2014年3月24日 星期一

【罷課全紀錄】;清華大學學生會;台大社會系教師、中正大學:學生關心公共事務 不容抹黑。台灣許多不入流大學;Something in the Air

清華大學學生會為支持在立法院反服貿的同學,並同聲譴責暴力,今天中午在校園內餐廳前發起罷課靜坐活動,預計每天中午到傍晚6時止,今天現場...
appledaily.com.tw
台大社會系教師三分之二通過以下聲明:
-----------------
校長、各位:
我謹代表社會學系同仁發表以下聲明:
社會學的教學與研究旨在促進公民參與、程序正義與社會平等,基於台灣社會目前發生的重大民主危機以及警方武力鎮壓等事件,台大社會學系支持台大學生會與台 大社會所學會於2014年3月24日所發起的學生自主罷課行動。只要注意人身安全,我們鼓勵同學們以各種方式瞭解、參與相關事件的發展。

台大社會學系系主任 柯志哲 敬上


這是一流大學無誤。
中正大學:學生關心公共事務 不容抹黑
聲明中也提到,大學為知識殿堂,探尋真理,沒有包袱,亦無所畏懼,被視為國家行政、立法、司法與媒體之外的第五權。「因此學生與教師以非暴力方式關心公共事務與國家發展,乃公共知識份子的表現,不容抹黑與漠視。」



中正大學:學生關心公共事務 不容抹黑


點擊圖片可瀏覽相關圖片
中正大學今(24)日發出聲明表示,學生與教師以非暴力方式關心公共事務與國家發展,乃公共知識份子的表現,不容抹黑與漠視;同時聲明中也呼籲總統馬英九 應以全民總統的精神,傾聽民意,進行溝通,以民主精神儘速協商、解決當前的憲政危機。 圖:翻攝自中正大學網站

新頭殼newtalk.2014.03.24劉奕霆/台北報導

反黑箱服貿學運已經長達近一星期,除了有部分學生、老師、教授自行停課外,也有學校紛紛發出聲明表達立場。中正大學今(24)日發出聲明表示,學生與教師 以非暴力方式關心公共事務與國家發展,乃公共知識份子的表現,不容抹黑與漠視;同時聲明中也呼籲總統馬英九應以全民總統的精神,傾聽民意,進行溝通,以民 主精神儘速協商、解決當前的憲政危機。

中正大學為延續學生對兩岸服務貿易協議的關注及重視,校內社團牧夫們社在今日於校內行政大樓旁舉辦「民主公共講堂」活動,並邀請法律、經濟、勞工、社福、傳播等系所教授開講,讓更多無法北上參與的學生共同關心、瞭解及參與服貿議題。

對於中正大學學生舉辦活動探討服貿議題,中正大學表示,師生對社會公共議題的理性討論與參與,校方一向予以尊重與支持。至於校內學生發起自主罷課行動,校方也給予尊重。

中正大學同時發布一則聲明表示,兩岸服貿協議事件已造成全國劇烈震盪,不僅國會為之停擺,政務難以運作,社會更已陷入高度不安的情境。如果政府不能妥善處理此事,勢必形成難以收拾的憲政民主危機。

聲明中也提到,大學為知識殿堂,探尋真理,沒有包袱,亦無所畏懼,被視為國家行政、立法、司法與媒體之外的第五權。「因此學生與教師以非暴力方式關心公共事務與國家發展,乃公共知識份子的表現,不容抹黑與漠視。」

另外,聲明中對於目前所面臨的服貿爭議指出,基於當前國家情勢,我們要懇切呼籲政府,特別是領導國政的馬總統應以全民總統的精神,認真傾聽民意,俯身進行溝通,並以民主精神儘速協商解決當前的憲政危機。

最後,聲明中表示,國家是全體人民的國家,政黨與個人利益不僅偏斜而且短暫。如今危機已經形成,請馬總統與政府立即採取行動,保存國家永續發展的生機。 
*****
一流大學 應改成入流大學,最基本的大學之要求。
*****
 游常山 詹正德新增了 3 張相片。
8 小時 ·

Something in the Air

因為讓國家機器白白前進
不留下一點痕跡
是不行的
所以你們躺下
讓歷史再次輾過
沒有關係
你在心裡說
只要仍有知覺
多年之後就可以發現
那以鮮血寫下青春的記憶
是最甜的

「那要是沒了知覺呢?」
(警棍不斷地發問)

那也無妨
至少,至少還有
Something in the Air

圖為電影[五月風暴](Something in the Air),Olivier Assayas 2012導演,此刻的台北讓我想起以法國1968五月學潮為背景的這片。

*****

【罷課全紀錄】系所罷課 已40校連署相挺


不 滿政府未具體承諾反服貿學生、公民團體等訴求,台大學生會昨夜發起自主罷課連署,至今下午近4 時止,至少已有40個校系學生會、系學會等響應;包括台大學生會與台大多個系所、清華大學生會在列;台大學生會等還號召全校學生都罷課,傍晚6點也將集合 學生赴立法院,聲援反服貿抗議學生、團體。各校罷課情形仍持續增加中。

台北醫學大學表示,已開放學生報備即不記曠課,目前有8名學生向校 方報備去參與集會。中原大學財經法律系學會剛剛也發聲明,想邀請全校各位同學,一同罷課北上聲援太陽花學運,到立法院靜坐,但不強迫所有校內同學參加。中 山大學社會系所師生,今也聲明指出,「學生願意關懷社會,身為社會學系教師的我們深感榮耀,即日起,本系於校內開設之必修與選修課均暫停」;北藝大也有部 分師生自主停課。

清華大學學生會中午在校園內起罷課靜坐,多位學生參加。記者今走訪台大校本部校園,不少學生都說今天上課人數銳減,很多 同學不見蹤;公開支持罷課的社會系所,整棟系館學生人數更是寥寥無幾。連署挺罷課的台大中文系,上午所有課程正常進行;就讀三年級陳同學說,前幾天就有同 學在網路上連署,但基本上都尊重每個人的意願,沒有強迫,今天上午的課,確實很多人缺席,老師進到教室二話不說直接點名。

支持學生罷課的台大社會系,整棟系館空蕩蕩,系上助教表示,學校並未通知停課,是一些老師自己的決定,但不是所有課程都暫停。台大學生會成員李心文說,自己上午修社會系開設的都市社會學,結果後來通知停課,所以人就待在立院。

與 台大社會系共用同棟大樓的台大社會工作學系,一切按表操課,但教室裡、走廊邊都聽到不少同學在談論昨日行政院的騷動,三年級的王同學說,今天在系上的人數 明顯減少,但她會繼續上課。連署罷課的台大地理所學生王策緯則說,地理所是在自己所上網站進行連署,上頭老師也看的到,但沒有人有表達反對意見,未來會積 極號召同學的加入。

