I am not angry, I am disappointed

This week, I wanted to write something about defending democracy, about reasoned debate, and the role of universities in all that. But that did not work out. Luckily I then saw an announcement about TU Delft’s new vision on education. Five hundred words about that write themselves. Forgive me the nitpicking, I also have a serious point.

OK, here goes.

First. The PDF is in landscape. You see this a lot, these days. Which makes sense, given that most people will read this kind of thing on a screen. But then you should use a layout and font size that are actually legible on an average laptop screen. Not a tiny font so that you need to endlessly zoom and scroll, as was done here. Make a printable A4 document, or make slides. Choose!

Second. It has become common to write these kinds of vision documents in the present tense. For example, ‘We educate engineers who can lead transformative change towards pioneering solutions.’ Apart from the hubris (and the contradiction with ‘Students are encouraged to exhibit humility’ in the paragraph above), is that currently the case? Or is it something that we are striving for? This kind of ahistorical language repeatedly makes it unclear whether a statement is about the here and now, or if it is a proposal about where we should be heading.

We read in the foreword that ‘we encourage you to engage with these ideas and principles’. But it is hard to seriously engage with a text that does not properly distinguish between facts, principles, and plans.

It is hard to seriously engage with a text that does not properly distinguish between facts, principles, and plans

Third. Careless referencing. There are footnotes and a bibliography. Some of the texts cited in footnotes are also in the bibliography, others are not. Vice versa, there are sources in the bibliography that are not referred to anywhere. The source of a quote from the educational philosopher Dewey (‘Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.’) is not referenced at all. Perhaps because he never wrote those words.

Fourth. Quoting literature that says something different to what you are claiming. The vision refers to a paper by Gert Biesta in which he defines three functions of education: ‘qualification’, ‘socialisation’, and ‘subjectification’. Leaving aside what he means with these terms, exactly, Biesta explicitly warns us that you should not view them as conflicting aims between which a balance needs to be sought. He introduces them as dimensions in which every definition of good education must make clear choices because education always operates in all three areas. The vision simply states: ‘We seriously consider how to balance all three within and beyond the classroom, in order to create meaningful educational experiences.’ This completely misses Biesta’s point.

And so on! Grrr.

‘Ummm, Bob… Why are you getting so riled up about this? What a lot of grumbling. Don’t you know that you shouldn’t take these kinds of toothless documents full of hobby horses and promotional language too seriously? Just ignore all this nonsense. Everyone else does.’

And this is exactly what I get so worked up about. I cannot accept it as normal that a so-called vision on academic education does not meet the most basic academic criteria.

Because, you know? Democracy. Reasoned debate. The role of universities all that.