeva, zizek
Shit, you should be doing this anyway while reading the canon.
And yes, I know that non-great works technical colleges are also grossly deficient. The reading is up to you. Do Benjamin at least.
>UCLA
>Prestige
LEL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1MkAGuVyY
>on the same page
;)
>>383870
>What value is there in just reading Shakespeare and talking about how great it is?
Point was that it's possible to graduate from a program and completely ignore the texts of one the most influental if not the most influental figures in the field thanks to critical theory being prioritized.
>>383742
She's not wrong, but Prager is just as retarded.
>>384189
>Judaism, with it's unsurpassed moral guidelines
OH BOY
>>384197
Prager is like Big Think or TED for contemporary right-wingers (which is to say everyone from center-left right)
>>384167
>It's basically a course in how to have circular logic and ideological tunnel vision.
that describes literally any theoretical framework though
>>383844
people should certainly be taught about them to show the development of 'science' and how beliefs are justified
it's the same as showing the different forms that literature can take
>>384196
No it's not. Everyone in the US reads Shakespeare in middle and high school, and most lower-level English courses (along with a good chunk of specialist courses) include him, too. She was talking about course titles. So UCLA doesn't have a Shakespeare class, big deal, it's a dishonest argument. The students in the department will still read Shakespeare.
>>384183
It's one of the better UCs anyways
>>384216
>that describes literally any theoretical framework though
Only at the most tendentious level of analysis. Compare, even, Feyerabendian science to gutter baptist theology. One is far more fruitful, pleasurable and coherent.
>>384032
>give me a list of interesting things that come from viewing shakespeare from a feminist viewpoint
you're essentially asking someone to sum up an entire education worth of ideas in a single post. did you not understand what you are replying to?
>>384189
HAHAH. a decent country with western values run on democratic principles. HAHAHAHAH
>"never started a war"
unless you count an invasion of the region by ethnically German and Spanish jews over the span of 30 years following armed ethno-european militias causing terrorists attacks- ON THE FUCKING BRITISH ARMY 9 that this guy was a part of)
>"Always defended itself"
You mean how the Americans in Iraq after the invasion were always defending themselves, as they occupied another people's territory?
This guy is a straight up KEK for Israel. Im surprised he's not sucking a jew cock throughout the speech.
>>384214
Honestly there needs to be more right-wing stuff like this
My friend always attributes this to the failure of right-wing politics to appeal to younger audiences: there is no conservative equivalent of comedic pundits like John Stewart or Stephen Colbert that simplifies news stories and points out faults in a way that is easy to digest
>>384234
and critical analysis isn't fruitful, pleasurable, or coherent?
>>384251
She fundamentally misuses the word "tragedy." How on fucking earth can she be considered right-wing when she is deliberately a cretin?
>>384251
>there is no conservative equivalent of comedic pundits like John Stewart or Stephen Colbert that simplifies news stories and points out faults in a way that is easy to digest
Yes there is. It's South Park. Enough young people pick up right wing ideology from that show that I've seen a few articles about "South Park Republicans."
>>384255
Well, critical theory is largely sterile, unless you're following the Lukacs children's work (publishing in Thesis Eleven), but I find that their reception has become even more sterile than the reception of Arendt or even Nietzsche.
Post-modern approaches, chiefly post-structural, are so eisegetic as to be new inventions and their "fruitfulness" is in a masturbatory genre appealing to 4th years.
Honestly, I think a return to new criticism, but with an awareness of hermeneutics, would provide the best way forward to unfuck literary criticism.
YMMV, they're a methodological and theoretical pariah like sociology is.
>>384285
>I never said she was good, I said the right lacks a Colbert
The thing is, Colbert's writers are from good schools where they impart aristotelean and nietzchean concepts of tragedy.
Well, the right has Steve Sailer, that is probably smarter than Colbert. But I doubt a network would hire him.
>>384216
In proper education, you'd be educated in various theoretical frameworks, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each while also learning how to apply them.
We don't have Functionalist Class, but there's a whole fuckload of Marxist and Feminist classes. They don't make academics, they make ideologues and professionally offended perpetual protesters. This would be true if there were Functionalist classes, too, but there isn't so the problem is with Critical Theory and its ilk.
>>384322
that seems to be a problem with the american education system rather than critical theory in itself
>>384322
The thing is, to get a functionalist class you either need literary critics to agree that there is a canon or curriculum; which they view as an imposition on their job control. Never mind that these fucks don't unionise properly.
OR
You need to create enough young functionalist PhDs with exciting research that will get them hired.
Guess what young PhDs don't want to do, and what the majority of the discipline believes to be a dead end?
