Gary Hull founding a college?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I think there's another alternative. For me (and probably some others here as well) the primary in evaluating a professor is not his explicit philosophy, but rather his ability to teach, which depends primarily on his mastery of the material and his appraoch to teaching.

That's exactly right.

And note that there are current students right here on THE FORUM who echo Burgess' estimate of some professors at university. ADS, for instance, has written about this in a couple of posts, and communicated even more to me privately. Alex has encountered a handful of first-rate teachers in both his philosophy and history courses. These are professors who know their subject matter and communicate it well, clearly and objectively, without attempts to smuggle in their own personal philosophy. They relish the facts, not distort them, and motivate their students by demonstrating their own abilities and enthusiasm.

I would suggest to Phil, and any others with a like perspective, to not only talk to Objectivist students now at college, but also to some of the recent and even older Objectivist intellectuals who have had firsthand experience with this. The fact that the humanities academia as a whole is deserving of harsh criticism, does not preclude the existence of first-rate professors able and capable of teaching philosophy, history, and other like subjects, in an objective manner. These teachers may in fact be atypical, but they do exist and their effects are felt.

I see nothing wrong per se with a new college, one that establishes a high standard in regard to choice of curriculum, attempting to cull quality professors from both the old and new. It may be difficult for them to compete for such quality in teaching, but if they can attract such teachers then the benefit to students exposed to a first-rate curriculum taught well, could be enormous. All this regardless of whether or not the professors are Objectivists.

[ElusiveBeauty 0]

So, does anyone have a dream team of living non-Objectivist humanities or business professors?

[PhilO 0]

So, does anyone have a dream team of living non-Objectivist humanities or business professors?

I'd sit in a class to hear Bill Gates and Warren Buffett discuss making money. When it came to their contradictory altruist ethics I would have to tune out... (or argue with them.)

[Ed from OC 0]

I'd sit in a class to hear Bill Gates and Warren Buffett discuss making money. When it came to their contradictory altruist ethics I would have to tune out... (or argue with them.)

Great examples. I'd throw in a lot of other really successful businessmen, such as Mike Milken.

I'd add the aforementioned Victor Davis Hanson, as well as asome other academics who write a number of really good op eds, like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Bill Gertz. Albert Ellis, Stanton Samenow in psychology. Netanyahu in international relations. And so on.

Thinking about this question has helped me crystalize a nagging thought. One possible premise behind hiring only Objectivist teachers is that the students will get the objective truth about the subjects under study. But if that is based on that idea that the students won't have to question or probe what they're taught (after all, these are the right answers), I object in two ways. One, not all questions of merit in any field have been answered.

Two, the students should learn to think for themselves, which means they should take the initiative in learning. I'd prefer to have a school with a mix of views. For instance, there is no "Objectivist economics." If a school is hiring only Objectivist professors, how do you choose which Objectivist economist should teach? Obviously, his particular theory of economics is going to be different from that of someone else, and I can imagine arguments back and forth about just whose theory is really objective.

Better, I think, would be to encourage the students decide for themselves. So a range of views would be good for the students. (Granted, there must be some basic agreement of philosophic premises, but beyond that, dissent can be a very good thing.)

[khaight 0]

(Granted, there must be some basic agreement of philosophic premises, but beyond that, dissent can be a very good thing.)

It would be an interesting exercise to identify those basic premises within which disagreement can remain objective and thus valuable. At minimum, I would think all the teachers would have to agree that:

• Reality is fundamentally mind-independent.
  
• Reality sets the standard of truth.
  
• Sense-perception is the base of knowledge.
  
• Knowledge claims must be defended by reference to facts and logic.
  
• Human beings possess free will.
  
• The goal of an education is for the students to gain knowledge.
  

This isn't intended to be an exhaustive list, of course. But I wouldn't expect to gain much of value from a teacher who disagreed with any of the above.

Any additions to the list?

[PhilO 0]

Better, I think, would be to encourage the students decide for themselves. So a range of views would be good for the students. (Granted, there must be some basic agreement of philosophic premises, but beyond that, dissent can be a very good thing.)

Well, there is one amusing part to that - I think there's plenty of dissent and argument over everything, among Objectivists or quasi-Objectivists, here and on HBL. Objectivists are the most argumentative people I know (because they think more and take ideas and the truth seriously.)

I've tried to stress that I see the issue of Objectivist professors in a narrow context - teaching the humanities. Not that it wouldn't be great to have Lewis Little and Stephen Speicher as teachers of math/physics - I literally cannot imagine who in the world would be better overall, until you get the point of some narrow specialization within those fields that have top experts who know the most. Having the right philosophy is always good, no matter the field.