台大各異議性社團,包括台大大學新聞社、大陸社、女性研究社、浪達社、濁水溪社、男同性戀社、台大學生會等學生團體,晚間預計有約50人一起在傅鐘前集合後,一起到立法院聲援。

多數大學表示,因大學各系所開課時間、必、選修情況不同,且校方不會干涉老師點名權力,難以回應今日學生到課情況,也不易掌握各系所參與集會的人數。台大校方則指,罷課非解決問題之道,學生受教權應受尊重。(生活中心、地方中心/連線報導)

發稿時間 10:53
修改時間 16:15

教育部長神秘失蹤。是否違憲; 說詞水準類似中學教官。下次小心被佔領.....:我們不是蘑菇 (江春男)

司馬觀點:我們不是蘑菇 (江春男)



成千上萬的大學生佔領立法院多日,若是發生在軍閥時期的中國,也許校長和教育部長早就出面安撫;若是發生在今天之中國大陸,像溫家寶這樣的領導人,早就對學生展開溫情攻勢,李登輝時代的李煥也很快出面,但現在的蔣部長不知躲到那裡去了。

網路世代學運興起

馬政府從總統到院長和各部長,都不敢面對大學生,寧願躲在辦公室召開記者會,名為溝通,實為政令宣導,尤其馬自己是始作俑者,自己違背程序正義在先,卻再三強調法治的重要性,把責任全推給別人,他的記者會不開還好,一開反而火上加油。
這個運動和野百合野草莓都不同,這是社會運動的3.0,是網路世代的社會運動,其本質是學運,議會政治的失敗,才會發生街頭運動。議會失敗是政黨政治的失敗,對民進黨是極大警訊。
這次學運代表對馬政府的長期憤怒,尤其是對馬個人的高度不信任。馬之無能已有國際認證,但他永遠自我感覺良好,不把廣大民眾的恐慌與憂慮當一回 事,正如網上的一段心聲:「我們不是蘑菇,不要養在暗室不見天日,時時被灌糞,等著被出賣。」他也許並不想賣台,但有些作為顯然是害台。

必須溝通防止不幸

他 把手伸到立法院,用黨團狗腿排除王金平的影響力,出了事卻全推給王院長,說是尊重國會自主權,現在學生主張召開公民憲政會議,這種訴求馬英九如不接受,可 改在立法院內舉行,畢竟它最能代表民意,可以名正言順地邀請各黨派和公民團體參加,群眾運動充滿變數,最純潔的運動也會變質扭曲,造成不可測的後果。佔領 行政院和佔領立法院不同,學運有失控的危險,馬政府對此感到痛心之餘,應設法溝通,防止不幸。
大學生做了他們父母應該做的事,證明台灣人心不死,代代相傳。網路世代學運的興起,改變台灣政治風貌,令人欣慰。

*****這位神秘失蹤的教育部長,開完記者會的7小時,我才讀到他的這份說詞,水準類似中學教官。
Chu-po Chen 在這種獨裁、極權政府裡當官,就會讓自己沈淪到這種水準。這真的是自取其辱。
Kuo Wei Wu 轉貼自 jean liu
2小時 ·
神經病!什麼年代了?還要用校規來規定大學生、研究生?你忘了「大學法」裡的大學自治嗎?
-*---

真的只會聲明.....

請先搞清楚: 禁止學生罷課,是否違憲。

教長:師生鼓動罷課 違反校規和行政中立


學生連署罷課鼓勵持續抗爭,教育部長蔣偉寧上午召開記者會,除了呼籲學生回到校園,也告誡鼓動罷課的學生和默許的師長,若持續有類似行動,學生、大學系所主管可能違反校規及行政中立。

蔣偉寧表示,學生活動發展至今已嚴重失序,背離當初熱情參與初衷,他希望學生能回到學習正軌,別再讓父母師長擔憂。

對 部分公開鼓動罷課的同學,蔣偉寧認為不僅嚴重影響校園秩序,也讓他人學習權受到影響,呼籲這些人應該停止動作,以免違反校規。另外大學系所主管受《公務員 服務法》規範,須嚴守行政中立。若遊走模糊地帶,也就是將教室拉到戶外,蔣偉寧則沒有意見,只強調換地方上課,老師應有完整規劃和適當安排,他尊重教學自 主,但要顧及所有學生。(陳思豪/台北報導)
教育部長蔣偉寧聲明。

2014年3月23日 星期日

記事與感想: 參加某大學校友會 2014會員大會 暨 新春團拜


我當時沒寫我講出的一段話: 2009年我參加台北市校友會,主事者都是些很年輕的學弟妹,他們現在全跑光光了。我贊成老校友應只捐錢, 不要貪權位。當些榮譽會長之類的。

有許多不堪寫入的,我就保留著。


 徐錚兄來信:
I enjoyed reading your blog:
台北市東海大學校友會 2014會員大會 暨 新春團拜
It's nice to see about familiar names and "hear" a little about them. You reminded me to contact 陳允恭. Thanks.

 ****正文


台北市東海大學校友會 2014會員大會 暨 新春團拜
時間: 3/22 (六) 10:30 – 14:30
報到之後,先去立法院巡禮一周---第一次白天;第四次禮拜。
順便過去附近的大飯店一樓,5年沒來了,變化不小。慈濟竟然設一家販賣店。
現在簡單談一下一些交易/交往。本文純是個人散記。
開始時 ,我與兩人談東海的"每下愈況"。其一(可能是巫文豐兄)說是從梅可望(校長期限1978年-1992年)開始.....巫兄是外文系,他說其母系的排名對手東吳和輔仁大學都很強.....

我前天半夜參加完學運,到美人咖啡與陳兄談,就知道資訊有點誤會: 陳兄不知道湯明哲校長不來,由蔡禎騰副校長代 (我問蔡同學,怎麼沒帶夫人來?他說她照顧其母親)。巢副校長講他的GreeNe時,我外出,見黃學長在安撫某學姊,因為註冊時有些資訊上的誤 會.....與她聊聊。

這一兩年來,沈金標兄的每月工作日分配,台灣20天;杭州10天。 他有新產品,我訂4盒,校友價1000元。他明天出國,此行當然會去立法院見識人民溫柔與要求"踹共"的力量。

我之所以參加此會,多半是袁祝平學長的力邀: 他跟新任董事長曾紀鴻牧師熟,跟我簡介他的一些行事風格/故事。我因此打算送曾董事長我的兩本書。我跟鄧益裕學長借了3本書,趁機還他。我送茶葉給袁、鄧 兩學長,說謝謝。袁學長現在每月捐母校5-6千元,很令人感佩。再次見到陳允恭學長,大聊臉書以及出國40年的徐錚同學等等。

我跟跟王國明學長說,他應該擴充在清華校史館的文章,完成其回憶錄----跟他談前年為陳寬仁老師出版其80祝壽書。跟他談他30年前的電動車project,他說現在技術成熟了。

江銘鐘董事/學長跟我說,他去年捐20萬,今年80萬 (新綜合體育館)。有人說 校友總會會長陳宇嘉的開會行程滿滿。
沒想到劉益充學姐參加 (她和郭先生是我們1971-72年寢室的家長),一時找不到適當的禮物送她,只好說改天回東海補送。後來跟她報告修復東海路某棟宿舍案子的曲 折.....她現在的外界捐贈案子是第一二校區之間的綠交通,汽車已有人捐,腳踏車近日與Giant公司談,還有一需約260萬元的充電站,他問我有沒辦 法找人來捐.....