>>384322
Humanities could be different, but in my field (anthropology), some kind of general theory is usually required. This goes over the major theoretical outlooks that you encounter in their field in some depth, but is usually light on the trendier/newer theories, like feminism because they're not authoritative enough to present like the more established theories. Feminist classes (and other like it) exist to expose students that care to that theory and talk about it in relation to the other things that are mandatory to learn about. No one just learns feminism and Marxism, it's all about context.
But, like I said, English might be different.
>>384366
Given that Praeger appoints on politics, not on quality or competitiveness and effectively lacks academic freedom, it is an adequate argument.
The source basis is shit.
>>384241
The mark of true wisdom, anon, is being able to explain complex concepts in simple ways.
And people have summed up concepts a lot more complex than feminism in 2000 characters or less.
>>384541
What about the mark of true scotsman?
>>384366
>defending the condescending hot takes from authority channel
>>384593
It is "literally" a "tragedy".
>>384073
Dont worry. I'm not doing it so I can swing my dick around
>>384251
Well there's Prager
The problem with an equivalent right wing version of those things is that no media corporation is interested in funding it and academia isn't really the most tolerant of places
Arguably the best thing to the right wing in terms of reaching college age kids is the internet mostly because of its freedom
>>383742
>Prager
>>384261
You want to know how I know you're autistic?
>>385385
Eisegesis, that's how.
>>383897
confirmed for not being in the humanities. there have been people in my history classes that border on neo-nazi. Professors often disagree with each other and with the textbooks they assign on many occasions. the major emphasis is critical thinking and being able to forward a compelling, well researched argument more than it is about any one doctrine.
It's too conservative.
She's right about some things wrong about others. First of all there is nothing wrong with class politics. It's dishonest to lump them in with identity politics and was almost certainly done to subtly shore up the pro capitalist status quo the speaker and her patrons want to defend. SJW rarely ever honestly discuss class and if anything are hostile to anti-poverty initiatives because they think it takes away from "muh white oppression".
Another problem is worshipfully referring to the "genius" of the past and saying all humanities should do is read and worship texts from 200+ years ago and nothing else. Citing the Renaissance as a product of people looking into the past compared to the medieval/dark ages is a joke. More like a new age of critical thinking lead people to look at pagan scholars, which of course includes the best of the Greeks and Romans, rather than just bible and more bible.
Identity politics is a plague. I agree. But it's horrible because it's both critically wrong intellectually and terribly resistant to criticism since it adopts victimhood narratives so expertly. It's hard to discipline feminism. No one wants to be that guy in Academia. Not everything that isn't safe conservative wrote memorization of Plato is equally bad though. Let's not turn into the medieval Chinese.
>>384341
The problem is universities being unabated ideological echo chambers, either as a result of catering to their market when they're private/semi-private, or through nepotism and social engineering when they're more state-controlled.
>>384423
>appoints on politics, not on quality or competitiveness and effectively lacks academic freedom
So basically like every other university?
"They're bias!" is a pisspoor counter argument anyway, mainly because it isnt one at all
>>385908
Firstly, if they were abated ideological echo chambers, would you still have a problem? Of course you would. So why are you embiggening your largement?
Secondly, why is being an ideological echo chamber a bad thing. You can only make this argument from an ideological perspective, which then goes to the point that you wish to inflict your ideology as a total system over the university.
Thirdly, your proposed methods of causation (markets, social engineering) aren't connected to the production of an ideological echo chamber. You haven't explained why a market wouldn't produce multiple ideologies, or why nepotism wouldn't produce multiple ideologies?
Fourthly, of course, you are wrong in fact. Universities are not ideological echo chambers as it is really easy to see if you put myself, colleague X, colleague Y and colleague Z in a room together, because apart from X I think that Y and Z need to be shot.
I'm not joking.
>>385492
>First of all there is nothing wrong with class politics
In professorial work? Of course not.
In undergrad? Yes. Undergrads, particularly people just taking mandatory humanities, should have a variety of perspectives outlined to them horizontally. "Oughts" being taught to undergrads completely defines their understanding of society, possibly for life.
>>385916
>"They're bias!" is a pisspoor counter argument anyway, mainly because it isnt one at all
The argument isn't that bias exists, it is that the bias produces the argument itself. Did you do basic source analysis in your history course? Of course you fucking didn't.
>So basically like every other university?
Well, yes, most universities lack academic freedom, but they appoint on the basis of quality (where your first two books were published) and competition (how far along on your third book you are). Appointment on a political basis doesn't happen in the anglophone humanities at any respectable university. Prager stands out as different.
