I'm all in favor of intellectuals, it's academic bureaucracies I'm not fond of.
I think Socrates was a hoot, and he taught in a cave or something like that.
Priests teaching rural peasants to read in their monasteries, and collegial colleges for the public benefit are definitely meritorious.
But,I mean, there is enormous corruption going on.
How did Ren Youzai get into MIT? He was a body guard. Just because you've married into a billionaire's family MIT says "hey, send anyone you want in"?
And I'm sure MIT isn't alone in mysteriously average students who not only get in but graduate when linked to massively rich and powerful families. A recent US president comes to mind. Is that anti-intellectual?
You’re arguing about highly specific cases while the vast majority of institutions get on with the job of educating large numbers of students and doing what research they can.
The highly specific cases are glaring examples that the unbiased meritocracy they pretend to be is, possibly, not so.
And the "large numbers of students" covers up the possible cronyism and/or corruption of the institution.
I provide an example of a totally unqualified individual being allowed into a prestigious institution solely on the basis of his marriage family. Your response is that they mostly do a good job for most people?
I've suggested that the research they do is not obviously beneficial to anyone except perhaps the person doing the research, possibly simply to advance their own careers (in or out of academia). Others have suggested the same.
It sounds like you can't defend your position and resort to (I think?) name-calling, although I have no idea what a "culture war poster" is - I used to have a poster of Farrah Faucet in a red bathing suit, is that the same thing?
And I have no hobby horses, just a high horse, and you better hold your horses or else you'll be just be whipping a dead horse.
Your unwillingness to defend and advance your position is duly noted. Have a nice day.
> I think Socrates was a hoot, and he taught in a cave or something like that.
I'm not sure whether you're joking or serious, but in any case, Socrates didn't teach in a cave, and you're probably referring to Plato's allegory of the cave.
The interlocuters and followers of Socrates were mostly the wealthy elite of Athens.
Accessible? Meaning it's available for purchase if you have the money? Or actually affordable?
(first quack)
"For example, in 2022–23, the average total cost of attendance for first-time, full-time undergraduate students living on campus at 4-year degree-granting institutions was higher at private nonprofit institutions ($58,600) than at private for-profit institutions ($33,600) and public institutions ($27,100).4"
You can say luxury sports cars are "accessible" if you want to finance a $150,000 car. And effectively that's what many (most? all?) college degrees are: luxury sports cars.
They’re using an industry tool to do well trodden industry problems that were solved by academics decades ago.
I’m not tolerating his behaviour and I’ve made my views clear to my colleagues. He’s going to burn every bridge possible with this behaviour.