Interview par VÉRONIQUE SOULÉ. Longtemps, les diplômes ont eu très peu de liens avec le monde professionnel. L’école n’était là que pour éduquer et instruire. Analyse de Claude Lelièvre, historien de l’éducation.
Claude Lelièvre, historien de l’éducation, retrace l’évolution du rôle des diplômes dans le système éducatif français.
Le diplôme a-t-il toujours été un sésame pour l’emploi ou au moins un facilitateur?
Pas du tout. Pendant longtemps, les diplômes ont eu très peu de liens avec le monde professionnel. Prenons par exemple l’un de ceux qui a eu le plus grand succès, le certificat d’études primaires. Parmi les lauréats, seuls quelques-uns en avaient vraiment besoin: ceux qui voulaient devenir employés de banques, des chemins de fer ou encore instituteurs… Mais la plupart n’en avaient pas besoin pour s’insérer dans la vie professionnelle. Ce certificat - l’examen emblématique de l’école du peuple - était pourtant très recherché et l’on organisait de grandes cérémonies de remises de diplômes...
La création du bac a-t-elle changé les choses?
Non. Le bac créé en 1808 par Napoléon Ier était le bac français-latin-grec. Il était nécessaire pour continuer des études. Mais il avait surtout un rôle de distinction socioculturelle - on l’appelait d’ailleurs «le brevet de bourgeoisie» -, et il ne servait pas à accéder à une profession. En fait, l’école et la formation professionnelle étaient deux questions différentes. Voir l'article entier. Voir aussi Nouveau Master: Tourisme, Langues, Patrimoine en développement durable des "Mondes arabe, musulman et hamito-sémitique".

Holly Higgins asks what students' reflections on the benefits of higher education can tell us about the relationship between HE and employment.
Public debate about the purpose and practice of higher educatation is currently dominated by a discourse of employability which privileges the financial rewards of achieving a HE qualification over the personal and social rewards associated with the experience itself. Critics of this discourse argue that attempts to isolate preparation for employment from other aspects of personal and social development are unhelpful because they fail to take into account the interrelationship between personal, educational and professional development.
In 2011 HECSU [Higher Education Careers Services Unit] conducted a survey in which graduates were invited to reflect on their experience of higher education. We found that graduates who believed their participation had contributed to their personal and professional development demonstrated an awareness of the broader purposes of HE, while those who perceived their education to be of little or no value were more likely to view university as a means to an end.
'I wouldn't be where I am today without the experiences and knowledge I gained from my time at university'
Graduates who believed that participating in HE had contributed to their personal development explained how studying for a degree helped them to develop confidence in their own ability, giving them the courage to volunteer and defend their own ideas, and challenge the opinions of others. They also felt that attending university had given them the opportunity to engage with, and learn from, people they might not otherwise have met, prompting them to reassess their priorities and think more critically about their own ideas and ambitions. Describing the social and intellectual rewards of HE, these graduates explained how the experience gave them confidence in their ability to make sense of new ideas and unfamiliar concepts, and understand, manage, and summarise complex information. They explained how studying for a degree taught them how to appraise other peoples' work and apply their own knowledge, and their description of the way studying for a degree taught them to evaluate their skills and knowledge suggests that participating in HE also prompted them to adopt some of the behaviours associated with career self-management.
These graduates felt that achieving a degree demonstrated that a student had the intellectual ability to engage with, and understand, unfamiliar concepts and ideas. They were determined to achieve success within the labour market, and encouraged current students to make the most of opportunities to engage with academic knowledge, gain work experience, participate in extracurricular activities, and develop their social skills.
'I do not feel my degree benefited me at all. I thought it was a waste of time'
While many graduates agreed that participating in HE contributed to their personal development, some argued that it was of little or no value because it had not enabled them to secure a particular kind of job. These graduates had struggled to find what they considered to be a "graduate" job and felt that universities were no better at equipping students with transferable skills than schools or colleges. They believed that achieving a degree demonstrated that a student had acquired the necessary knowledge and skills to perform a particular role, but were pessimistic about their chances of achieving success within the labour market, arguing that nepotism was rife and that they did not have the contacts to secure a job in their subject area. They felt many students would be better off pursuing professional or vocational qualifications that are designed to prepare them for employment, and wished they had done the same.