>>385908
A problem greatly exacerbated by the recent decision that absolutely everybody needs to go to college. They were never meant for that, the University system was meant to be a tiny enclave of hopeless nerds, the 1% of the society that were dyed-in-the-wool intellectuals. It's weirdness worked for them. It was never meant for the hoi paloi.
It was also a sort of repository for cultural artifacts and tradition and thinking and knowledge. Luckily, with the advent of the internet and the decentralization of knowledge in general, we no longer need them to perform that function.
So given that they are now glorified job training centers and are not required to house your greatest thinkers and works, I say we bomb the whole fucking lot of them to the ground. Open job training centers for most, maybe keep a few exclusive academies around for the real eggheads, and let the information age find other ways to preserve our culture and accumulated knowledge for us. The modern university has become hopelessly corrupted and exists largely as a wealth-transfer scam anyway.
>>385932
I don't know mate. I strongly favour a curriculum approach. I detest the concept of "methodology" classes. Which leads to a methodology integrated curriculum which means that you should really be aiming to expose at least two major theoretical attitudes to your discipline each course.
>"Oughts" being taught to undergrads completely defines their understanding of society, possibly for life.
You've got a particularly inflated sense of your own pedagogical capacity don't you? You'd be lucky to get them to comprehend that Marxian class is a preconscious collective phenomena to do with differentiated relations to social reproduction in 13 weeks.
>>385923
Putting "unabated" in there was highlighting the severity of the situation in Western universities. There are certain perspectives that don't even have tolerated dissent, let alone a genuine opposition.
Even just taking that 2nd assertion at face value, my "ideology" is for there to not be an imbalance in the representation of theoretical perspective in education. It's an "ideology" that doesn't harm its antithesis when adopted.
It's not that they "wouldn't", it's that they "haven't". Market-focused universities offer what students want, but what they want is coloured by their experiences with past classes and professors, meaning bias in one year influences the next year's course selections, pulling students down an ever-narrowing path to the same 2 ideologies. Public universities end up causing similar situations when their governing authorities are of a certain persuasion and are *unabated* in their entrenching of certain "mainstream" perspectives in curricula. The two different approaches seem to be converging in outcome due to many distinct, and overlapping, factors.
Student groups, faculty groups, and curricula are more and more being constructed around political ideology rather than epistemology. The disparity in focuses among the humanities being consistent across the West illustrates this.
>>385960
>implying there's academic convincing going on when it's all that's presented to them
I've seen the syllabi for a handful of these courses. Even in the descriptions they border on explicitly stating "We all know X is a totally true assertion about why Y happens, here's 14 weeks of how it's right and what you can do with it".
If you got your course construction way, there'd need to be double or triple the number of mandatory humanities credits for people to try and prevent the system from making more red or blue wind-up talking point dispensers.
>>386038
>The disparity in focuses among the humanities being consistent across the West illustrates this.
Can you unpack this? Do you mean "The consistent disparity in focuses amongst the humanities in the west is illustrative of ideological rather than epistemological concerns?"
If this is your meaning then I would have to significantly disagree. The disparate research problems that underlie the divergent research programmes of different humanities indicates rather an appropriate attention to disciplinary specificity. Literary criticism's disciplinary concerns are irreconcilable with historiographic disciplinary concerns. To attempt to bridge the two would be ideological. To follow one's discipline is epistemological.
You've also not considered that the ideological narrowing is due to a narrowing of the epistemological sphere, say, for example, if two classes in society become more and more at odds with each other over the division of the social product. Or any other epistemologically grounding condition for an ideological division of the academy.
>Prager
>prager university
>>386060
>If you got your course construction way, there'd need to be double or triple the number of mandatory humanities credits for people to try and prevent the system from making more red or blue wind-up talking point dispensers.
It doesn't work like that in any of the departments I've worked for or studied in. The biggest problem is the lack of credible conservative historiographies, and I think that lack is rooted in epistemological issues rather than ideological ones, and secondly a race amongst staff to be the ones to incorporate major historiographical positions into their courses.
The biggest failing I notice is an unwillingness to develop a coherent and harmonised curriculum, largely due to the need to cater to student choice in courses. Remove student choice entirely, put the dumbos doing "compulsory" out of field courses into the dunce class, get on with the business of teaching the humanities.
Of course, that means that the newest lecturers all get to teach "history for engineers," or "history for declared lit crits," but it quarantines the real matter from engineers.
>there'd need to be double or triple the number of mandatory humanities credits for people
Just execute the fucking sports teams, or in non-US systems get some fucking ovaries and strike the government out.
>>383742
adam smith? de tocqueville? archimides?