我同桌有兩位國貿,一是在Formica Taiwan 工作30年的任祖植David Ren,現在已是董事總經理。他的同學姜華鈞在美國事業有成,還特地送一個中南美洲某國 (宏都拉斯?)的紀念品給陳和興兄。周雅容會計師幫校友會管理財務.....桌長吳錫銘(博士教授).....我與吳兄談他在東京的地產投資,他說報酬率 還有6%,台灣的只能1-2%。) 新創國際文物社還有教你簽好名的課程......
  • Hanching Chung 上文漏談與林澤顯兄的長篇故事。主因是我們分屬綠藍,他是藍營要角,跑過中國100城市.....不幸的是, 附近立法院的圍功或內外場"暴民"的壓迫,讓他心情似乎有點"魂不守舍",頻頻注意網路上的戰局......






Essex大學的文學‧電影‧戲劇系, 有此大師

"Essex大學的文學‧電影‧戲劇系, 有此大師,真是不簡單,值得校友驕傲:
http://www.marinawarner.com/home.html" 啟示: 系所必須大力整併: 建築與工業設計;"工業工程與經營資訊"和企管系;中文系、外文系、歷史系;化學與化工.......

2014年3月3日 星期一

大學教育技術化的隱憂(邱天助)

這篇真的是老生常談。.......

2013年4月1日

大學教育技術化的隱憂

本文作者/邱天助

這些年來, 臺灣的高等教育政策、大學的知識生產與教育的本質功能,正在經歷了一場劇烈的變革, 不但嚴重衝擊大學教育的理念與價值, 也將形成未來大學教育的重大隱憂。其中, 由於新自由主義(neoliberalism)與國家機器兩股勢力的矛盾交揉、彼此掩護下,造成教育市場化(marketizaion)、商品化 (commercialization)、產業化(industrialization)與技術化( technicalization),成為當前高教界普遍憂心的問題所在。因為它很容易腐蝕,進而崩解大學教育的根本精神與內在價值,讓台灣高等教育陷入 市場的追逐,也讓大學淪為配合企業利益的應聲蟲。

在經濟發展優先的前提下,如今,企業變成國家的寵兒, 他們挾著提升競爭力的脅求,高聲要求政府機關為其服務,否則就恫嚇要撤出台灣市場。為了配合國家經濟發展與企業需求, 產業化與技術化變成當前高等教育的發展趨勢。

雖 然,教育產業化與技術化在某種程度下對國家經濟提供正面的助益,但它也改變了知識的本質和價值。根據法國哲學家李歐塔(Jean-Francois Lyotard)的論點, 知識的衡量從真實性(it is true)和確實性(it is just), 轉移到它是否有效、有用或可銷售, 造成知識的外部化(exteriorization)或疏離(alienation)。當知識忽略倫理或美學, 落入經濟與技術的興趣、效能和生產的支配, 於是透過思辨和解放的宏大敘事知識,將不再具有正統性。

更嚴重的是,教育產業化原意是以大學在知識和技術上的優勢, 來帶動產業的發展。但是, 台灣目前的模式卻是倒過頭來, 由產業老闆以就業的需求來指導大學的發展, 大學教育成為企業發展的跟屁蟲, 所謂人才的培育窄化成就業技能的訓練。

去 年底,在一項「邁向頂尖大學計畫成果展暨工業基礎技術人才培育論壇」中, 不少企業主就質疑許多大學生欠缺實作訓練。某家公司董事長更抱怨「機械系不懂機械設計,電機系不懂馬達」,讓企業老闆覺得大學生不好用,認為這是台灣高等 教育失敗,學生基本能力不足,無法配合企業的需求。因此, 大學畢業後無法立即進入職場工作, 最多只能低薪就業。

事實上,一些實用、操 作性的技術,只要幾個月或幾個星期的職訓就可達成,不需由大學負責教導。然而, 企業主雖然賺取高額利潤, 但他們並不想多花時間和金錢進行職場訓練, 不斷恐嚇大學生就業能力不足, 要求應該在校進行企業職工訓練,要求大學生隨時準備上工,讓大學成為企業免費的「職前訓練所」。他們要求大學生要會操作馬達, 而非理解發電原理, 他們希望大學生變成機械的工匠,而非大自然世界的探索者。

然而,這種似是而非的論見,正在台灣社會蔓延。如果,大學成為企業的「職前訓練 所」,我們用訓練「黑手」的方式來教育大學生, 就會讓台灣的大學教育更陷入市場化、技術化與庸俗化的困境,因而很容易排擠與失去更高能力、價值、德性和精神的追求,包括原理探索、思考判斷、宏觀視野, 以及其他更多的公民素養、全人教育的目標,包括禮義廉恥、公平正義。

掀開1828年的《耶魯報告》(The Yale Report of 1828), 文中指出:「大學的目的, 不是教導單一的技能,而是提供廣博的通識基礎; 不是造就某一行業專家,而是培養領導群倫的通才。學生從大學所獲得的, 不是零碎知識的供給, 不是職業技術的販售, 而是心靈的刺激與拓展, 見識的廣博與洞察。」大學除了學習實做( learning to do )之外,還包括探究生命的價值( learning to be),更重要的是獲得如何學習的能力( learning how to learn ) , 成為終身探索的學習者, 去應變知識爆炸社會的需求。

然而,在當前資本主義市場化、商品化的社會, 人們往往過度重視實用、效率, 以及經濟生產, 造成國家社會普遍要求,大學必須「配合國家經濟建設」、「積極回應社會需要」、「培養有用的職業技能」。回應於這種來自國家發展、社會需求或家長期待,大 學教育愈來愈偏向於開授一些「職前訓練」性質的課程。這種實用主義掛帥的結果, 把大學當成高級職業訓練所。

事實上,雖然不景氣讓全球許 多高學歷畢業生成為失業的「失落世代」, 各種聲浪也趁勢鼓吹實用主義技術取向的職能教育。但近期美國企業調查顯示,相較於專業技術, 歐美雇主更重視新鮮人的獨立思考與邏輯特質。報告指出,業界認為新一代員工並不乏專業能力,反倒在溝通技巧與獨立思考上明顯欠缺。一些過往輕思辨而重技職 的行業,在面對全球化的複雜變化下,也開始轉往大學尋求具備獨立思考與優秀邏輯訓練的人才。

因應人才的需求,美國各大學院校陸續推動教學改良計畫。2011年開始, 喬治華盛頓大學即納入邏輯訓練於課程評量; 哈佛大學與麻省理工學院也針對部分學程調整, 並分散講課的時數, 將學生之間的討論課程增長, 以訓練學生研究邏輯與溝通能力。

反 觀台灣,國家的教育政策明顯向短期企業利益靠攏, 以提高就業競爭力為指標,不斷要求學校進行「產學合作」、加強「實作訓練」,甚至由實務界、企業界來領導大學教育, 並且以此做為獎勵補助的評鑑標準。在評鑑的壓力下, 各校不得不以就業優先做為主要的教育理念與目標,讓大學淪為「職業訓練所」,而非知識、文化與精神的堡壘, 更遠離了類似美國哈佛、耶魯、加州理工學院的教育信念,成為「真理」的擁抱者。

【作者任教於世新大學社會心理學系】



Chomsky: How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed



Chomsky: How America's Great University System Is Getting Destroyed
Faculty are increasingly hired on the Wal-Mart model as temps.
 