Put another way - I would want a professor who has great knowledge of the subject matter, with an explicitly bad philosophy and an implicitly rational approach to his field, over somebody with weak knowledge and the right philosophy. But if both had great knowledge, why on earth would somebody want the former over the latter? Existing Objectivist intellectuals in the humanities are not ignoramuses.

I haven't really considered business studies as a science - it seems to be more of a type of engineering. Economics would be the related science, business is more of the specific applications of economic principles.

[Jay P 0]

My experience is that good teachers who know their subject matter in the humanities can be quite worthwhile, even if they're not Objectivists.

To find examples in my own life, I have to go back to high school and junior high school, because I took almost no non-technical courses in college. And when I do this, I recall that much of the History and English courses I had then ranged from abysmal to mediocre. However, there were one or two that really stood out, and I'm a better person for having had those courses. In particular, in 7th grade history was centered around the history of Western Civilization; we must have spent one semester studying ancient Rome and Greece. I can still remember how interesting the lectures were, and how our teacher convinced at least some of us that what we were studying was important. Now if she'd been an Objectivist, she could have done an even better job because she could have tied the events to more fundamental ideas, but that does not detract from the fact that I learned a great deal from a non-Objectivist.

...

Another thought about having a college that's led by Objectivists at the top, is that those Objectivists can lead by example, and they can bring out the best in the non-Objectivist professors at the school. A good leader can set standards, and make it clear that he expects the teachers to rigorously adhere to facts and not engage in ax-grinding in their classes. Also, if the students are going to be taught at least partly by Objectivists, they're going to have, or develop, active minds. In this environment, any professor is going to have to work hard to answer the questions his students are going to have. No professor who's used to spouting politically-correct nonsense is going to last in such an environment.

A non-academic example of the positive effect of an Objectivist leader of a large organization is John Allison of BB&T Bank. I don't know anything about the philosophies the people who report to him of course, but I presume that, at the least, they are not all Objectivists. But clearly his Objectivism has made that company better than it would have been otherwise, and I'd guess that his example tends to bring out the best in philosophically-mixed people who work for him. There are probably people who work for that company who don't understand Objectivism explicitly, but for them, acting in accordance with rational principles is easier and more natural because of the man at the top leading by example.

[Ed from OC 0]

A non-academic example of the positive effect of an Objectivist leader of a large organization is John Allison of BB&T Bank. I don't know anything about the philosophies the people who report to him of course, but I presume that, at the least, they are not all Objectivists.

That's a terrific example. By coincidence, I was browsing their website recently and looked at the bios of the top management. Not surprisingly, two of them listed church membership among their affiliations. So I doubt they are Objectivists, yet BB&T is, from this stockholder's perspective, a good company.

The bottom line is a good university or business doesn't need to exclude non-Objectivists; it just needs to hire and keep the best people they can find.

[PhilO 0]

So I doubt they are Objectivists, yet BB&T is, from this stockholder's perspective, a good company.

The bottom line is a good university or business doesn't need to exclude non-Objectivists; it just needs to hire and keep the best people they can find.

John Allison's relationship to BB&T is an excellent example of the virtue of an Objectivist at the helm of a business, but as much as I admire him, I don't think that it's a comparable context to the humanities professors.

The task of most businesses is not to teach, but to make a profit. Having an Objectivist leading BB&T has clearly been of great benefit, but it is clear that one can successfully work in the banking business and have mixed premises, as are most of the rest of the employees of BB&T. It is not even John Allison's job, *fundamentally*, to teach philosophy, although as I understand it he does a fair bit to try to educate his upper managers that way.

I guess one analogy here is this, as I've been arguing it: a proper philosophy is to the best humanities professors, as knowledge of the principles and methods of banking are to the best bankers.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

According to this report, the Maine review for Founders College has been "indefinitely canceled."

Founders College cancels Maine review

By Lorie Costigan

Times Editor

AUGUSTA (July 16): Founders College officials have indefinitely canceled a review by the Maine Department of Education for a college envisioned for Northport.

[...]

Daniels wrote, “Thank you for your message. I am sorry for the delay in responding, but I have only just returned from a week-long teaching engagement in Boston. We had hoped to have completed our financial transactions by now and that we would be able to reschedule our review for August.

“Unfortunately, Bank of America's process of selling us the Northport property came to an abrupt halt shortly after your office announced that our review would be open to the media. Since then, our repeated attempts to complete this transaction have not been successful. I am sorry to say that we have no choice but to postpone the site review indefinitely, in that we cannot determine when — or if — we will have a site in Maine on which the review may be conducted,” Daniels wrote.

