wallpaper dinding

But blogging is public. It's a game that is played for raising one's profile as much as developing one's mind. The development of mind has become something of a 'performance art' in a way that would have seemed very strange to Bacon or Milton. Their public profile would have rested on their published works and their political standing. The process of their mental development, which commonplacing formed a part, was something that served the purpose of their publications and politcal activity.

What seems to have happened is that the processes of mental development are now seen as significant and worthy of public recognition. This may have something to do with education and the need to model the practice of thinking as much as to be an 'expert'. But should all acts relating to mental development be public?

The problem is that the technologies we possess work with searchable texts which can be recalled instantly and (potentially) used in a political way to manipulate the reputations of others at distant moments in the future. I think those who remain resistant to blogging fear this, and in a way, rightly so.

There remains a need for human beings to articulate their innermost thoughts in ways that only they can understand. It may be that the artefacts produced through such an articulation are indeed public, but that the intentions of the maker remain hidden behind their cyphers. Technology gives us fantastically powerful ways of organising things (I could never have been organised enough to keep a proper commonplace book - I would have lost it!). But I have needed my cyphers. Indeed, I would not have blogged in the first place if I hadn't found a way of making them.

This isn't my idea. I had a great chat to Oleg in his garden yesterday, and amongst other things, he described the differentiated education system using the metaphor of three worlds. (Not quite Popper, although I'm sure they're related in some way...)

World 1: "I need a degree. Give me content and assessment opportunities as cheaply as possible"
World 2: "I need professional qualifications and development to progress my career. I need something flexible that fits with my work"
World 3: "I want to read, study, think and contribute to knowledge."

Whilst these may be related, it may be that these are conflated in current approaches being adopted by UK universities as they seek to adjust to the changes in student funding. It is likely that a number of Universities will opt for World 1 as the be-all and end-all, possibly with the rhetoric of worlds 2 and 3 but little of the substance. This is dangerous because World 1 is the world technology can probably deliver better than institutions.

There's an interesting comparison between this layering of worlds of education, and new models of funding which are being considered by a few European universities.

Layer 1: free open access with automated self-assessment
Layer 2: assessment charges (roughly equivalent to low-cost fee of world 1)
Layer 3: teaching support in preparation for assessment (roughly equivalent to charges for worlds 2 or 3)

Are the three worlds real? Clearly, the economic changes are meaning that World 1 is becoming a prerequisite for any sort of professional life. To not have a degree will increasingly be like not having school certificates: the basic social filtering processes have moved up a level, and students are required to fund themselves through the final stage.

World 2 probably comes a bit later in life, although for those wanting to join the professions, they will choose world 2 in preference to World 1. It will be more expensive, and consequently open only to those who can afford it.

World 3 is what is often associated with the traditional view of universities. In reality, few undergraduate entrants to higher education are natural academics (often to the dismay of their 'proper academic' teachers!). World 3 is perhaps the most endangered world in many institutions (apart from the elite few), because the reasons for it to exist are very hard to articulate (I think the reasons are about as difficult to articulate as the reasons for the continued existence of the royal family!). Yet, if it didn't exist (world 3, not the royal family!), then neither would Universities in the first place! World 3 is about knowledge and the role of knowledge in civil society. World 3 is about individual intellectual capital, and it feeds worlds 1 and 2.

I think these are useful distinctions, and they challenge us to ask hard questions about the current direction of HE. Universities have typically addressed all three worlds, although they've never really made clear distinctions between them. Not all entrants to Oxford in 1350 wanted to think. Some wanted the 'piece of paper', some may have had particular requirements based on where they had arrived in their life. Medieval writers like Rabelais and Chaucer testify to the fact that it was a very mixed bag!

Sorting the mix properly and ensuring that institutional resources are provisioned in a way where what is provided meets specific individual needs is the essence of the challenge now.