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons/jeanbaptisteparis
 
The following is an edited transcript of remarks given by Noam Chomsky via Skype on 4 February 2014 to a gathering of members and allies of the Adjunct Faculty Association of the United Steelworkers in Pittsburgh, PA. The transcript was prepared by Robin J. Sowards and edited by Prof. Chomsky.On hiring faculty off the tenure track
That’s part of the business model. It’s the same as hiring temps in industry or what they call “associates” at Wal-Mart, employees that aren’t owed benefits. It’s a part of a  corporate business model designed to reduce labor costs and to increase labor servility. When universities become corporatized, as has been happening quite systematically over the last generation as part of the general neoliberal assault on the population, their business model means that what matters is the bottom line. The effective owners are the trustees (or the legislature, in the case of state universities), and they want to keep costs down and make sure that labor is docile and obedient. The way to do that is, essentially, temps. Just as the hiring of temps has gone way up in the neoliberal period, you’re getting the same phenomenon in the universities. The idea is to divide society into two groups. One group is sometimes called the “plutonomy” (a term used by Citibank when they were advising their investors on where to invest their funds), the top sector of wealth, globally but concentrated mostly in places like the United States. The other group, the rest of the population, is a “precariat,” living a precarious existence.
This idea is sometimes made quite overt. So when Alan Greenspan was testifying before Congress in 1997 on the marvels of the economy he was running, he said straight out that one of the bases for its economic success was imposing what he called “greater worker insecurity.” If workers are more insecure, that’s very “healthy” for the society, because if workers are insecure they won’t ask for wages, they won’t go on strike, they won’t call for benefits; they’ll serve the masters gladly and passively. And that’s optimal for corporations’ economic health. At the time, everyone regarded Greenspan’s comment as very reasonable, judging by the lack of reaction and the great acclaim he enjoyed. Well, transfer that to the universities: how do you ensure “greater worker insecurity”? Crucially, by not guaranteeing employment, by keeping people hanging on a limb than can be sawed off at any time, so that they’d better shut up, take tiny salaries, and do their work; and if they get the gift of being allowed to serve under miserable conditions for another year, they should welcome it and not ask for any more. That’s the way you keep societies efficient and healthy from the point of view of the corporations. And as universities move towards a corporate business model, precarity is exactly what is being imposed. And we’ll see more and more of it.
That’s one aspect, but there are other aspects which are also quite familiar from private industry, namely a large increase in layers of administration and bureaucracy. If you have to control people, you have to have an administrative force that does it. So in US industry even more than elsewhere, there’s layer after layer of management—a kind of economic waste, but useful for control and domination. And the same is true in universities. In the past 30 or 40 years, there’s been a very sharp increase in the proportion of administrators to faculty and students; faculty and students levels have stayed fairly level relative to one another, but the proportion of administrators have gone way up. There’s a very good book on it by a well-known sociologist, Benjamin Ginsberg, called The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2011), which describes in detail the business style of massive administration and levels of administration—and of course, very highly-paid administrators. This includes professional administrators like deans, for example, who used to be faculty members who took off for a couple of years to serve in an administrative capacity and then go back to the faculty; now they’re mostly professionals, who then have to hire sub-deans, and secretaries, and so on and so forth, a whole proliferation of structure that goes along with administrators. All of that is another aspect of the business model.
But using cheap labor—and vulnerable labor—is a business practice that goes as far back as you can trace private enterprise, and unions emerged in response. In the universities, cheap, vulnerable labor means adjuncts and graduate students. Graduate students are even more vulnerable, for obvious reasons. The idea is to transfer instruction to precarious workers, which improves discipline and control but also enables the transfer of funds to other purposes apart from education. The costs, of course, are borne by the students and by the people who are being drawn into these vulnerable occupations. But it’s a standard feature of a business-run society to transfer costs to the people. In fact, economists tacitly cooperate in this. So, for example, suppose you find a mistake in your checking account and you call the bank to try to fix it. Well, you know what happens. You call them up, and you get a recorded message saying “We love you, here’s a menu.” Maybe the menu has what you’re looking for, maybe it doesn’t. If you happen to find the right option, you listen to some music, and every once and a while a voice comes in and says “Please stand by, we really appreciate your business,” and so on. Finally, after some period of time, you may get a human being, who you can ask a short question to. That’s what economists call “efficiency.” By economic measures, that system reduces labor costs to the bank; of course it imposes costs on you, and those costs are multiplied by the number of users, which can be enormous—but that’s not counted as a cost in economic calculation. And if you look over the way the society works, you find this everywhere. So the university imposes costs on students and on faculty who are not only untenured but are maintained on a path that guarantees that they will have no security. All of this is perfectly natural within corporate business models. It’s harmful to education, but education is not their goal.
In fact, if you look back farther, it goes even deeper than that. If you go back to the early 1970s when a lot of this began, there was a lot of concern pretty much across the political spectrum over the activism of the 1960s; it’s commonly called “the time of troubles.” It was a “time of troubles” because the country was getting civilized, and that’s dangerous. People were becoming politically engaged and were trying to gain rights for groups that are called “special interests,” like women, working people, farmers, the young, the old, and so on. That led to a serious backlash, which was pretty overt. At the liberal end of the spectrum, there’s a book called The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission, Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki (New York University Press, 1975), produced by the Trilateral Commission, an organization of liberal internationalists. The Carter administration was drawn almost entirely from their ranks. They were concerned with what they called “the crisis of democracy,” namely that there’s too much democracy. In the 1960s there were pressures from the population, these “special interests,” to try to gain rights within the political arena, and that put too much pressure on the state—you can’t do that. There was one special interest that they left out, namely the corporate sector, because its interests are the “national interest”; the corporate sector is supposed to control the state, so we don’t talk about them. But the “special interests” were causing problems and they said “we have to have more moderation in democracy,” the public has to go back to being passive and apathetic. And they were particularly concerned with schools and universities, which they said were not properly doing their job of “indoctrinating the young.” You can see from student activism (the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movements) that the young are just not being indoctrinated properly.
