Austin, Bertram H., and Lloyd, W.F. (FML)

Austin, Bertram H., and Lloyd, W.F. The Secret of High Wages. Dodd. 1926. 124 pp.

In 1925, at a time of great industrial depression in Britain, the authors, two English engineers, came to the United States in an effort to discover the secret of our unprecedented prosperity. Their inquiry was mainly concerned with the causes of high wages in industry combined with low cost of production. The book was originally a confidential report, but was published following a suggestion from the City Editor of the London Times.

Wikipedia in the Classroom

To the chagrin of many a professor and librarian alike, it is now almost common knowledge that students primarily use internet search engines for their research projects. The problem, of course, is that students often do not take the time to check their sources. I've had more than one chuckle, and tear, after visiting the sites my students took as authoritative. Then in the last year the same site started appearing in many of my students' works cited lists: Wikipedia.

It is not too much to say that student use of Wikipedia has caused problems in the classroom. Students assume it's always true and professor's know it's not. It seems that at least every other week the Chronicle of Higher Education runs a story on the percentage of facts right and wrong on Wikipedia; how these percentages compare to the Encyclopedia Britannica; how some poor student failed because he cited a faulty fact and how many professors are convinced that Wikipedia is the new scourge for students seeking the easy path. Wikipedia is booed as the academic, and moral, equivalent of reading Cliff's Notes instead of the book, only not as accurate.

Reflection on a classroom experience of mine has made me think that Wikipedia actually could be very useful for undergraduate education. I was teaching an Intro to Philosophy course that focused heavily on ancient philosophy. Since there are translations of these works in the public domain I decided we would have no textbook and solely use copies available on the internet. This went smoothly until the site hosting the copy of The Republic we were using crashed. I couldn't find another copy online and so I told my students they would have to buy the book, but it was too late for the college bookstore to order. My students had to buy their own copy from their local bookstores or the internet. There was no use telling them to all get the same copy so I simply told them they had to get a copy with the Stephanus notes (and not everyone even did that). The next class almost everyone had a book and we started reading. While I initially thought it would be a disaster, I came to realize that teaching students how to use Stephanus notes in ancient texts was a good thing.

I was reading my copy to the class and a bashful student raised her hand informing me that her copy did not say the same thing. It didn't. Here the translation was different and several other students registered the same difference. I briefly panicked. How could I teach them The Republic if they had different copies? This was a nightmare, how could I make up an exam without reading all of their translations and making sure each student received an exam that matched their copy. I broke out in a cold sweat at the thought of all the extra work my simple attempt to save them money would cost me. Selfish, I know - but true none-the-less. Then something strange happened. The students with different translations started talking. At first it was only "Really? Show me." and then it evolved into a discussion of whether the difference in translation made any difference: sometimes it did, and sometimes it didn't, but students saw the importance of selecting a translation. They also saw first hand how arguments can change with differences in word choice. Suddenly not every book by the same author was the same. Students started looking for differences and thinking about why they mattered.

Those two weeks were two of the best weeks I've ever spent in the classroom. The experience was spontaneous, and there are always problems with trying to revisit such experiences through planning. Woody Allen found this with lobsters, we often find it with students. I believe this is where Wikipedia presents an opportunity. If we know there are mistakes, tell students to start with Wikipedia and find them. Professors could even give the students a list of approved books for cross-checking purposes. Like the class I had, it gives students an opportunity to see that all references are not created equal. It is because Wikipedia is not perfect, but close enough to make students think it is, that makes it such a good teaching tool.

More on this later ...

Ashton, T.S. (FML)

Ashton, T.S. The Industrial Revolution. Oxford University press. 1948. 167 pp.

For at least a century (in part under the influence of Karl Marx) most of the economic historians have portrayed the Industrial Revolution as a catastrophe which caused the working class untold misery and brought about a sort of economic and spiritual Age of Darkness. In this remarkable little book Dr. Ashton, professor of economic history at the University of London, with more careful scholarship presents the Industrial Revolution as what it was - an achievement which, through the application of science to industry and the increased use of capital, led not only to a rapid growth of population but to a rise in the real incomes of a considerable section of the working class. Dr, Ashton stresses the intellectual and economic as well as the technical aspects of the movement. (See also his contribution to Capitalism and the Historians, listed under F.A. Hayek.)

BK: OK, it will be a little while before we get to Hayek, but we will get there.

Ashton, E.B. (FML)

Ashton, E.B. The Fascist: His State and Mind. Putnam. 1937. 320 pp.