'Don't think it's just about what employers want. University is a great opportunity to learn what you can do as an individual'
Students' orientations towards higher education are important because they influence their understanding of, engagement with, and ambitions for academic learning, extracurricular activities, and employment. They also inform students' understanding of the relationship between education and the wider world. Our preliminary findings suggest that the current discourse of employability is preventing some students from engaging in HE in a way which facilitates the personal and social development which will enable them to secure fulfilling employment and make a meaningful contribution to the economy. It is a timely reminder that universities and policy makers need to do more to remind students of the broader purposes of higher education if they want students to participate fully in university life.
This is an excerpt from the Higher Education Careers Services Unit's spring edition of Graduate Market Trends. The full article can be viewed at hecsu.ac.uk.

A chacun sa personnalité? A chacun son entreprise? - 5 avril 2012 - Image de l’entreprise: facteur d’attractivité ou source de malentendus.
À l'occasion de la sortie de l'étude d'ACG (Alternative Consulting Group) Image de l'entreprise: facteur d'attractivité ou source de malentendus trois tables rondes sont organisées au Palais d'Iéna le jeudi 5 avril 2012 de 14h15 à 20h00.
Les jeunes sont-ils bien faits pour l’entreprise dans laquelle ils postulent ? L’évolution des modèles public – privé, les signaux, parfois éloignés de la réalité, émis par les entreprises qui recrutent peuvent dérouter les jeunes entrant sur le marché du travail.
A l’appui d’une étude: Image de l’entreprise, facteur d’attractivité ou source de malentendus, conduite par le groupe l’Etudiant et le Cabinet de conseil ACG, chefs d’entreprise, chercheurs, journalistes débattront au cours de trois tables rondes.
L’étude, à laquelle 10 000 jeunes ont répondu, sera rendue publique, au cours de cet après-midi du Jeudi 5 Avril.
Elle donnera un certain nombre de clefs pour mieux comprendre les motivations des jeunes à postuler, à la fin de leurs études, pour telle ou telle entreprise et contribuera à formuler des suggestions aux entreprises quant à la mise en cohérence de leurs stratégies de ressources humaines- et plus spécifiquement de leur recrutement - avec les ressorts qui animent la génération des jeunes salariés.
Accéder au Programme en ligne.
Les jeunes sont-ils bien faits pour l’entreprise dans laquelle ils postulent?
L’évolution des modèles public – privé, les signaux, parfois éloignés de la réalité, émis par les entreprises qui recrutent peuvent dérouter les jeunes entrant sur le marché du travail.
A l’appui d’une étude: Image de l’entreprise, facteur d’attractivité ou source de malentendus, conduite par le groupe l’Etudiant et le Cabinet de conseil ACG, chefs d’entreprise, chercheurs, journalistes débattront au cours de trois tables rondes.
L’étude, à laquelle 10 000 jeunes ont répondu, sera rendue publique, au cours de cet après-midi du Jeudi 5 Avril.
Elle donnera un certain nombre de clefs pour mieux comprendre les motivations des jeunes à postuler, à la fin de leurs études, pour telle ou telle entreprise. Et contribuera à formuler des suggestions aux entreprises quant à la mise en cohérence de leurs stratégies de ressources humaines - et plus spécifiquement de leur recrutement - avec les ressorts qui animent la génération des jeunes salariés.

Wissenschaftsminister Karlheinz Töchterle und Philosoph Konrad Paul Liessmann über Studiengebühren, freien Hochschulzugang und ihre akademischen Idealwelten. Konrad Paul Liessmann. Der Philosoph, geboren 1953 in Villach, unterrichtet an der Universität Wien, leitet das Philosophicum Lech und wurde zum Wissenschaftler des Jahres 2006 gewählt. Karlheinz Töchterle. Der Altphilologe, geboren 1949 in Brixlegg, war vier Jahre Rektor der Universität Innsbruck, bevor er im April 2011 als Wissenschaftsminister in die Politik wechselte.