Well how do you indoctrinate the young? There are a number of ways. One way is to burden them with hopelessly heavy tuition debt. Debt is a trap, especially student debt, which is enormous, far larger than credit card debt. It’s a trap for the rest of your life because the laws are designed so that you can’t get out of it. If a business, say, gets in too much debt it can declare bankruptcy, but individuals can almost never be relieved of student debt through bankruptcy. They can even garnish social security if you default. That’s a disciplinary technique. I don’t say that it was consciously introduced for the purpose, but it certainly has that effect. And it’s hard to argue that there’s any economic basis for it. Just take a look around the world: higher education is mostly free. In the countries with the highest education standards, let’s say Finland, which is at the top all the time, higher education is free. And in a rich, successful capitalist country like Germany, it’s free. In Mexico, a poor country, which has pretty decent education standards, considering the economic difficulties they face, it’s free. In fact, look at the United States: if you go back to the 1940s and 50s, higher education was pretty close to free. The GI Bill gave free education to vast numbers of people who would never have been able to go to college. It was very good for them and it was very good for the economy and the society; it was part of the reason for the high economic growth rate. Even in private colleges, education was pretty close to free. Take me: I went to college in 1945 at an Ivy League university, University of Pennsylvania, and tuition was $100. That would be maybe $800 in today’s dollars. And it was very easy to get a scholarship, so you could live at home, work, and go to school and it didn’t cost you anything. Now it’s outrageous. I have grandchildren in college, who have to pay for their tuition and work and it’s almost impossible. For the students that is a disciplinary technique.
And another technique of indoctrination is to cut back faculty-student contact: large classes, temporary teachers who are overburdened, who can barely survive on an adjunct salary. And since you don’t have any job security you can’t build up a career, you can’t move on and get more. These are all techniques of discipline, indoctrination, and control. And it’s very similar to what you’d expect in a factory, where factory workers have to be disciplined, to be obedient; they’re not supposed to play a role in, say, organizing production or determining how the workplace functions—that’s the job of management. This is now carried over to the universities. And I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone who has any experience in private enterprise, in industry; that’s the way they work.
On how higher education ought to be
First of all, we should put aside any idea that there was once a “golden age.” Things were different and in some ways better in the past, but far from perfect. The traditional universities were, for example, extremely hierarchical, with very little democratic participation in decision-making. One part of the activism of the 1960s was to try to democratize the universities, to bring in, say, student representatives to faculty committees, to bring in staff to participate. These efforts were carried forward under student initiatives, with some degree of success. Most universities now have some degree of student participation in faculty decisions. And I think those are the kinds of things we should be moving towards: a democratic institution, in which the people involved in the institution, whoever they may be (faculty, students, staff), participate in determining the nature of the institution and how it runs; and the same should go for a factory.
These are not radical ideas, I should say. They come straight out of classical liberalism. So if you read, for example, John Stuart Mill, a major figure in the classical liberal tradition, he took it for granted that workplaces ought to be managed and controlled by the people who work in them—that’s freedom and democracy (see, e.g., John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, book 4, ch. 7). We see the same ideas in the United States. Let’s say you go back to the Knights of Labor; one of their stated aims was “To establish co-operative institutions such as will tend to supersede the wage-system, by the introduction of a co-operative industrial system” (“Founding Ceremony” for newly-organized Local Associations). Or take someone like, John Dewey, a mainstream 20th-century social philosopher, who called not only for education directed at creative independence in schools, but also worker control in industry, what he called “industrial democracy.” He says that as long as the crucial institutions of the society (like production, commerce, transportation, media) are not under democratic control, then “politics [will be] the shadow cast on society by big business” (John Dewey, “The Need for a New Party”[1931]). This idea is almost elementary, it has deep roots in American history and in classical liberalism, it should be second nature to working people, and it should apply the same way to universities. There are some decisions in a university where you don’t want to have [democratic transparency because] you have to preserve student privacy, say, and there are various kinds of sensitive issues, but on much of the normal activity of the university, there is no reason why direct participation can’t be not only legitimate but helpful. In my department, for example, for 40 years we’ve had student representatives helpfully participating in department meetings.
On “shared governance” and worker control
The university is probably the social institution in our society that comes closest to democratic worker control. Within a department, for example, it’s pretty normal for at least the tenured faculty to be able to determine a substantial amount of what their work is like: what they’re going to teach, when they’re going to teach, what the curriculum will be. And most of the decisions about the actual work that the faculty is doing are pretty much under tenured faculty control. Now of course there is a higher level of administrators that you can’t overrule or control. The faculty can recommend somebody for tenure, let’s say, and be turned down by the deans, or the president, or even the trustees or legislators. It doesn’t happen all that often, but it can happen and it does. And that’s always a part of the background structure, which, although it always existed, was much less of a problem in the days when the administration was drawn from the faculty and in principle recallable. Under representative systems, you have to have someone doing administrative work but they should be recallable at some point under the authority of the people they administer. That’s less and less true. There are more and more professional administrators, layer after layer of them, with more and more positions being taken remote from the faculty controls. I mentioned before The Fall of the Faculty by Benjamin Ginsberg, which goes into a lot of detail as to how this works in the several universities he looks at closely: Johns Hopkins, Cornell, and a couple of others.
Meanwhile, the faculty are increasingly reduced to a category of temporary workers who are assured a precarious existence with no path to the tenure track. I have personal acquaintances who are effectively permanent lecturers; they’re not given real faculty status; they have to apply every year so that they can get appointed again. These things shouldn’t be allowed to happen. And in the case of adjuncts, it’s been institutionalized: they’re not permitted to be a part of the decision-making apparatus, and they’re excluded from job security, which merely amplifies the problem. I think staff ought to also be integrated into decision-making, since they’re also a part of the university. So there’s plenty to do, but I think we can easily understand why these tendencies are developing. They are all part of imposing a business model on just about every aspect of life. That’s the neoliberal ideology that most of the world has been living under for 40 years. It’s very harmful to people, and there has been resistance to it. And it’s worth noticing that two parts of the world, at least, have pretty much escaped from it, namely East Asia, where they never really accepted it, and South America in the past 15 years.
On the alleged need for “flexibility”
