[MD] Barfuesserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Gav wrote]
the curriculum, or lack thereof, should be decided by the *teachers and 
students* (and parents in school ed).

[Arlo]
I think there is a fault line here, and I think it maps onto the Church of 
Reason divide in ZMM. On one hand you have the "True University", or 
"Church of Reason". This is a non-degree and gradeless. It can occur in a 
classroom, in a book club or in any environment where people wonder about 
something. For argument, let's call this "the production of intellectual 
capital".

Then there is the formal degree-conferring, grade providing institution 
whose function is to take activity in the Church of Reason (the production 
of intellectual capital) and turn it into some form of socially sanctioned, 
socially valuable, symbolic capital. Again, for argument, let's refer to 
this as "an exchange institution". (Although, this institution only 
exchanges intellectual capital for social capital on intellectual capital 
that was produced within its "sanctioned" grounds.)

This institution, in addition to exchanging intellectual for social 
capital, is also charged with providing the *best* environment for the 
production of intellectual capital in the first place. That we CAN learn in 
bookstores and libraries and in social reading/discussion groups is not 
denied by this, but the premise is that one learns "better and more" at an 
"exchange institution", because this institution brings together a wide 
array of resources, including materials and experts. It is this institution 
that, like a financial exchange institution, tells you how to maximize your 
reception of social capital through the adherence to particular curriculae 
and courses. In other words, the curriculum says, if you invest THIS WAY, 
you'll maximize the return on your investment (the most social capital 
accrued with the least intellectual capital produced).

Now, I'm deliberately using mercantilistic discourse here, because as Gav 
also mentions, "the power [deciding curriculum] lies with the corporate 
side of the university". I have argued that this is so precisely because 
the role of The Academy as "maximizing social capital acquisition for the 
least amount of intellectual capital production" IS why people come to The 
Academy in a post-Industrial, SOM-foundational, mercantilistic culture. Few 
people come with the goal of simply producing intellectual capital. And few 
would see years and years of intellectual struggle as "valuable" if the 
social-level payoff (the exchange granted by The Academy) was negligent.

So on one hand you have "maximizing the production of intellectual 
capital". To this is the "freedom" aspect Ian mentions. Finding the balance 
between static patterns and DQ on the intellectual level.

On the other hand you have "maximizing social capital return for 
intellectual capital production". This is the curriculum, grade and 
mercantile oriented balance conferring the greatest amount of social 
capital for the least amount of intellectual production.

These two, I think are balanced themselves by the reason the majority 
attend. When the majority is weighted towards the second, this becomes the 
primary function of The Academy. And that is what I think we see today. 90% 
are here for jobs and careers, and the grades and degrees that make that 
possible. So the activity of The Academy becomes attending to this balance, 
giving students maximum social capital for the least amount of intellectual 
production. Curriculae, and the 4-year rapid cycle of the American unis, 
demonstrate the Fordian approach to intellectual production and social 
exchange.

Just some thoughts...