DIE ZEIT: Wenn in der vergangenen Zeit über Universitäten und Bildungspolitik debattiert wurde, stand hauptsächlich eine Frage im Mittelpunkt: jene der Studiengebühren. Ist das tatsächlich das zentrale Problem?
Karlheinz Töchterle: Es ist nicht das zentrale, aber es ist ein Problem, weil die Studienbeiträge schon einige positive Effekte zeitigten.
Konrad Paul Liessmann: Nach ihrer Abschaffung wurden die Studiengebühren zu einem politisch-symbolischen Thema. Aber an den Universitäten spielten sie nicht die Rolle, die man ihnen zuschreibt. Erstens weil der Widerstand der Studierenden nicht in der Weise gegeben war, wie das manche politische Parteien gerne hätten. Und zweitens machen sie im Gesamtbudget der Universitäten nur einen Bruchteil aus.
Töchterle: Da bin ich anderer Meinung, denn es ist ja auch ein Argument der Gegner der Studienbeiträge, zu behaupten, es handle sich um eine vernachlässigbare Größe. Ich verwende hingegen gerne diesen Vergleich: Mir ist es gerade gelungen, für die nächsten drei Jahre eine Hochschulmilliarde zusätzlich zu lukrieren; Studienbeiträge in maßvoller Höhe würden noch einmal eine halbe Milliarde Euro in diesen drei Jahren einbringen. Also ganz unwichtig sind sie nicht.
Liessmann: Das war von mir kein Argument gegen Studiengebühren, sondern nur gegen den Eindruck, der in der Öffentlichkeit entstanden ist, die Finanzierung der Universitäten hinge von ihnen essenziell ab. Das tut sie nicht. Studiengebühren hatten vor allem auch eine disziplinierende Wirkung, wir erhielten durch sie realistischere Zahlen, was die Studenten und ihre Aktivitäten betrifft. Anderseits muss man schon sagen, dass, vom politischen Symbolgehalt, her die Idee des freien Hochschulzuganges einen eigenen Wert darstellt.
ZEIT: Verstehe ich Sie richtig: Nett, wenn es sie gäbe, aber es geht auch ohne?
Töchterle: Das ist nicht meine Position. Ich will sie. Sie sind wichtig. Konrad, du hast den freien Hochschulzugang in den Mund genommen. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob ein freier Hochschulzugang weniger frei wäre, wenn er mit einem Beitrag behaftet ist. Ich verneine diese Frage.
Liessmann: Wenn man 30.000 Euro und mehr jährlich, wie an manchen amerikanischen Universitäten, zahlen muss, dann ist das nicht mehr frei.
Töchterle: Ich verneine, weil die Empirie dagegen spricht. Die bessere soziale Durchmischung der Fachhochschulen, die Gebühren einheben dürfen, beweist das. Für mich sind Studienbeiträge außerdem sozial gerechter.
ZEIT: Wieso?
Töchterle: Sie sind verteilungspolitisch gerechter. Ich möchte einfach, dass die vielen ausländischen Studenten, die mir sehr willkommen sind, einen Beitrag leisten zur Finanzierung der österreichischen Universitäten. Außerdem finanzieren wir beispielsweise extrem teure Musikstudien für wohlhabende Amerikaner und Japaner, die derzeit ihre Ausbildung zum Nulltarif erhalten. Auch hier besteht eine Schieflage zu den Fachhochschulen: Die dürfen nun Studierenden aus Nicht-EU-Ländern die tatsächlichen Kosten abverlangen.
Liessmann: Die grundsätzliche Frage lautet doch: Welche Leistungen und Güter müssen vom Staat für die Steuern, die wir alle zahlen, wieder für alle in gleichem Maß zur Verfügung gestellt werden? Im Prinzip gehört Bildung dazu. Aber man muss danach fragen, wie diese Bildung zu verstehen ist, die für alle offenzuhalten ist. Da haben wir seltsame Konstellationen: Kindergärten sind kostenpflichtig, Grundschulen und höhere Schulen sind es nicht, Universitäten sind es mitunter, Fachhochschulen und pädagogische Akademien sind kostenpflichtig.
Seite 2 Die Frage des freien Studienzuganges. Seite 3 "Die Freiheit der wissenschaftlichen Neugier wird sabotiert". Seite 4 "Nicht Studienplätze schaffen, sondern verbessern".