“Flexibility” is a term that’s very familiar to workers in industry. Part of what’s called “labor reform” is to make labor more “flexible,” make it easier to hire and fire people. That’s, again, a way to ensure maximization of profit and control. “Flexibility” is supposed to be a good thing, like “greater worker insecurity.” Putting aside industry where the same is true, in universities there’s no justification. So take a case where there’s under-enrollment somewhere. That’s not a big problem. One of my daughters teaches at a university; she just called me the other night and told me that her teaching load is being shifted because one of the courses that was being offered was under-enrolled. Okay, the world didn’t to an end, they just shifted around the teaching arrangements—you teach a different course, or an extra section, or something like that. People don’t have to be thrown out or be insecure because of the variation in the number of students enrolling in courses. There are all sorts of ways of adjusting for that variation. The idea that labor should meet the conditions of “flexibility” is just another standard technique of control and domination. Why not say that administrators should be thrown out if there’s nothing for them to do that semester, or trustees—what do they have to be there for? The situation is the same with top management in industry: if labor has to be flexible, how about management? Most of them are pretty useless or even harmful anyway, so let’s get rid of them. And you can go on like this. Just to take the news from the last couple of days, take, say, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank: he just got a prettysubstantial raise, almost double his salary, out of gratitude because he had saved the bank from criminal charges that would have sent the management to jail; he got away with only $20 billion in fines for criminal activities. Well I can imagine that getting rid of somebody like that might be helpful to the economy. But that’s not what people are talking about when they talk about “labor reform.” It’s the working people who have to suffer, and they have to suffer by insecurity, by not knowing where tomorrow’s piece of bread is going to come from, and therefore be disciplined and obedient and not raise questions or ask for their rights. That’s the way that tyrannical systems operate. And the business world is a tyrannical system. When it’s imposed on the universities, you find it reflects the same ideas. This shouldn’t be any secret.
On the purpose of education
These are debates that go back to the Enlightenment, when issues of higher education and mass education were really being raised, not just education for the clergy and aristocracy. And there were basically two models discussed in the 18th and 19th centuries. They were discussed with pretty evocative imagery. One image of education was that it should be like a vessel that is filled with, say, water. That’s what we call these days “teaching to test”: you pour water into the vessel and then the vessel returns the water. But it’s a pretty leaky vessel, as all of us who went through school experienced, since you could memorize something for an exam that you had no interest in to pass an exam and a week later you forgot what the course was about. The vessel model these days is called “no child left behind,” “teaching to test,” “race to top,” whatever the name may be, and similar things in universities. Enlightenment thinkers opposed that model.
The other model was described as laying out a string along which the student progresses in his or her own way under his or her own initiative, maybe moving the string, maybe deciding to go somewhere else, maybe raising questions. Laying out the string means imposing some degree of structure. So an educational program, whatever it may be, a course on physics or something, isn’t going to be just anything goes; it has a certain structure. But the goal of it is for the student to acquire the capacity to inquire, to create, to innovate, to challenge—that’s education. One world-famous physicist, in his freshman courses if he was asked “what are we going to cover this semester?”, his answer was “it doesn’t matter what we cover, it matters what you discover.” You have gain the capacity and the self-confidence for that matter to challenge and create and innovate, and that way you learn; that way you’ve internalized the material and you can go on. It’s not a matter of accumulating some fixed array of facts which then you can write down on a test and forget about tomorrow.
These are two quite distinct models of education. The Enlightenment ideal was the second one, and I think that’s the one that we ought to be striving towards. That’s what real education is, from kindergarten to graduate school. In fact there are programs of that kind for kindergarten, pretty good ones.
On the love of teaching
We certainly want people, both faculty and students, to be engaged in activity that’s satisfying, enjoyable, challenging, exciting—and I don’t really think that’s hard. Even young children are creative, inquisitive, they want to know things, they want to understand things, and unless that’s beaten out of your head it stays with you the rest of your life. If you have opportunities to pursue those commitments and concerns, it’s one of the most satisfying things in life. That’s true if you’re a research physicist, it’s true if you’re a carpenter; you’re trying to create something of value and deal with a difficult problem and solve it. I think that’s what makes work the kind of thing you want to do; you do it even if you don’t have to do it. In a reasonably functioning university, you find people working all the time because they love it; that’s what they want to do; they’re given the opportunity, they have the resources, they’re encouraged to be free and independent and creative—what’s better? That’s what they love to do. And that, again, can be done at any level.
It’s worth thinking about some of the imaginative and creative educational programs that are being developed at different levels. So, for example, somebody just described to me the other day a program they’re using in high schools, a science program where the students are asked an interesting question: “How can a mosquito fly in the rain?” That’s a hard question when you think about it. If something hit a human being with the force of a raindrop hitting a mosquito it would absolutely flatten them immediately. So how come the mosquito isn’t crushed instantly? And how can the mosquito keep flying? If you pursue that question—and it’s a pretty hard question—you get into questions of mathematics, physics, and biology, questions that are challenging enough that you want to find an answer to them.
That’s what education should be like at every level, all the way down to kindergarten, literally. There are kindergarten programs in which, say, each child is given a collection of little items: pebbles, shells, seeds, and things like that. Then the class is given the task of finding out which ones are the seeds. It begins with what they call a “scientific conference”: the kids talk to each other and they try to figure out which ones are seeds. And of course there’s some teacher guidance, but the idea is to have the children think it through. After a while, they try various experiments and they figure out which ones are the seeds. At that point, each child is given a magnifying glass and, with the teacher’s help, cracks a seed and looks inside and finds the embryo that makes the seed grow. These children learn something—really, not only something about seeds and what makes things grow; but also about how to discover. They’re learning the joy of discovery and creation, and that’s what carries you on independently, outside the classroom, outside the course.
The same goes for all education up through graduate school. In a reasonable graduate seminar, you don’t expect students to copy it down and repeat whatever you say; you expect them to tell you when you’re wrong or to come up with new ideas, to challenge, to pursue some direction that hadn’t been thought of before. That’s what real education is at every level, and that’s what ought to be encouraged. That ought to be the purpose of education. It’s not to pour information into somebody’s head which will then leak out but to enable them to become creative, independent people who can find excitement in discovery and creation and creativity at whatever level or in whatever domain their interests carry them.
On using corporate rhetoric against corporatization
This is kind of like asking how you should justify to the slave owner that people shouldn’t be slaves. You’re at a level of moral inquiry where it’s probably pretty hard to find answers. We are human beings with human rights. It’s good for the individual, it’s good for the society, it’s even good for the economy, in the narrow sense, if people are creative and independent and free. Everyone benefits if people are able to participate, to control their fate, to work with each other—that may not maximize profit and domination, but why should we take those to be values to be concerned about?
Advice for adjunct faculty organizing unions
You know better than I do what has to be done, the kind of problems you face. Just got ahead and do what has to be done. Don’t be intimidated, don’t be frightened, and recognize that the future can be in our hands if we’re willing to grasp it.
Prof. Chomsky’s remarks in this transcript were elicited by questions from Robin Clarke, Adam Davis, David Hoinski, Maria Somma, Robin J. Sowards, Matthew Ussia, and Joshua Zelesnick. Noam Chomsky’s OCCUPY: Class War, Rebellion and Solidarity is published by Zuccotti Park Press.
 中文:
大學教育如何被摧毀?

