I know it's an edited version of a paper, but no, it's a rambling article that I would call far from "excellent".
I personally find Allan a very grating character - and certainly I don't understand why he continues to work in a sector he seems to find appalling. I am sure I could find him more convincing if he actually left the Australian university sector and wrote his criticisms from outside of it. Preferably from another country, since he seems to rate them much more highly.
That said - yes, his criticisms of the number of law schools and graduates pumped out by them, and the way they study now, sound all entirely valid.
His generic criticism about how and what they are taught, however - I very much doubt he is someone I should pay attention to in that regard.
The path to how we got to the strange and dubious changes to tertiary education generally in Australia seems to me to be complicated and leave plenty of room for criticism of both Left and Right for each being a bit conned in their own way by a self serving education sector. But given the recent debacle of the private vocational education players, I have a bit of trouble with listening to critiques from the Right on anything to do with education.
8 comments:
Quadrant is not known for its intellectual rigour Steve.
A good paper is a very rare one.
I find his point that almost all law students now (and presumably most students who actually care about such things) automatically assume that 'human rights' are whatever the UN says they are, without any critical understanding of the philosophical baggage behind the concept of rights-speak, the whole positive vs negative rights distinction and the deontology vs consequentialist debates particularly compelling. you have a problem with that, steve? don't tell me you are a UN rights parroter yourself?
"Quadrant is not known for its intellectual rigour Steve."
Homer Paxton is not known for his mental activity, Steve
It never has been and probably never will be. It has the credibility of the IPA
given the Trumpist here think it is says it all. A Trumpist has the gall to talk about mental activity.
guffaw
Just look up news and opinion. A litany of loopy artiucles from Trump apologists like Jason top outright climate denialiats.
I preferred it better in the old days when it was just anit-commo and got its funding from the CIA!
Jason, as the philosophical basis for human rights is not of practical concern to 90 something % of practising lawyers, I find it hard to get worked up over the [apparent] lack of detailed study of them by law students.
What's more, he presents no hard evidence regarding his concerns: it's mostly a matter of "if you ask a student"; "too many crap law schools" "overseas schools crap on ours".
While studying jurisprudence is a good idea for those of a philosophical/academic bent, some of what it covers is potentially dealt with in "introduction to law" subjects. And any student choosing to study international law might have some exposure to the philosophy behind them as well.
Whether Allan knows exactly what is in every subject at every other law school - or is just being a generic Right wing blowhard - I don't know. But as my general view of him is the latter...
Another day, another Jason thread.
Stepford, not that it matters but Jase is a happy hetrosexual, so there's no point in "trying" as it will get you nowhere.
Paxton, please shut up. You're embarrassing Australian blogs.
Paxton, you're the reason why web access should be pre-approved, you numbskull.
Jason is going gaga these days. however at least he had regard for Ken Arrow.
There is some hope. no hope for you JC.
Post a Comment