Which is precisely what I meant when I asked Uri (Ori?) about the value of knowledge production, soupman!

You are being "forced" to pay for many essential services which, eventually, are supposed to provide the society which you live in with progress. You are "forced" to finance electric engineering research, so that several years later you'll enjoy cellular phones. You are "forced" to pay for the education of transport researchers, so that later you will have a suburbian train in the Tel Aviv area. You are "forced" to finance food engineering studies and research, so that the health and nutrition of you and your children will be taken care of for years to come. You are "forced" to finance the studies of literature, art, music, history, so that your life, and the lives of others, will be enriched with culture.

Need it be explained that this knowledge cannot be produced in people's private homes? That the people who produce this knowledge need labs, and equipment, and libraries? That they need to be on top of their fields and converse with academics in other places, through conferences and publications? The "inessential" academia is supplementing your life with many things that you now, or in a few years, deem essential.

Oh, and this may not be the most important function of academic institutions, but if you have an academic degree(s), you might want to appreciate the institution that supplies you the credentials required by the state, and by all these industrious and worthy employers, to get a job, so you can whine about financing it with taxes in the first place. Really, if you're going to whine about paying taxes, academia would be one of the least outrageous expenses.

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.