representation? no thanks...

there was once qiaoz made us research into the genesis of Universities.

in a nutshell, what happened was the free spirited and nomadic Masters and students relationship (much akin to Confucius, Aristotle) generated great incomes for Sorbonne and Paris that the Church wanted a share (esp teaching of Theology was a prerequisite for the opening of an University), which led to great disputes over ideologies and modes of teaching, as well as political and financial strifes. and contrary to utopian theory, students werent all saints but greatly disrupted the lives of the general populace (henceforth the Town vs Gown disputes) which sometimes get murderously violent.

lesson 1. Universities ARE political and require policing.

the Church had enough of Sorbonne's antics one day and henceforth dissolved the concepts of University. and then the growth of Oxford and Cambridge as COLLEGES continued the tradition of higher learning. universities generally meant mass public learning with very loose control over candidature are such bureacracies, colleges are what modern higher learning are inherited from - the undergraduate system, etc etc comes from these.

whilst the concept of University arose from the purist peripatetic concepts of mass learning (a little too idealist i have to admit), the concepts of College forges a monastic and highly institutionalised learning tree which only aristocrats could afford then.

i named the slide "The Institutionalisation of Knowledge" and suggests that the dynamics of interaction and learning had been forced into a profit enterprise which only tight top down control is sustainable. qiaoz vehemently disagreed. (haha walau eh enough of qiaoz vs hao stories lah u self-conceited cheebye)

the University which we know today, follows such a rigid system of selectively identifying its "representatives" for its outlook and appeal. it is top down and utilitarian, not because it is deviating from the high ideals of education, but precisely because it is following its own rules and regulations to guarantee its representation in the circuit of Universities. in effect, it is percolating the values of mass society where individualism is seen as high treason and blasphemous.

lost? lemme give an analogy:

when a parent sees his kid run out to rain to play. he chides the kid for being reckless and childish. is the parent more concerned about the fact that if the kid falls ill, the responsibilities that follow suit for THEMSELVES? or is the parent more concerned about such behaviour is unbecoming of what society deems WRONG? either way, the perspectives argue for the case of the socially "correct" behavious which the PARENT holds true.

it is difficult to accept precisely a top down and detached perspective and revel in it. nearly impossible. the good kid will cast an envious eye on the naughty boys and all the fun whilst the naughty boy whines abt the good kid having preferential treatment. the parents sit ontop of Mount Zeus and whines "children will never grow up". hann and deyi, sitting on opposite spectrums of the grading table (wahaha, go ahead, run at each other, or for that matter, MY throats) will never be happy in a University, coz it is always the parents doing the talking.

lesson 2. there are NO SUCH THING as a good or bad student.

hence you ask me for Representation for the School? you have no idea how bloody oxymoronic these 2 terms come across in my worldview haha.