Atheist Elite College.

smacl

HansHolzel wrote: »

Promoting social inequality (in this case, through a service business) is of course not a crime but neither is it characteristic of the 'enlightenment' and 'reason' that Dawkins preaches.

From what I've understood from the rest of this thread*, the institution includes a whopping 30% of scholarships. In other words, the high fees paid by those that can afford it are used to support and educate those with the ability and desire to learn who lack the economic means. To me, that is enlightened. It's also good business, as it ensures the college has at least 30% of it students that are among the academic or intellectual elite as opposed to the most moneyed people in society. Given that the two things a college needs to survive are fee paying students and academically gifted ones, its win win.

(*Caveat: I read the first ten or so pages and then hopped to today's additions)

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

(*Caveat: I read the first ten or so pages and then hopped to today's additions)

There's only nine pages. :P

smacl

Jernal wrote: »

There's only nine pages. :P

This is page 23 on my desktop. You must be running Boards on a monitor bigger than my wall!

Corkfeen

smacl wrote: »

This is page 23 on my desktop. You must be running Boards on a monitor bigger than my wall!

Should change the amount of posts displayed per page, can be as lazy as you want about clicking.

Peregrinus

It's a bit of a stretch, it seems to me, to describe this as an "atheist college", or to suggest that it has a distinctively atheist character. It looks to me as if what distinguishes this university from many other British universities is not a uniquely atheist or sceptical character, but the two facts that (a) it's a for-profit institution, and (b) it's outside the public funding system. It makes no claim to be an atheist institution, and I suspect would be appalled at thought that it was so perceived.

Yes, some of the headline names associated with the college are well known as unbelievers. But, for the most part, they're well-known because they have long held senior appointments at other British universities, showing that this college will be by no means distinctive in having unbelievers associated with it. In fact, if we're scrupulously honest, we have to concede that most of the prominent unbelievers associated with the college are in fact much more closely associated with other institutions and may not be doing all that much hands-on teaching at NCH.

HansHolzel

smacl wrote: »

From what I've understood from the rest of this thread*, the institution includes a whopping 30% of scholarships.

The original 04/06/11 BBC report just says "assisted places will be offered to 20% of the first year's intake", which is probably the max, after factoring in returns for the investors.

If somebody like Ed Walsh came up with this type of initiative, we'd say fair enough, he has form, we wouldn't expect any different, because that's his world view, but Dawkins can't have his cake and eat it.

Peregrinus

According to the NCH website, 30% of the student intake of 2012 (which was the first intake) received either scholarships (full fee rebate) or exhibitions (partial fee rebate), but they don't give a breakdown as between scholarships and exhibitions. The scholarships are means-tested but the exhibitions are not.

But, to put than in context, the first intake was of only 60 undergraduates, so that's twenty who got either scholarships or exhibitions. The scholarship and exhibitions are supported by an endowment, not from the money received from those who pay full fees, so unless the size of the endowment can be grown at the same rate as the student intake increases (they're planning on 100 places in 2013; I don't know what they intend for later years) the proportion receiving financial assistance must fall.

Dave!

HansHolzel wrote: »

The original 04/06/11 BBC report just says "assisted places will be offered to 20% of the first year's intake", which is probably the max, after factoring in returns for the investors.

If somebody like Ed Walsh came up with this type of initiative, we'd say fair enough, he has form, we wouldn't expect any different, because that's his world view, but Dawkins can't have his cake and eat it.

How is he having his cake and eating it? If you can point to him saying that private university education is elitist, shouldn't be allowed, promotes social inequality, etc., then I'll agree that he's a hypocrit. But you appear to be ascribing to him some position that he doesn't hold, based in some vague impression you have of his world view.

coffee_cake

HansHolzel wrote: »

Promoting social inequality (in this case, through a service business) is of course not a crime but neither is it characteristic of the 'enlightenment' and 'reason' that Dawkins preaches.

Yeah, how dare people sell things or make money :mad:

Corkfeen

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, how dare people sell things or make money :mad:

Lacking 'reason' to turn a profit through one's abilities apparently. Mind bending.

