Reading. 24 Below is a polemical article about the decrease of importance and prestige of higher education

24 Below is a polemical article about the decrease of importance and prestige of higher education. The author tracks the transition of meaning of two words, which evolved directly from learning. This, he believes, signals an alarming message. Read the article, study its language and be ready to answer the author's questions as far as the article is concerned, as well as contributing your own opinions.

The dictionary defines trivial as "of little importance" and gives academic the meaning "of no practical importance or consequence". Academic is derived from the name of Plato's school of philosophy and the garden outside Athens where he taught. Trivial is derived from trivium, the lower division of the seven liberal arts, the curriculum of medieval university studies, comprising grammar, rhetoric and logic. Is it inevitable that the terminology of higher education should suffer this semantic deterioration over time? And, if so, why?

The reason why trivial took its extraordinary semantic dive is partly because the trivium was the undergraduate (elementary) curriculum studied before the more advanced quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music); partly because the English language - and its speakers - regularly apply pejorative connotations to words denoting intellectual ability (sly, knowing, clever, cunning, crafty, ingenious, brainy, intellectual, etc.); and partly because Scholasticism., the system of medieval thought pursued in the universities, ultimately collapsed in the face of the new learning of the Renaissance, its own internal contradictions and its inability to connect to the reality of felt experience.

Does the modern deterioration of the meaning of “academic” signal that something rather similar is happening again? Is the curriculum of higher education "of academic interest only"?

This is certainly not true of science, technology or medicine, none of which can be accused of the weaknesses of scholasticism. But what about the rest of the curriculum - the social sciences (including education), the arts (including literature), history and so forth? Do they fully satisfy the twin criteria of relevance and rigour, by which universities must always measure themselves if they are to survive the ruthlessness of "the real world"?

We have learned that the "global university" needs five faculties: business, IT, health, education - and the rest. Who should determine the curriculum of higher education, the teacher or the learner? (I wholly reject alternatives like the government or the employers.) I suppose the best answer will be a form of curriculum negotiated between the tutor and student. I suggest that at present the teachers have too much say, the learners too little.

(Don't confuse curriculum with qualifications, incidentally: the latter must be under the control of the professional academics, if they are to be valid and reliable.)

So here's my challenge to the global university of the 21st century - give people what they want and need. Reassert rigour and relevance. Beware of what may be merely academic, or even trivial. Reconnect with the real world before it is too late.