Independent Rating Of University Degrees

The University of Akron is, so this story says, offering to buy out half of is faculty. Half.

How many administrators it will buy out or fire is not said. But we might guess far fewer, or none.

Most faculty will be encouraged to take the buy-out; some will not be allowed. These faculty are a point of interest. They are (a partial list here; see the story for the rest, which are similar): All faculty in the College of Polymer Science & Engineering, Law School, All in the College of Engineering, Accountancy, Finance, Management, Marketing, Chemistry, Communication, Computer Science.

Spot the similarity?

Yes, money. These departments bring in the bucks via grants (private and government) or via regular and robust subsidized student tuition (government-backed loans and occasional cash).

The departments which don’t pay are to be cut. Math, Philosophy, History, and the like, as well as all Studies and their ilk.

Akron has decide that the purpose of the University is to make money. Just like any other business. Judging from their picks, and from their geographical and historical situation, they have chosen wisely. Perhaps some tweaking is in order once the buy outs are over and new students adjust. All businesses work like this.

As far as deciding what a university is, Akron has chosen poorly. If it wants to relabel itself Akron Jobs Trainers & Plastics Research then they will at least be more honest.

There is nothing wrong with jobs training; indeed, the majority of students who attend university now are in it only for job training or credentialing. And a good bit of the remainder (there is some overlap) only go because they want in on the grant game, one way to the other. Which is to say, they want to be researchers in particular areas (more jobs). The fraction left are split into two camps: one wants to be trained in SJW activism/ideology, and the other wants to learn to become better men.

If this were openly acknowledged and we gave everybody what they wanted, we’d go far in solving our “higher” education problems.

We discussed fixes before, the primary idea of which was to start a network of scholars and proceed with a sort of virtual university. Starting our own network of universities is too expensive and time consuming to pursue at first, however necessary it is at last. Forming a network of scholars would take less time, but not much.

We need to start smaller.

One way is to calculate independent ratings of individual university degrees. This rating would have the imprimatur of the affiliate scholar network, but only in the predictive sense. The rating would certify only a likelihood that the person holding Degree X meets the standard of a true University.

Obviously, this takes some work. To first agree on the goals of what a university should be, and then quantifying or classifying whether or to what extent those goals have been met in the system as it stands.

Now all attempts at quantifying the unquantifiable are bound to be failures to some extent, if not wholly. Same here. The letter grading metaphor may be too weak, a number from 0-100 too fine. Pass or fail too blunt. Something has to be picked. If only for familiarity, letter grading might suffice: A, B, C, D, F. Tradition, after all, has many things to recommend it.

Emphasis: it is individual degrees to be judged, not programs per se.

It would easy to plow through many majors. Communications, for instance, is popular (Akron is keeping it), yet it is of almost no worth in conveying the education a Reality & Tradition-based university should offer, and so all such degrees would start with the presumption of guilt—that is, of an F. But that’s too crude, because some Communications majors concentrate on the technical aspects of media production. Valuable skills.

But not in the least skills that need be learned at a university. A one-year (daily, like a job) tech school would fulfill the function. At any rate, technical Communication graduates would, depending on efforts and how much ideology was part of their curriculum, begin at D, with C being the top possible grade, say, only awarded in exceptional circumstances where a student has done his best to conform to R&T.

Those Communications graduates, like all J-school graduates, whose only function is to learn the arts of Propaganda, would automatically earn Fs.

Any Studies graduate, F.

A student who took nothing but Biology, Genetics and the like, and is found to have excelled at these subjects by universal accord, a B. An A can only be reached if there is also a grounding in R&T. A geneticist without a grasp of metaphysics runs the risk of becoming Dr Frakenstein.

Likewise, a top Historian without an understanding of basic Physics, a B.

Obviously, this is only a crude introduction; a mere note of an idea. I believe it has merit, though. Outside rating agencies—those not engaged in shakedowns like HRC, SPLC, and so on—are not uncommon and are relied upon.

Another possibility you might have considered is to outsource intelligence and other testing. GREs, MCATs, and other tests already do this, thought; yet they only measure small aspects of intelligence.

Businesses, as we all known, don’t dare test because these tests invariably produce “racist” results. These tests have enormous limitations, as we should all know, but the university-diploma-as-proxy is even worse. Why?

Because with these degrees we have created an army of what would other be humble people running around terrorizing the country convinced their meager certification has proved them superior beings. Our external grading would inject some much needed reality back into the process.