HansHolzel

Dave! wrote: »

How is he having his cake and eating it? If you can point to him saying that private university education is elitist, shouldn't be allowed, promotes social inequality, etc., then I'll agree that he's a hypocrit. But you appear to be ascribing to him some position that he doesn't hold, based in some vague impression you have of his world view.

Richard Dawkins tweet 10/05/13:

"I want to be operated on by elite surgeons, flown by elite pilots, have my car fixed by elite mechanics. Why not elite electors of Lords?"

Wise up.

Dave!

HansHolzel wrote: »

Richard Dawkins tweet 10/05/13:

"I want to be operated on by elite surgeons, flown by elite pilots, have my car fixed by elite mechanics. Why not elite electors of Lords?"

Wise up.

Elitism in electing legislators is quite a different topic to a group of experts raising capital and starting a business.

Can't say that I agree with his position on the former.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, to put than in context, the first intake was of only 60 undergraduates, so that's twenty who got either scholarships or exhibitions. The scholarship and exhibitions are supported by an endowment, not from the money received from those who pay full fees, so unless the size of the endowment can be grown at the same rate as the student intake increases (they're planning on 100 places in 2013; I don't know what they intend for later years) the proportion receiving financial assistance must fall.

It depends to some extent on their business model, ambitions, and whether there's more to the scholarships than pure philanthropy. I suspect they're looking to enroll the best and the brightest as well as those who can simply afford to pay the higher fees. This demands maintaining a high proportion of scholarships, assuming those rich enough to afford the fees are a minority and that the potential for academic excellence is spread evenly among the population. An institution such as this can only trade for so long on the celebrity of its staff. To succeed long term, it also has to produce notable students who achieve academic notoriety in their own right. The high proportion of scholarships seems no more or less than good business sense to me, regardless of how the funding is written down in the accounts.

HansHolzel

Dave! wrote: »

Elitism in electing legislators is quite a different topic to a group of experts raising capital and starting a business.

Can't say that I agree with his position on the former.

(1) Raising capital and starting a business is fine e.g. if the entrepreneur is not at the same time loftily preaching about advancing civilization, like RD does.

(2) I accept you saying you don't like his political position but I just think it's symptomatic of the man.

smacl

HansHolzel wrote: »

(1) Raising capital and starting a business is fine e.g. if the entrepreneur is not at the same time loftily preaching about advancing civilization, like RD does.

These are two items are entirely unconnected. Entrepreneurs surely have the same right as anyone else to be preachy about their world views.

HansHolzel

smacl wrote: »

These are two items are entirely unconnected. Entrepreneurs surely have the same right as anyone else to be preachy about their world views.

This is beginning to remind me of the Tommy Hilfiger/Oprah story, which seems to have been a hoax :-)

"If I had known that African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians would buy my clothes, I would not have made them so nice, I wish those people would not buy my clothes - they were made for upper-class whites."

Dave!

HansHolzel wrote: »

(1) Raising capital and starting a business is fine e.g. if the entrepreneur is not at the same time loftily preaching about advancing civilization, like RD does.

(2) I accept you saying you don't like his political position but I just think it's symptomatic of the man.

Is it symptomatic of A C Grayling, Lawrence Krauss, and Steven Pinker too?

Maybe there are many different ways in which to advance civilisation, and establishing a university with some of the most highly regarded thinkers in the world as the teachers might be one way?

He has also spent his career engaged in various outreach and educational programs, in his capacity as (then) Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and through the RDFRS.

HansHolzel

Dave! wrote: »

Is it symptomatic of A C Grayling, Lawrence Krauss, and Steven Pinker too?

Maybe there are many different ways in which to advance civilisation, and establishing a university with some of the most highly regarded thinkers in the world as the teachers might be one way?

He has also spent his career engaged in various outreach and educational programs, in his capacity as (then) Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and through the RDFRS.

I don't doubt he has done some educational good in the past for those without the privileges of money and/or the right connections. As for his scientific view that there are no gods and that evolution has no goal, I have no problem with that either.

Nonetheless, being a front-rank biologist does not make him an oracle or even very knowledgeable about the social and political contexts of his utterances.

His Twitter excuse for "Why not elite electors of Lords?" was that the method would be better than that whereby the Prime Minister appoints his chums to the upper house. He neglected to observe that at least the masses can turf out the PM every few years, which of course wouldn't apply to his concept of the Lords.