New York, 19 December 2011 — Today the United Nations General Assembly in New York adopted the declaration on human rights education and training as prepared by the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training A/HRC/WG.9/1/CRP.1/REV.2. Download the declaration on human rights education and training.
Proposed draft declaration on human rights education and training as prepared by the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training, A/HRC/WG.9/1/CRP.1/REV.2.
[The General Assembly]
PP1 Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations for the promotion and encouragement of respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion,
PP2 Reaffirming that every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
PP3 Reaffirming that everyone has the right to education, and that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace, security, and the promotion of development and human rights,
PP4 Reaffirming that States are duty-bound, as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in other human rights instruments, to ensure that education is aimed at strengthening the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
PP5 Acknowledging the fundamental importance of human rights education and training in contributing to the promotion, protection and effective realization of all human rights,
PP6 Reaffirming the call of the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993 on all States and institutions to include human rights, humanitarian law, democracy and rule of law in the curricula of all learning institutions, and stating that human rights education should include peace, democracy, development and social justice, as set forth in international and regional human rights instruments, in order to achieve common understanding and awareness with a view to strengthening universal commitment to human rights,
PP7 Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome, in which Heads of State and Government supported the promotion of human rights education and learning at all levels, including through the implementation of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, and encouraged all States to develop initiatives in this regard,
PP8 Motivated by the desire to send a strong signal to the international community to strengthen all efforts in human rights education and training through a collective commitment by all stakeholders,
Declares:
ARTICLE 1
(1) Human rights education and training is essential for the promotion of universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights.
(2) Therefore, everyone has the right to seek and to have access to human rights education and training.
(3) The effective enjoyment of all human rights, in particular the right to education, and access to information, enables access to human rights education and training.
ARTICLE 2
(1) Human rights education and training comprises all educational, training, information, awareness-raising and learning activities aimed at promoting universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and thus contributing, with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviours, to empower them to contribute to the building and promotion of a universal culture of human rights.
(2) Human rights education and training encompasses education:
(a) About human rights, which includes providing knowledge and understanding of human rights norms and principles, the values which underpin them, and mechanisms for their protection;
(b) Through human rights, which includes learning and teaching in a way that respects the rights of both educators and learners;
(c) For human rights, which includes empowering persons to enjoy and exercise their rights and to respect and uphold the rights of others.
ARTICLE 3
(1) Human rights education and training is a lifelong process that concerns all ages.
(2) Human rights education and training concerns all parts of society, all levels, including preschool, primary, secondary and higher education, taking into account academic freedom where applicable, and all forms of education, training and learning, whether in a public or private, formal, informal or non-formal setting. It includes inter alia vocational training, particularly the training of trainers, teachers and State officials, continuing education, popular education, and public information and awareness activities.
(3) Human rights education and training should use languages and methods suited to target groups, taking into account their specific needs and conditions.
ARTICLE 4
Human rights education and training should be based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant treaties and instruments, with a view to:
(a) Raising awareness, understanding, and acceptance of universal human rights standards and principles, as well as guarantees at the international, regional and national levels for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;
(b) Developing a universal culture of human rights, in which everyone is aware of their own rights and responsibilities in respect of the rights of others, and promoting the development of the individual as a responsible member of a free, peaceful, pluralist and inclusive society;
(c) Pursuing the effective realization of all human rights and promoting tolerance, non-discrimination and equality;
(d) Ensuring equal opportunities for all, through access to quality human rights education and training, without any discrimination;
(e) Contributing to the prevention of human rights violations and abuses and to the combating and eradication of all forms of discrimination, racism, stereotyping, incitement to hatred, and the harmful attitudes and prejudices that underlie them.
ARTICLE 5
(1) Human rights education and training, whether provided by public or private actors, should be based on the principles of equality, human dignity, inclusion and non-discrimination, particularly equality between girls and boys and between women and men.
persons, and should take into account the particular challenges and barriers faced by, and the needs and expectations of, individuals belonging to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, including persons with disabilities, in order to promote empowerment and human development and to contribute to the elimination of the causes of exclusion or marginalization, as well as enable everyone to exercise all their rights.