Daniels signed his letter as dean of faculty and chairman of the history department of Founders Education Inc.

[ewv 0]

Maine's "progressive" left "participatory democracy" intruding in private financial affairs does it again. Founder's cancelling Maine is disapointing, but I can't say I blame them.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

According to this news story from the 7/23/06 Star-News of Wilmington, NC, the plans for Founders College seems alive and well in North Carolina. This story has more quotes from Gary Hull that have not been previously noted, perhaps from a recent interview. There is also some interesting information about the project and the current plans. A few highlights:

Hull has some ideas that would be radical to many in higher education. He calls tenure "bizarre" and academic freedom a bogus idea.

[...]

Most colleges have a smorgasbord approach, he says, and give students a catalog stuffed with hundreds of courses, many of them unnecessary electives. Too often, students are bored and have no continuity in their education.

"It's just: 'Welcome to college, now pick some classes,' " he says, "and I think that's a disaster."

Hull says the college will open next year, though it has not settled on a site. He and a small group of associates have looked at land in Granville County. They considered two locations, including the campus of the Masonic Home for Children, but abandoned that idea.

Leon Turner, executive director of the Granville Economic Development Commission, says the town and county are willing to help Founders with water and sewer improvements, even a cash grant. Any package would probably be worth less than $500,000, he says.

[...]

Hull refuses to identify the investors but says he has the financial backing.

There are other questions about the college. Its license application says Founders College will be operated by The College of Rational Education Inc., a nonprofit corporation in North Carolina. According to papers filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office in March 2005, The College of Rational Education "shall be exclusively operated as to provide a reality-based, rationally grounded education, by applying Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to all of the Corporation's activities and undertakings."

Hull says that was an idea "that fell by the wayside."

[...]

Hull knows it's a challenge, but he's confident.

His strategy?

"Tell a good story, find a clever marketing company and sell," he says. "We have to sell the market, sell our potential customers on the conviction that we have a superior market, a superior education and great teaching. That's the only way of doing it."

[PhilO 0]

According to papers filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office in March 2005, The College of Rational Education "shall be exclusively operated as to provide a reality-based, rationally grounded education, by applying Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to all of the Corporation's activities and undertakings."

Hull says that was an idea "that fell by the wayside."

I'd be interested to know what that means exactly, in this context.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I see nothing wrong per se with a new college, one that establishes a high standard in regard to choice of curriculum, attempting to cull quality professors from both the old and new. It may be difficult for them to compete for such quality in teaching, but if they can attract such teachers then the benefit to students exposed to a first-rate curriculum taught well, could be enormous. All this regardless of whether or not the professors are Objectivists.

I've been in touch with Gary Hull about this, and I'm delighted to hear that Founders College has already been deluged with requests from quality professors who apparently would greatly value the teaching environment described. Based on this, imagine what might happen when they start to advertise!

In this regard, interestingly, in yesterday's The News & Observer there was a letter titled "Classical scholars" in support of Founders College's "plan to initiate a new higher educational institution focusing on the intellectual life." The writer, a long-time educator, has "witnessed an accommodation of the academic curriculum to lightweight, non-challenging courses, catering to trivia for those only pursuing credit rather than thought." And this from an educator who "[does not] support Ayn Rand's philosophy of 'rational self-interest' -- in truth, the opposite for me is at my philosophical core -- but presenting it as a point of discussion for the students of 2007 and beyond, possibly in nearby Oxford, is exciting."

Perhaps the idea of Founders College just might touch the core of those who actually value education.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

According to papers filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State's office in March 2005, The College of Rational Education "shall be exclusively operated as to provide a reality-based, rationally grounded education, by applying Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to all of the Corporation's activities and undertakings."

Hull says that was an idea "that fell by the wayside."

I'd be interested to know what that means exactly, in this context.

It was not clear from the context (news writers are notorious for this), but I have been told that his response was directed towards an earlier notion of forming a not-for-profit school.

[JRoberts 0]

Classical Scholars.

Now I'm interested .

Do you possibly know who?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Classical Scholars.

Now I'm interested .

Do you possibly know who?

The title "Classical scholars" was the name given to the letter, most likely by an editor of the paper, and "Classics college" was the name given to the earlier news story. But based on what has been said about the college, I think it fair to expect a really classic education. The website should be up in a few weeks, and from that you can judge more.

[Joss Delage 0]

I think such a college would be a dream opportunity for any young professor. Most current colleges could be improved significantly by just changing the way students take classes and graduate (i.e., make it a requirement to have a large majority of classes within a given broad specialty, etc).