>Prager University
>>386069
>Literary criticism's disciplinary concerns are irreconcilable with historiographic disciplinary concerns
Again, in postgraduate/doctoral work, fine, but in undergrad it causes people to come out ideologically stilted. I had a series of professors in undergrad that were actually able to flow between structuralist, pluralist, normative, and dynamic theories very well, and one that could barely bring herself to even mention something other than a Marxist perspective despite the course still being very general in its content.
People found the former classes "boring", but the Marxist one more engaging, because most of her lectures were more like sermons. She made Marxists, the other classes did not make academics. This is not a recipe for education, it's more like indoctrination.
Also, I did well in all of my classes, so I'm not being petty in shitting on the Marxist class. I actually did very well in that class because I knew all she wanted was her own opinion regurgitated back at her.
>>386150
The most amusing part of the kind of lecturer you're talking about is their false consciousness that they can make cadre by lectures. I never encountered the kind of theoretical diversity you're talking about at undergrauduate levels because the differences between authors seemed to surmount nominal theoretical categories. Vis: the difference between Althusser and Thompson, or Sea and Continental theories. The former both marxist, the latter both realist.
My main complaint with your first set of lecturers is their absence of model behaviour. My main complaint with your second lecturer example is the lack of diversity and conflict in model behaviour.
Shit, all we really want them "spewing" back at us is disciplinarity.
>Again, in postgraduate/doctoral work, fine, but in undergrad it causes people to come out ideologically stilted.
Discipline and ideology aren't intertwined like that.
>>386216
>Discipline and ideology aren't intertwined like that
Maybe back when people like Descartes were the standard. It's unfortunate, but nowadays every vector for indoctrination is being exploited. Academia is no different than media in this regard.
>>386247
I think your attitude is one of conspiracy theory rather than science, and it is really problematic if you're engaged in research work with this—shall I say Frankfurt School—attitude towards the capacity of ideology to totalise society.
>>384183
pray tell faggotboy, which uni do you go to?
>>384032
you can look at Twelfth Night as early LGBT literature very easily
>>383742
She's essentially right but her presentation generalizes from particular cherrypicked instances.
>>385937
>The argument isn't that bias exists, it is that the bias produces the argument itself.
So, they are arguing their point of view. And that is clearly biased how again?
>>383844
If it can help inform your understanding of art or people or perspective, so perhaps, if it had importance or was influential.
>>388496
>So, they are arguing their point of view. And that is clearly biased how again?
Opinions are like arseholes, front with evidence.
>>384268
South Park is more unabatedly centrist than anything.
>>389928
Full of shit? Everyone has one?
>>384081
but it's a logical fallacy to dismiss previous failures simply because time has past. A past failure is does make a claim less credible even if only by a little.
They are right, tbqh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfl4BGbMxoQ
>>383742
yes.
What is with this
>prager university
Meme?
Is it just a /lit/ meme because it doesn't align with thir world view or something?
>>383742
na, she's just pushing an agenda because this dude is paying her to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager
>>384183
you reek of sour grapes
>>386258
>saying education shouldn't be ideologically biased is a conspiracy theory
Have I missed something here, or have you not seen the rise of ideological hegemony in universities over the past few years? This IS the scientific perspective. It's advocating against making people's minds for them before evidence has been properly analyzed.
>>391125
>Have I missed something here
>nowadays every vector for indoctrination is being exploited
>or have you not seen the rise of ideological hegemony in universities over the past few years?
The only change in ideology within the University I've noticed, at the four top 100 and four top 200 I work at or have mates at is increasing naked managerialism from the chancellory.
Your claims have no basis in fact.
>>390257
See
>>390065
Has nothing in particular with worldviews, Prager just spouts bullshit. They also make snappy youtube vids.
Haven't wasted my time on this vid, but the Modern Art one makes its rounds fairly often and there's literally no reason to pay it any attention when you could be looking towards Roger Scruton or Odd Nerdrum or even Tom Wolfe or any other number of intellectuals on the matter.
But they don't make snappy youtube vids that reconfirm unchecked baises. So I guess they're a bit less popular.
>>385945
You still have to deal with the underlying issues that gave rise to the paradigm, in particular the Supreme Court injunction against testing potential employees for their knowledge (on grounds of "implied institutional racism" because the statistics of the outcomes as a whole were contrary to what SCOTUS felt they should be).
That's what gave rise to undergrad degrees as a replacement form of signaling by prospective employees; if you don't resolve the underlying problem, the signaling and attendant billions will simply flow to another destination.
>>391231
>bias isn't present in every video no matter who makes it
>>391191
Three words: free speech zones.
