I don't see the national aspect of academia as a "bad" thing. And I'm saying this as someone who lives in a country where state universities are struggling with budget while private universities, supplying posh credentials to the nobility, are flourishing.

Why universities should not live off student tuition? Precisely because, then, tuition would be huge, and only a selected (rich) few can study. Which is exactly what happens in Ivy league schools. It is sad that state universities have to struggle so hard, while their graduates (some of which are smarter than the folks in the private institution) end up with a degree that's somehow "worth less" because it was paid for by the students. Cancel state schools and you end up with either one of two, or both: "Derby" style diploma mills, or ivy-league schools which don't give much of a chance to people with less funding. What would you say to a rich student refusing to fund with "his" tuition fellowships for the less fortunate ones? Unless one doesn't care about social inequalities - and I'm assuming we both do, because if not, we don't have much ground for discussion - that's an insufferable ramification of privatizing academia.

As a huge fan of both Shalom Chanoch (man, I hate these CH's) and Meit Shalev, I think that a versatile world should make room for all of them. But there's an issue of accessibility. While the advantages of popular music and literature are more obvious to us, the advantages of nuclear research are less entangled in our immediate life. It is unlikely, therefore, that the market will run itself in a direction that will compute a set of priorities including the less accessible stuff.

As to the degree system: As it happens, I do think that some departments and faculties should not exist in their current structure. They should be either merged with other departments, or centered less around disciplines and more about problem-oriented teams. I don't have a measurement table for which disciplines are more or less useful. Which is precisely my point.

‏¹ http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter24/in160104telegram.ht...
‏² http://archive.1september.ru/eng/2000/no15_2.htm

[This is the third version of this post. Maaan, these gender-related posts are so tricky]

I have to say I agree. One of the things I dislike in the Ayal is the rudeness and crassness of the arguments. I'm spoiled in that my other virtual community, which is a private conferencing enterprise, is much more civilized without losing its intellectual edge. Sometimes it's enough to drive me away from here for a week or two; but I end up coming back, because most of the articles are insteresting and I enjoy the news updates. There are also many people here who are a joy to talk to, who are civil and pleasant to argue with; but one rude comment from someone is enough to drown many polite comments from others. My personal pet peeves are nitpicking, assuming [negative] things about the other person, derogatory group references and name-calling. All of which are made worse, in my opinion, by anonymity.

I must be honest, though, and confess that my tolerance for content, too, has limits, and that even the nicest, most polite person can piss me off (which is not his or her fault) when expressing chauvinistic, racist, and socially-uncaring comments. This is more my personal fault than it is the other person's; I wonder how many of us can boast perfect, unlimited tolerance for ANY content expressed in a civilized way.

I realize that political correctness is considered the Antichrist on the Ayal, and bashing it (often without knowing much about Foucault or the American left) is very much part of the folklore here. I've also heard countless versions of the "sterility versus authenticity" debates a-la Gadi Taub, which, though they make an interesting point (I, too, cringed at the quote he put at the top of the page), are seriously plagued by ignorance and by a will to appear Warmer-Than-Thou or More-Authentic-Than-Thou. You're right, though, this isn't strongly connected to our little discussion here, so we'll save it for another time.

I will say, though, that political correctness does not equal civility, and that ideological passion does not equal rudeness. I can see the differences quite clearly. Telling someone "what you say is dangerous/unfounded/problematic" is not the same as telling someone "you're a fascist/idiot". I see too many examples of the latter here.

I guess it's a matter of personal preference of communications. I don't tend to enjoy very much humor that comes at the expense of others, and I recognize the majority of the Ayal readers have different tastes. I also have a personal preference for communications that express doubt and leave open questions, rather than being 100% convinced of what one is saying. The self-confidence that one "has it right", to the point of discrediting any alternative perspective, deters me from entering a discussion, even when I think I could illuminate something the person didn't. I acknowledge that many others prefer these polarized communications, because the passion ignited by the conflict brings out the best in them. The preferences that lead me and the hashmanit to enjoy this type of communication less might be credited to gender, but could also be related to other cultural factors. I don't know her well enough to assume things about her cultural background, but I can say that mine was shaped in a society much more conflict-shy and chivalrous than Israel (Catholic South-America). So perhaps gender isn't everything.

Let me rephrase: I agree that there would not be strong dichotomies, but more a combination of factors, some of which can be attributed to personality and some to cultural issues. Isn't it interesting, though, that whenever gender issues in the Ayal are discussed, it is the women who feel the difference and the men who argue there is no difference? Not needling, just bringing this up for discussion. We could argue whether there is a male dominant culture here (it's a complex question and I don't have an answer for it), but if there is, it has certainly been identified by the females and immediately discredited by the males in every discussion where it was mentioned (then again, we might be slipping into our previous discussion of female and male methodology, and I don't want to take this discussion there).

As to the humor at other's expense, I've reread my post and I might have exaggerated; at least, I can see how my words could be read like that. However, I need to stress that this is a personal perspective. What someone with a thicker skin might not even see as a "yerida" on someone else, or not even notice an "akitza", someone with a thinner skin, such as myself, would. Jonathan mentioned ealier that for him, such "akitzot" (heck, I must fix the English on this computer. Ugh) liven up the discussion and make it "peppery", whereas for me they divert my attention from the argument and upset me sometimes. So we both locate the "responsibility" on different parties. While he says that the receptor should learn to "deal with it" and develop a thicker skin (not necessarily a bad idea), I say that the transmittor should learn to assume thinner skin (not necessarily a bad idea, either).

In Brainstorms, my virtual community, we go by a thuumb rule called Assume Good Will. Whenever something can be interpreted as innocent or as hurtful, the assumption is that the person didn't mean to mock us, or insult us, or discredt us. The communication is sometimes less heated, but I don't think it "sterilizes" the discourse. It's not a bad tool for internet dicsussions, where much can be misunderstood, and might not be a bad idea to live by here.

>Isn't it interesting, though, that whenever gender issues in the Ayal are discussed, it is the women who feel the difference and the men who argue there is no difference?