Do we know anything about the college's goals in terms of their emphasis on research / publishing papers vs. teaching classes?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Do we know anything about the college's goals in terms of their emphasis on research / publishing papers vs. teaching classes?

In the full news story referenced in this post, Gary Hull makes quite clear that the emphasis will be on a proper education:

Hull believes he has a winning formula with his focused curriculum and a 60-hour teacher training course, which would be required of all faculty. There would be no tenure, and professors would be evaluated on teaching effectiveness instead of the "publish-or-perish" standard.

"Our focus is on using the proper method in the classroom and a heavy, heavy emphasis on motivating students, on lighting their mind on fire and selling them, literally selling them, on the idea that a particular subject is important and they should be interested in it for the rest of their lives," he says.

No tenure and evaluation based on teaching merit rather than counting published papers. Sounds like good-teacher's heaven!

[Nathaniel Hale 1775 0]

Classical Scholars.

Now I'm interested .

Do you possibly know who?

I don't know if VDH would do it, since his house and farm are in California

[Jay P 0]

No tenure and evaluation based on teaching merit rather than counting published papers. Sounds like good-teacher's heaven!

Yes, and good-student heaven as well! No more of having to sit there listening to professors who can't teach, but who maybe published some interesting papers some time in the past. And no more of having to listen to teachers who mostly tell jokes and ramble on about topics unrelated to the subject they're supposed to be teaching.

In graduate school, I remember that one of the best professors I had didn't get tenure because he didn't publish enough papers. So, out he went.

I bet many good teachers are disgusted with the tenure system (it's always seemed to me that it would be about as bad as working in a unionized shop), so this new college should find many good applicants.

[PhilO 0]

I bet many good teachers are disgusted with the tenure system (it's always seemed to me that it would be about as bad as working in a unionized shop)

It's probably even worse. As disgusting as many unions are (due largely or entirely to the preferential legal treatment they've gotten), my experience is that the typical union worker is much more competent than the typical teacher.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I bet many good teachers are disgusted with the tenure system (it's always seemed to me that it would be about as bad as working in a unionized shop)

It's probably even worse. As disgusting as many unions are (due largely or entirely to the preferential legal treatment they've gotten), my experience is that the typical union worker is much more competent than the typical teacher.

And exactly what "experience" is your conclusion based on? Have you had extensive experience with teachers in academia? Do you read the university level journals that deal directly with university teaching, authored by those who work in the field? Have you extensively surveyed half-way intelligent students about their own first-hand experiences enough to form a view of the "typical teacher?"

Most all of us who, in one form or another, have had extended direct experience wtth teachers in academia, have our own horror stories to tell. And, for those who get their information second-hand from those who tell those stories, perhaps the impression they get is overly negative due to a tendency in many to relate the worst, rather than the best. But, the fact of the matter is that there are many, many success stories, stories of remarkably good experiences with teachers in academia. Also, the competency of the "typical teacher" in academia is not the same as the estimate of the material they must teach.

The fact that a school such as the proposed Founders College wants to cull the best of the teachers, young and old, does not mean that the competency of the rest, the "typical teacher," is below the level of the "typical union worker."

[PhilO 0]

And exactly what "experience" is your conclusion based on?

Roughly 14 years of school. Beyond that, reading countless reports on the abysmal state of American education, including those the federal government, and stories of such individuals as Marva Collins and Jaime Escalante vs. their "average peers" (of which far more could be said, that would be relevant to this.)

I usually take the term "teacher" to mean a K-12 teacher, vs. a professor, so that was the context I intended, and I should have made that clearer. In that context, I absolutely stand by my statement, based on first hand knowledge of both average teachers and average union workers in various large industrial plants. The average union worker at least generally does productive work.

The fact that a school such as the proposed Founders College wants to cull the best of the teachers, young and old, does not mean that the competency of the rest, the "typical teacher," is below the level of the "typical union worker."

I do not doubt that your experience differed from mine in two major respects. First, your pre-college education was about 20 years earlier than mine, and everything that I've read indicates an ongoing decline in American schools. Secondly, you have much greater experience with college and graduate level classes. I know that college professors in the hard sciences are on average, much more intelligent and competent than the typical K-12 teacher. I am not convinced that the ones in the humanities are, on average, even sane anymore.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

And exactly what "experience" is your conclusion based on?

I usually take the term "teacher" to mean a K-12 teacher, vs. a professor, so that was the context I intended, and I should have made that clearer.

Okay. I do not want to argue here about K-12 grades, since the context is Founders College.