"Helps one to understand the system of ideas ruling our enemies and the differences which separate their minds from ours." - F.A. Hayek

The Higher Learning

"Why is it that the chief characteristic of the higher learning is disorder? It is because there is no ordering principle in it. Certainly the principle of freedom in the current sense of that word will not unify it. In the current use of freedom it is an end in itself. But it must be clear that if each person has the right to make and achieve his own choices the result is anarchy and the dissolution of the whole." Robert Maynard Hutchins, The Higher Learning in America

BK: Hutchins is referring to the system of electives that allows students to choose what courses they will take. His point actually brings up several issues.

The problem is not that freedom is an end in itself. The problem arises from a fundamental tension between liberty and belonging to an institution. What may the institution dictate and what ought to be left to the choices of individuals? This leads to the second issue.

Failure to adequately map out the boundaries between institution and individual can be a disaster. Here students have liberty but do not understand what liberty is; and neither does the institution. Here is where Hutchins is right: Institutions that try to give too much liberty to students find themselves in a quandary. Why should any decision be denied to students, including institutional choices? (This problem also rears its head in shallow understandings of Democracy)The institution cannot allow this. Students do not understand why. Campus unrest ensues because neither the administrators nor students understand the realm and limits of freedom. I submit, the campus unrest of the 60's was a direct result of failure to even try to understand the proper role of liberty. This leads us to the third issue.

Hutchins assumes that freedom is letting students and faculty do whatever they want. This cannot serve as an organizing principle of the higher learning. What could, though, is the principle of freedom understood as the study of individual liberty within and between various institutions. Here what orders the higher learning is a proper understanding of the realm and limits of liberty combined with how it may be legitimately enjoyed. This need not be the entire curriculum, but it could be a powerful unifying element tying together students' earlier theoretical studies with their later choices of a profession. Hutchins' own advocacy of the great books provides no such tie and it comes as no surprise that he thinks professionalism does not belong in the university. Here he is consistent, but he fails to realize that even a curriculum of great books does not really provide a unifying principle. It must be the ideas in those books, and one of those ideas is surely liberty.

Aristotle (FML)

Aristotle. Politics. 330 B.C. Many editions. 337 pp.

In his introduction to the 1920 Oxford edition (translated by Benjamin Jowett), H.W.C. Davis reminds us that this classic embodies "theories of perennial value, and refutations of fallacies which are always re-emerging." There is a brilliant answer to Plato's proposals to abolish private property and to communize wives and children.


BK: One of my favorite entries. I'm not sure who publishes the series "Many editions" but they certainly have been around for a while.

Both Sides Now

“These are very difficult cases because they pull at some very fundamental heartstrings,”... . “There’s our belief that employees should be free of discrimination in their work, versus our belief that religious organizations should be free to hire people who best help them fulfill their religious mission, without the intrusion of government.” - Steven C. Sheinberg on the core debate between workers, religious institutions, and the government. "Where Faith Abides, Employees have Few Rights", New York Times, October 9, 2006.

Freedom of Education

Definitely food for thought from J.S. Mill.

"It is not endurable that a government should, either in law or in fact, have a complete control over the education of the people. To possess such a control, and actually exert it, is to be despotic. A government which can mould the opinions and sentiments of the people from their youth upwards, can do with them whatever it pleases. Though a government, therefore, may, and in many cases ought to, establish schools and colleges, it must neither compel nor bribe any person to come to them; nor ought the power of individuals to set up rival establishments, to depend in any degree upon its authorization. It would be justified in requiring from all the people that they shall possess instruction in certain things, but not in prescribing to them how or from whom they shall obtain it" J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Book V. Chap 11. sec. 8.


BK: I don't know how Mill, and many others, fail to see the connection here. If government is going to establish schools, require a subject or even give scholarships - it must verify that its objectives have been achieved. This requires standards, which require assessment. Money can only go to authorized recipients - lest the government open its coffers to anyone who asks. Seriously, the only way for the government to ensure it is not being bilked is to have standards and enforce them. This requires that "rival" establishments be authorized to receive funding and that individuals are actually taking the courses government may require.

This is why government aid is a Faustian bargain. If they give the money, they will influence what counts as standards and require reporting. This is the major reason for accreditation and agencies to accredit - eligibility for receipt of federal student aid. Yet, the same argument academics use against market encroachments in academe applies here as well: Those who control the purse strings control a great deal more. Mill is right that government control here is especially dangerous, but apparently people wish to believe that, unlike any other institution on the face of the earth, the government does not care what it gets for its money.

Arendt, Hannah (FML)

Arendt, Hannah. Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt. 1951. 477 pp.

A search by a German-born author and scholar for the deeper roots of anti-semitism, imperialism, and totalitarianism. Virginia Kirkus called it "a highly serious and commanding study." One reviewer objected to it on the ground that "too much of her interpretation is taken from the particular experience of Germany"; and another reviewer on the ground that: "She attempts to give scholarly support to the increasingly widely held dictum that Soviet Communism is nothing but Red fascism."