Would you live in Plato's city?

Disturbing and interesting news from the UK recently, courtesy of two reports by the lecturers' union there. It seems 'core subjects' are being gutted from many universities, meaning some can't offer basic science subjects or foreign languages to students.

Strange isn't it, when there are fortunes to be made on the continent, that:

"The number of higher education institutions offering French has fallen by 15% in the past decade, institutions providing German courses have dropped by one-quarter, and institutions offering Italian have fallen by 9%, the report says."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,2008543,00.html

European integration? Perhaps Margaret lives on. I wonder what the numbers are like in New Zealand. I know Spanish has taken off remarkably in the last five years, after previously being only offered at Waikato. Likely not for trade with Spain though. Russian at Victoria was axed at the turn of the century, and the department at Canterbury is now under threat. I have no idea about European and Asian languages, may do some digging.

I attended a celebration on Wednesday of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the 'founding document' of what is today the EU. There Terry Ryan, a former Member of the European Parliament spoke in passionate Wigan-ese terms about the value of language education in unlocking business opportunities in Europe. We cannot simply rely on the good fortune of being native English speakers.

Also, we cannot simply rely on science to solve all problems. Thanks to science, there is probably enough food produce on Earth to feed the entire population. But it doesn't. And thanks to science, there are some amazing treatments for debilitating and deadly illnesses. But these aren't available to everyone. Why? The problems are economic and political.

I was particularly struck by the sometimes arrogance and hubris of science in comments about the above reports in The Times Higher Education Supplement where I originally spotted the story. Unfortunately it's subscription-only so I can't quote exactly, but in the front-page story, a professor at the soon-to-be closed Reading University Physics Department said "I can't believe they're cutting out physics. At times like these we need science, not wooly courses. Only science can solve the world's problems."

He has a point, physics departments shouldn't be closed, and we do need science. But science can only solve some of the world's problems, for some of its people. At the same time that the heralded advances of modern science are available to relatively few, is it any surprise that the academic world, becoming increasingly subject to market forces worldwide, is introducing new fashionable degrees and forcing out 'core' disciplines in arts and sciences?

Those wooly courses referred to are, presumably, all humanities, and probably most of the social sciences. The professor forgets that science is only part of the picture. Once a technical challenge is solved the solution must be propagated to 'save the world' - time and again we have seen this is the tougher challenge. How will that happen without students of History and Sociology to track its course and provide us with feedback of its impact on societies? Who apart from Political Scientists will theorise and examine the possibilities of new governance mechanisms to regulate the wonderful world of science?

Perhaps a more productive stance would be to focus on the well-being of academia as if it were a human whole. Cutting off small parts ('courses with decreasing demand') may reserve more blood ('money') for core competencies ('vocational degrees in profitable industries') but eventually the organism loses manual dexterity and eventually thought (the ability to critique itself). Infighting will help neither sciences nor arts.

Perhaps the professor will say 'scientists should govern'. The idea of technocracy - government by those most able to govern - is not new and might indeed spread the achievements of science equitably across the globe. But I think not. Besides, such a conception elevates scientific knowledge above all else, a fallacy. In Plato's city, the myth of the metals was used to explain why certain social classes existed. The 'Golds' were the rulers, philosopher-kings whose lives were devoted to the consideration and application of 'perfect rule'.

What if we should forgo politics and submit our destinies to those who 'know best'? I for one would rather live in the world of uncertainty and turmoil, and feel I have some say, however small, than be ruled by an all-knowing cult of science.