If he feels he needs to make even more dosh than what he already has made from his glittering academic career, his book sales and his media appearances, off with him. But being increasingly gaffe-prone won't help his cause either way.

MrPudding

Meh, not sure what the big deal about a private university is, I did my degree at one and I am doing a masters there too. Personally I like the idea that it doesn't take government money.

MrP

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It depends to some extent on their business model, ambitions, and whether there's more to the scholarships than pure philanthropy. I suspect they're looking to enroll the best and the brightest as well as those who can simply afford to pay the higher fees. This demands maintaining a high proportion of scholarships, assuming those rich enough to afford the fees are a minority and that the potential for academic excellence is spread evenly among the population. An institution such as this can only trade for so long on the celebrity of its staff. To succeed long term, it also has to produce notable students who achieve academic notoriety in their own right. The high proportion of scholarships seems no more or less than good business sense to me, regardless of how the funding is written down in the accounts.

I don't think so. Remember, (1) this is a profit-making venture. (There are other private universities in the UK, but they are organised as not-for-profits). (2) They are essentially offering an Oxbridge package - tutorial-based teaching, 10:1 academic staff ratio. If you can get that at Oxbridge, why would you pay twice as much to come here, especially when Oxbridge also offers better international recognition, unrivalled networking opportunities, and a lively social and sporting life? (You're not going to get the last two in a college of a couple of hundred students.)

So I think the market they are targetting are people who want to go to Oxford but can't get in - i.e. not the academic elite, but the academcially ambitious with lots of money. This is a market that TCD used to cater to, and St Andrews still does to some extent.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

So I think the market they are targetting are people who want to go to Oxford but can't get in - i.e. not the academic elite, but the academically ambitious with lots of money. This is a market that TCD used to cater to, and St Andrews still does to some extent.

Absolutely, this is their bread and butter, so to speak. So that begs the question, why so many scholarships? My feeling is that being leading academics themselves, they also have ambitions to produce leading academics of the future. If I was the likes of Dawkins, I imagine I'd prefer to teach the brightest students, not to mention a broad mix of students. While it is a business, it is a slightly unusual one, as they don't need the money. When second guessing people's motives, looking at their needs often provides a good starting point. Then again, possibly just me being a bit overly machiavellian, time will tell.

Peregrinus

I suspect the issue is this; given that their students are largely going to be drawn from those who want to go to Oxbridge and can't get in, inevitable the grades you need to get a place at NCH are going to be lower than the grades you need to get a comparable place at Oxbridge.

But people tend to assess the academic prestige of colleges partly according to the grades you need to get in. And this will be particularly true of NCH for the forseeable future, because it will be fair spread of years before there is a slew of NCH graduates out there carving out glittering names for themselves in their chosen paths. So they really need to do what they can to ensure that the A-level grades of their incoming students are high. And of course you can jack up the average by providing hefty scholarships, etc to a number of students with outstanding A-level results. So that's the commercial reasoning.

I don't want to be too cynical. It's entirely possible that the people behind this college combine a desire to earn a few shillings with a desire to be engaged in elite education for its own sake, with a desire to make the world a slightly better place by offering opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, and the provision of scholarships could be motivated by all three desires.

I don't, though, think they hope to produce the next generation of academics. Nobody contemplating a career in academia willingly embarks on a course of study that costs fifty-four thousand pounds over three years. The great bulk of the students they attract will be hoping for an education that leads to a high-paying job that will pay off the collossal debt they will be carrying. They won't be going on to years as penniless PhD students. Obviously this need not be true of those who have scholarships, but there is no reason to think that the scholarship students will choose academic careers.

MrPudding

Taking Oxbridge rejects does not necessarily mean entry requirements have to drop. Plenty of students with all A or A* grades fail in their applications to Oxbridge. Given the small size of the intake it is conceivable that this new college could still have an entry requirement of 3 or 4 A grades at A-level and still pick up plenty of Oxbridge "rejects".

That one failed to gain entry to Oxbridge despite maxing out on A-levels does not mean one is a poor academic or itellectually suspect. Bad at Oxbridge entry tests or interviews is about all you can say.