【惟工新聞】美國著名語言學家諾姆.喬姆斯基(Noam Chomsky)在上月初與美國鋼鐵工人聯合會的兼職教師協會(Adjunct Faculty Association of the United Steelworkers )成員對話,內容談到美國大學商業化如何壓逼僱員及學生、工作職位的零散化如何增加對 學生及僱員的規訓及控制,以及他對教育本身的願景為何等。他對大學制度的批判不止適用於美國,而是整個市場化、私有化的新自由主義趨勢,甚至適用於世界各 地。美國獨立媒體Alternet刊登對話全文,惟工新聞特此翻譯。(足足八千字,有興趣者閱讀全文請移步至惟工網站)

【全文:http://wknews.org/node/291

█ 論終身教職與臨時職位

……大學的有效擁有者是信托人(或者立法機關,在部份國立大學),他們想要將成本降低,而且確定勞工都是溫馴及服從的。做到這一點的最主要辦法便是靠臨時 工。你在各間大學也見到這個現象,就是在新自由主義盛行之時,更多的臨時工被聘請了。它的目的是將社會分成兩個群組:一組是獲得所有的富人 (plutonomy,一個花旗銀行向投資者推銷時創造專有名詞),全球最多的財富都主要集中在美國等地方;另一組,亦即是剩下來的人,便成為了「不穩定 的無產者」(precariat),過著不穩定的生活。

這個想法有時是頗公開的。當格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan,前聯儲局主席)在1997年為其創造的經濟成果作證時,他直截了當地說,其中一個使得經濟成功的基礎便是將勞工投入「更不安全」的處 境。如果勞工得不到保障,這會使得社會更「健康」,因為若果工人都不感到安全,他們便不會要求加薪金、不會搞罷工、不會要求甚麼福利。他們會被動地、欣慰 地服務其主人。而這就是最適合企業的健康經濟。當時經濟向好、格林斯潘受盡讚賞,所有人都覺得他的說法非常合理……

█ 論教育的目的

……另一個模式則被形容為擺出一條繩子,讓學生可以按他自己的興趣或是順繩而行、或是走去其他地方,又或提出疑問。擺出繩子的意義在於舖陳某程度上的結 構,使得任何課程,無論是物理也好、其他也好,它都不會渾無秩序,它會有一定的結構。然而,它的目的是為了讓學生能夠獲得探討、創造、創新、挑戰的能力 ——這就是教育。世界知名的一位物理學家曾在他的新生課程中被問到「我們今個學期會涵蓋什麼呢」,他的答案是:「我們會涵蓋什麼並不重要,重要的是你發現 了什麼。」你獲得了向該事挑戰、去創新的能力和自信;你從中學習、從中將材料內化,並可以繼續走下去。這無關你把大堆事實積累,使得你可以在考試時作答, 然後於第二天把它們通通忘記……

█ 論對教育的愛

……不少於不同層面富想像力和創意的教育課程都值得我們深思。舉例來說,有人剛對我描述了一所高中的科學課程,學生被問到:「一隻蚊子如何在雨中飛行?」 當你細想,這個問題還挺難的。假如有人被物件以和雨點打中蚊子的力度可比的力度打中,他們毫無疑問會被壓扁。那麼為什麼蚊子沒有被馬上壓扁?它們為什麼可 以繼續飛行?如果你深究下去(這真是蠻難的),你就會發現一大堆數學、物理、生物學的問題,而它們是如此富挑戰性,令你想為它們找出答案。

教育,幼兒教育也是,應該是這樣子的。有些幼稚園會給孩子一堆小東西,像石頭、貝殼、種子等等,然後叫孩子找出哪些是種子。開始時有一個「科學研討會」, 孩子互相討論,研究如何分辨哪些是種子。當然老師會提供一些指示,但重點是讓孩子自己想。過了一會,他們嘗試過不同實驗,並分辨出哪些是種子。這時候,老 師就給孩子一個放大鏡,在老師的協助下,孩子敲開種子,觀看種子的內部,並發現讓種子生長的胚芽。這些孩子真的學習了,真的學習,而且學習了如何發現,而 非僅止一些關於種子和令種子成長的東西。他們正在學習發現和創造的樂趣。而這令你可獨立地,在課室和課程之外繼續下去……

【全文:http://wknews.org/node/291

好建築是教小孩的絕佳學習題材 Blue Balliett, Frank Lloyd Wright's Frederick C. Robie House



http://youtu.be/Uoru3-oHNTM
好建築是教小孩的絕佳學習題材,它美不勝收: 材料、空間、結構、數學、藝術、......

Blue Balliett, international best-selling children's novelist and author of "The Wright 3," set in Frank Lloyd Wright's Frederick C. Robie House, discusses the impact of the architectural landmark's visual language on children. The Robie House, one of the most important buildings in the history of American architecture, is located on the University of Chicago campus in Hyde Park. Learn more about the Robie House at http://architecture.uchicago.edu/loca... or visit the Frank Lloyd Wright Trust to take a tour http://cal.flwright.org/tours/robie.

2014年3月2日 星期日

台灣的大學縮編、倒閉危機 (薛承泰)