(3) Human rights education and training should embrace and enrich, as well as draw inspiration from, the diversity of civilizations, religions, cultures and traditions of different countries, as it is reflected in the universality of human rights.
(4) Human rights education and training should take into account different economic, social and cultural circumstances, while promoting local initiatives in order to encourage ownership of the common goal of the fulfillment of all human rights for all.
ARTICLE 6
(1) Human rights education and training should capitalize on, and make use of new information and communication technologies, as well as the media, to promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(2) The arts should be encouraged as a means of training and raising awareness in the field of human rights.
ARTICLE 7
(1) States, and where applicable relevant governmental authorities, have the primary responsibility to promote and ensure human rights education and training, developed and implemented in a spirit of participation, inclusion, and responsibility.
(2) States should create a safe and enabling environment for the engagement of civil society, the private sector, and other relevant stakeholders in human rights education and training, in which the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, including of those engaged in the process, are fully protected.
(3) States should take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to ensure, to the maximum of their available resources, the progressive implementation of human rights education and training by appropriate means, including the adoption of legislative and administrative measures and policies.
(4) States and relevant governmental authorities should ensure adequate training in human rights and, where appropriate, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, of State officials, civil servants, judges, law enforcement officials, military personnel, as well as promote adequate training in human rights for teachers, trainers, and other educators and private personnel acting on behalf of the State.
ARTICLE 8
(l) States should develop or promote the development at the appropriate level of strategies and policies, and, where appropriate, action plans and programs to implement human rights education and training, such as through its integration in school and training curricula. In so doing, they should take into account the World Programme for Human Rights Education and specific national and local needs and priorities.
(2) The conception, implementation, evaluation and follow-up to such strategies, action plans, policies and programs should involve all relevant stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society and national human rights institutions, by promoting, where appropriate, multi-stakeholder initiatives.
ARTICLE 9
States should promote the establishment, development and strengthening of effective and independent national human rights institutions, according to the Paris Principles, recognizing that national human rights institutions can play an important, including, where necessary, a coordinating role, in promoting human rights education and training by, inter alia, raising awareness and mobilizing relevant public and private actors.
ARTICLE 10
(1) Various actors within society, inter alia, educational institutions, the media, families, local communities, civil society institutions, including non-governmental organizations, human rights defenders, the private sector, and other non-state actors have an important role to play in promoting and providing human rights education and training.
(2) Civil society institutions, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to ensure adequate human rights education and training for their staff and personnel.
ARTICLE 11
The United Nations, international and regional organizations should provide human rights education and training for their civilian personnel, and military and police personnel serving under their mandates.
ARTICLE 12
(1) International cooperation at all levels should support and reinforce national efforts, including where applicable at the local level, to implement human rights education and training.
(2) Complementary and coordinated efforts at the international, regional, national and local levels can contribute to more effective implementation of human rights education and training.
(3) Voluntary funding for projects and initiatives in the field of human rights education and training should be encouraged.
ARTICLE 13
(1) International and regional human rights mechanisms should, within their respective mandates, take into account human rights education and training in their work.
(2) States are encouraged to include, where appropriate, information on the measures that they have adopted in the field of human rights education and training in their reports to relevant human rights mechanisms.
ARTICLE 14
States should take appropriate measures to ensure the effective implementation of and follow-up to this Declaration and make the necessary resources available in this regard.
Download the declaration on human rights education and training.

By Scott Jaschik, for Inside Higher Ed. “Blind peer review is dead. It just doesn’t know it yet.” That’s the way Aaron J. Barlow, an associate professor of English at the College of Technology of the City University of New York, summed up his views on the future of the traditional way of deciding whose work gets published in the humanities.
Professor Barlow did not dispute that most of the top journals in the humanities continue to select papers this way. But speaking in Seattle at a session of the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association, he argued that technology has so changed the ability of scholars to share their findings that it is only a matter of time before people rise up against the conventions of traditional journal publishing.
While others on the panel and in the audience argued for a reformed peer review as preferable to Professor Barlow’s vision of smashing the enterprise, and some questioned the practicality of simply walking away from peer review immediately, the idea that the system needs radical change was not challenged. