Why is Middlesex University philosophy department closing?

 

By any public standard philosophy at Middlesex University is a success story, but funding formulas mean it is marked for closure

 

Jonathan Wolff guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 May 2010 19.00 BST Article history

 

Students occupy Middlesex University in protest at the closure of the philosophy department.

 

The report that Middlesex University plans to end undergraduate teaching of philosophy may not seem especially newsworthy. Philosophy is often under threat, particularly in the new universities. Stories spread from time to time of impending departmental closures, although rumours of demise have usually turned out to be greatly exaggerated. But it is not hard to understand why a university might consider axing provision in any subject area. If a department is losing key staff, if it is failing to recruit students or attract research funding, or if it does poorly in the Research Assessment Exercise, then it will be vulnerable. The surprise at Middlesex is that by all of these standards the department is in robust health.

 

Those protesting the closure point out that in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise philosophy at Middlesex was ranked a very impressive 14th out of all philosophy submissions, the highest of all post-1992 universities and, apparently, the highest ranking of any of Middlesex's departments. It has a very large MA programme and previously received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for a major research project. By any public standard it is a success story.

 

Unfortunately for those associated with the department, public and private standards are not the same. The university, it seems, has made its decision on the grounds that the department is not financially viable. Accordingly, the university has decided to concentrate its resources in areas where a better return is available. There have been predictable howls of protest at such naked financial reasoning, many by those who have never had to balance a budget.

 

As always, matters are complex. When I was appointed head of my department, in 1997, it was in rude financial health. Proportional to its size it was one of the most profitable departments in the university. Still, I was not complacent. I did my best to increase overseas and postgraduate recruitment as well as generating higher research overheads. But by the time I handed the department on, in 2008, it had, through some miraculous financial alchemy, been running at a deficit for some years.

 

How had I achieved this remarkable trick? First, retention and promotion had been pretty good. We were all a decade older and drawing larger salaries, in some cases substantially so. As the average age of your staff increases, the harder it is to break even. You can't charge students more just because their teachers now have grey hair.

 

But, more importantly, Hefce kept changing the funding formula. And almost never to our advantage. Our teaching income per student fell and fell, and there were very few opportunities to make up the difference. This has been a problem for humanities departments in many subjects and every institution. Students in our subject areas are funded by Hefce in "band D" – the lowest – which has just been savaged again (the inevitable cost of ringfencing science in the face of an overall funding cut). By contrast, B and C – subjects with a "studio, laboratory or fieldwork element" – do quite a bit better, and so, it seems, Middlesex has decided to reduce its exposure to band D and increase its recruitment in B and C.

 

In a way that reasoning seems understandable, although a little naive. Perhaps next year it will be B and C's turn for a significant cut. But if everyone followed Middlesex's example, that would more or less be the end of band D subjects in the universities. Luckily, how Hefce decides to fund students is one thing, and how universities choose to allocate resources internally is another. It seems, at the moment, that other universities have decided to protect vulnerable subject areas. Or perhaps they have just been slower than Middlesex to formulate or publicise their plans. But the chilling thing is that there doesn't seem to be anything specially problematic about Middlesex philosophy, and the reasoning that has led to its announced closure could be applied very widely throughout the universities.

 

If anything, there are special factors that argue in favour of keeping Middlesex philosophy going. Middlesex specialises in modern European philosophy. To the untrained eye this may seem a statement of the obvious; what else would you do? But to the insider it has a special meaning. From the point of view of philosophy the UK is not part of Europe. Rather it belongs to an entity called Anglo-America, or, possibly, Analytica (where you do analytical philosophy). Europe, by contrast, consists of France and Germany. In other words, Middlesex is one of the very few philosophy departments in the UK to concentrate on contemporary French and German philosophy. And this is not merely like the difference between studying English and French geography but, in some minds at least, represents a huge ideological divide. At its worst, analytical philosophers accuse continental philosophers of peddling nonsense, as if, unbelievably, they have pulled off a huge collective con-trick or joke, where what they say and write means nothing at all but somehow they get away with it. And, in return, analytical philosophy is accused of sterile and arid hair-splitting with no connection to the real world.

 

And, hence, Middlesex philosophers might suspect that they are paying the price for being successful outsiders. Many analytic philosophers have signed petitions calling for the department to be saved, but one wonders how many would really shed a tear if they lost this particular battle. From a more neutral standpoint, and from the point of the national interest, there are surely very good reasons to keep a wide range of programmes and approaches going. After all, no one in philosophy is really entitled to the self-confident feeling that they have got it right.

 

Yet this leaves a different problem. Middlesex might properly protest that it is not its role to support the national interest at its own expense. Perhaps, then, Middlesex should make a plea for special funding to Hefce to keep its philosophy department, on the grounds that it is doing something special but not earning enough to be economically viable? Hard to imagine Hefce being sympathetic. But easy to imagine the outraged howls of other philosophers protesting at the idea of special financial treatment. But perhaps all is not yet lost. After all, if I remember correctly, about five years ago, there were stories of the imminent closure of the Middlesex philosophy department.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes, it's all very well for the Govt and Unis to focus on "business courses", but, err, put it this way, it certainly wasn't Philosophers who caused the financial crisis, so why is it that Humanities depts are facing the cruellest cuts... Yeah, like the tw@ts such as the Wall St stockbrokers and the City spivs who've got MBAs, and qualifications in Accounting, Finance, etc have really done a bang-up job of things haven't they...? Also, here's something not a lot of people know, but, you know that guy, Adam Smith, him what wrote "The Wealth of Nations" upon which all this Arch-Capitalist, Neo-Liberalist nonsense is ripping off (to the point of absolutely GROSSLY distorting everything that Smith believed in actually....), yeah, that bloke... He was actually a..... PHILOSOPHER....... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

 

So, if you ask me, I reckon some of these Business, Accounting and Finance students could do with learning a few moral philosophies and actual ETHICS and maybe (or just actually fukkin' well READ what it was that Smith was actually saying and not listen to it filtered through a bunch of crap like Thatcherism, Reaganomics, Neo Conservatism, and the Corporate carpetbaggers, "Free" Marketeers and apologists for unfettered, idiotic Capitalism that seem to hold sway right now, people that Smith himself would have been absolutely DISGUSTED by..) just maybe, we wont actually have this sh!t ever happen again......

Actually you learn Ethics in the course of finance degrees. I've had to look at ethics for my Accountancy degree.

 

Humanities subjects are being cut as they are a waste of 4years. 75% of the students at St Andrews do one of those silly pointless $h!tty degrees, and then can't do anything with it. Mind you daddys money keeps them afloat so what does it matter...

I had to take either Moral Philosophy or General Philosophy for a double language degree. I did General Philosophy and thoroughly enjoyed it, but to this day, I don't know why it was so vital for that degree.

Actually you learn Ethics in the course of finance degrees. I've had to look at ethics for my Accountancy degree.

 

Humanities subjects are being cut as they are a waste of 4years. 75% of the students at St Andrews do one of those silly pointless $h!tty degrees, and then can't do anything with it. Mind you daddys money keeps them afloat so what does it matter...

 

"Look at ethics"?? What does that mean...? You just skimmed through it...? Sorry, but clearly it's NOT enough considering the rampant, UN-ethical practices that Corporations and the Finance sector is guilty of.... Have you actually read Adam Smith...? At all...? I work as a note-taker for a disabled student doing a degree in Accountancy and, frankly, there was precious little study into ethics, morals, etc, and only passing references to Adam Smith... One would think given the importance of Smith and his works are to the modern economy, his work "The Wealth of Nations" would pretty much be on the essential reading list... But of course, Smith was never in favour of "cut-throat" Capitalism of the nature that has gotten this country into the mess it is now, was he? Smith was in favour or Free Enterprise and COMMERCE, with RULES and a CODE of Ethics and Morals built in, and I repeat the important point that Smith was a Philosopher , and it was this which coloured his works and views, probably even more than his belief in free trade, so, er, Philosophy not important to business and commerce??? Rubbish, it's surely FUNDAMENTAL if one looks at it from the historic point of view, and also look into how Corporations build a Philosophy and a Culture themselves which make up its "Corporate Identity".. But of course, what Smith was advocating was totally different to unfettered, unregulated Capitalism as espoused by the likes of Thatcher and Reagan.. So, it's not entirely surprising his works are being either misquoted or misrepresented by the Neo-Liberalists who misuse his name at every opportunity they get, even while supposedly paying tribute to his works....

 

Actually, did you even read the article, FAR from being "pointless", that particular department was bringing a lot of research funding into the university.... Until HEfCE started fudging the figures and tinkering around with things.... So typical of a business student to rubbish the Humanities dept though of course and see it as being "worthless", I take it you dont see things like History or English Literature as being sufficiently "important" enough to bother with either..... -_-