MrP

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect the issue is this; given that their students are largely going to be drawn from those who want to go to Oxbridge and can't get in, inevitable the grades you need to get a place at NCH are going to be lower than the grades you need to get a comparable place at Oxbridge.

Perhaps not. Maybe a significant number are keen to be taught by the celebrity staff members, and a further cohort just like the elitist feel to the place.

I don't want to be too cynical. It's entirely possible that the people behind this college combine a desire to earn a few shillings with a desire to be engaged in elite education for its own sake, with a desire to make the world a slightly better place by offering opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, and the provision of scholarships could be motivated by all three desires.

Also being cynical, but like everyone else, they're doubtless driven by the desire to succeed, and succeed visibly. One measure is the success of the venture as a business, in terms of how much money it makes. Another would be their individual and collective successes as educators, which is measured in the quality of students they produce. (If in fact you could truly measure such a thing). If they're stacking the odds slightly in this regard by taking on lots of scholarship students, more power to them. It's still a very worthy philanthropic gesture, regardless of any motives that sniping pygmy detractors such as ourselves might speculatively ascribe. Each according to his ability, to each according to his need and all that jazz.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps not. Maybe a significant number are keen to be taught by the celebrity staff members . . .

If so, they will be disappointed. By all accounts the celebrity staff members do very little teaching.

(Which is pretty much how it is in many other universities and colleges with celebrity academics, I hasten to add.)

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Taking Oxbridge rejects does not necessarily mean entry requirements have to drop. Plenty of students with all A or A* grades fail in their applications to Oxbridge. Given the small size of the intake it is conceivable that this new college could still have an entry requirement of 3 or 4 A grades at A-level and still pick up plenty of Oxbridge "rejects".

That one failed to gain entry to Oxbridge despite maxing out on A-levels does not mean one is a poor academic or itellectually suspect. Bad at Oxbridge entry tests or interviews is about all you can say.

Fair point.

Time will tell, I suppose. After a couple of years there'll be data available on what scores entrants to NCH actually have, and that can be compared with data on comparable scores for Oxford and Cambridge. We'll know then if the NCH intake is more or less qualified than the Oxbridge intake, A-level results-wise.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

not the academic elite, but the academcially ambitious with lots of money. This is a market that TCD used to cater to..

An odd slur against TCD there. When or what are you referring to?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

An odd slur against TCD there. When or what are you referring to?

Don't know why you consider it a slur. It is the case that, into the 1950s and 60s, and even into the 1970s, TCD has a significant contingent of English students from a social class that traditionally would have aspired to go to Oxbridge. They were students who had failed to secure a place at Oxbridge, and who chose TCD as a more socially acceptable alternative than a British redbrick.

recedite

Well I think TCD has been a part of the "free education" system for as long as it has existed in Ireland, and before that they had scholarships,which they still give out for student accommodation.
If they had spare places available in the 1950's due to a boycott organised by the catholic hierarchy, why wouldn't they offer them to fee paying foreign students?
Even today there is still untapped potential to earn foreign currency within Irish universities, which should be fully exploited as long as Irish students of merit applying through the CAO system are not displaced.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Well I think TCD has been a part of the "free education" system for as long as it has existed in Ireland . . .

Really? You think? Since 1592?

Well, you think wrong. TCD is, and always has been, a fee-charging instution. After it had been charging fees for 400 years or so, in 1995, the Government introduced the "Free Fees Initiative", under which on certain conditions the Exchequer pays the fees of EU/EAA nationals who are residents of the EU and who are undertaking a first undergraduate course. That's a lot of students, of course, but the have the Irish Exchequer to thank for covering their fees, not TCD for waiving them.

recedite wrote: »

If they had spare places available in the 1950's due to a boycott organised by the catholic hierarchy, why wouldn't they offer them to fee paying foreign students?
Even today there is still untapped potential to earn foreign currency within Irish universities, which should be fully exploited as long as Irish students of merit applying through the CAO system are not displaced.

You misunderstand me; I'm not slagging off TCD or saying that they shouldn't have accepted English applicants for whom they were a second choice to Oxbridge. Nor do I criticise NCH for meeting this demand today, if as I suspect they do. I merely observe that that is a market to which TCD at one time catered, and which I imagine NCH will cater nowadays.