《星期專訪》台大社會系教授薛承泰︰大學倒閉危機 轉型規劃不能等

星期專訪,台大社會系教授薛承泰。(記者叢昌瑾攝)
誰是未來的大學生
記者黃以敬/專訪
高 鳳數位內容學院確定停辦,成為國內第一所退場的大專,少子化危機衝擊大專高教正式浮上檯面。兩年前即警告「台灣到二○二五年,將會有三分之一大學倒閉」的 前政務委員、台大教授薛承泰,進一步提出警訊指出,自一一二年起,大學每年新生將降到十四萬以下,相對的台灣托老、長照等社福及文教機構的需求量可預見、 已近飽和,大學若還在觀望、不及早退場及轉型,十年後想要轉型,恐怕連機會都沒有了。
九十年代 就曾疾呼停設新大學
Q:長期研究人口趨勢,少子化衝擊其實應該是早可預見?
A:我早自民國八十年就呼籲政府要注意少子化問題了。民國八十三年教改運動提出「廣設高中大學」等訴求,我在台大教授教育社會學,即做了分析,因為當時教改成員、所有父母都是二次大戰後嬰兒潮出生的,亦即戰後至民國五十五年出生,當時每年出生人口高達四十萬至四十二萬。
八十三年時,大專淨入學率僅約三成,所有人都經歷大班大校及激烈升學競爭。這些人當然不願小孩再經升學夢魘,所以希望增加高中大學容量。當時教改訴求出發點是正確,也是一種善意。
但當時沒注意,一所大學設立到穩定需十年,至少要有可維持三十至五十年、甚至百年的市場經濟規模,我當時指出,擴張可以,但須思考未來學生在哪裡?
尤其當時可見出生人口在七十二年已有下降,七十五年比六十五年少約十萬,七十五到八十六年雖有一段穩定期,但每年只有三十至三十二萬出生數。這些人陸續於十八年後入學,也只有約十多年至二十年的穩定三十萬生源。
換言之,民國八十年代擴張大學還可接受,但九十年後,升學率破五十%,要入學的七十二年次出生僅三十萬人口,就算維持九十年當時的大學規模,到民國一百年升學率勢必衝頂。
到 九十年代,我就疾呼政府應停止設立新大學了,九十二年更出書 《十年教改為誰築夢》,警告父母不要再為自己逐夢,導致政策「時空錯置」,讓廣設高中大學成為尾大不掉的教育問題。因政府當時不僅新設學校,另還擴大學校 招生量,台大就從不到兩萬人,擴大到三萬人,大學生總量超過八十五萬。持續擴張結果,大學提前自九十五年就出現招生不足。
以十八歲學齡人口來看,歷史最高紀錄僅七成會升大學,因此通常以此估算大學淨入學率上限。八十七年逢虎年,出生人口僅二十八萬,因此在十八年後、約一○五年時,大專新生估計頂多二十萬。
少子化衝擊 10年後恐4成倒閉
Q:擔任政務委員時期,更預言近四成大學在十年後會招生不足而倒閉?
A:目前政府及大學都在緊張,少子化在一○五年正式衝擊大學招生,這危機在十八年前就可預見。更諷刺的是,今年宣布關校的高鳳數位學院,當時是才剛新設的大學。政府及大學對危機警訊卻視而不見,注定踏上失敗的路子。
大學可招生源 112年後不到14萬
高教遭遇少子化衝擊至少兩波,除一○五年會有一波降幅,我當政委時更進一步警告,到二○二五年、會有三分之一到近四成大學倒閉,因為九十四年後出生人口剩近二十萬,以此推算,一一二年後,每年大學可招的生源都只有十四萬以下。
現在,大專生總量已破一百三十五萬,而民國一一五年大專生約是九十二至九十七年出生者,這幾年出生人口僅共一百廿五萬人,以七成估算,屆時一百六十多所大專從大學部到研究所可招的學生總數將低於八十八萬,不到現在的六成五,因此至少有三成五的大學勢必倒閉。
越早退場的大學 才有轉型優勢
Q:政府無法強制大學退場,目前政策是輔導轉型,朝推廣教育、托老、長照等文教社福機構轉型,可行嗎?
A:大學招生缺額,九成以上集中在私校,基於大學自主及私產問題,教育部確實不能強制要求關閉,會引發很大反彈,就像永達技術學院,如果學校堅持要辦下去,就不宜強制關校。
學校退場後的學生轉學不難,難的是老師轉職資遣,更難的是校產校地處理,也因此,我一再提醒大學,越早退場,才有轉型的優勢,再過幾年,恐怕連轉型機會都沒了。
少子化不僅衝擊學校招生,對國民年金、健保財政甚至托老長照都有影響,未來繳保費人數減少、領給付的高齡人口卻激增,估計到大量大學要倒閉的二○二五年,健保、年金財政恐也都有倒閉危機。
現在大學要轉型文教社福機構已不容易,就算台灣社會高齡化會增加托老、長照機構未來需求,但國內高齡人口其實大多是以家庭、社區照護為主,真正到失能、需機構型長照中心照顧的老人大概六成左右。未來二十年的需求量早已算好,大學可轉型空間並不大。
目前六十五歲以上老年人口約兩百七十萬,二○二五年估達四百七十五萬,多約二百萬,但估算真正需機構照護的失能人口可能只有一百一十萬至一百三十萬,比現在的七十多萬失能人口只增約四十萬至六十萬。這要用來補足五十多所大學的轉型?未必足夠也未必適合。
何況,目前長照機構總量其實還有約三成沒滿,也有許多醫院、企業申請新設,長照機構短期內就會大增。而且地點要好,否則家人未必會把老人送去,但目前招生不良的大學,多在偏僻或交通不便之處,未必有競爭優勢,所以大學規劃轉型要趁早,否則屆時,恐怕為時已晚。
政府少介入退場 公布學校資訊
Q:前內政部長曾提議開放大學校地校產買賣,教育部藉此可誘使大學退場嗎?對大學轉型、退場,又有何建言?
A:開放大學校地校產買賣是可以考慮,但必須認清事實,如改為商業使用,爭議恐怕更大。
當 年許多人投入辦學,除可收取學雜費,可能也寄望校地或附近地價會增值。但相較於許多中小學設於都會社區,閒置校舍較好轉型或處理,許多招生不好的大學,都 位於非都會的偏遠地區或都會區的非精華地段,商機也恐怕都因少子化而出現萎縮,可能「有行無市」。這些學校如都察覺校地也不值錢,問題恐怕更糟糕。
我建議政府少介入大學退場,否則恐變成政府負擔。政府可公布學校資訊讓學生家長自由選校,少子化的市場機制就是大學最大的考驗及評鑑。
另 一方面,政府必須放寬大學評鑑,過去教改一直強調教育鬆綁、讓學生適性發展,但對大學卻給予更多評鑑的統一標準框架,大學都淪成「點數主義」箝制的同質產 品。應將評鑑改為「申請制」,變成鼓勵大學發展特色的誘因,放寬大學自主發展,有危機的大學則申請評鑑,輔導協助發展特色。
就像政府及許多大學寄望要招收外國或中國學生,但這也要有國際競爭、學術聲望、 特別師資、獎學金誘因或外部效果(自由學風等)特色 ,外國學生才會考慮。
政府或任何學者都無法保證哪一所大學發展何種特色就可永續經營,但大學不能再觀望下去,必須及早思考發展特色提升競爭力,或是要轉型退場,否則就只能坐以待斃、等到倒閉關門。

Rutgers University 董事會為當市退休人員免費提供旁聽課程




  Rutgers University為50歲以上的人提供持續教育課程
http://lifelonglearning.rutgers.edu/50plus

 其中有一特色:
---- Rutgers University 董事會為當市退休人員免費提供旁聽課程

Senior Citizen Audit Program

The Senior Citizen Audit Program was created by the Rutgers University Board of Governors to permit retired New Jersey residents, age 62 or older, to attend courses on a space-available, noncredit basis. There are no tuition costs for auditing courses. Courses listed as “closed” in the online Schedule of Classes—those that have reached maximum capacity—are not open to auditors. Auditing is a courtesy offered at the discretion of the professor.
Courses are available on all three regional campuses. For more information on the Senior Citizen Audit Program, call 732-932-7823, ext. 682 or visit the program website.




audit

  • 2 North American Attend (a class) informally, not for academic credit.
    More example sentences
    • You may be able to audit classes, attend without receiving any academic credit.
    • While auditing a class taught by Robert Lowell at Boston University, Sylvia met another poet hell-bent on suicide, Anne Sexton.
    • Then for my final grade, the university said I was auditing the class, even though I got an A.

Origin

late Middle English: from Latin auditus 'hearing', from audire 'hear', in medieval Latin auditus (compoti) 'audit (of an account)', an audit originally being presented orally.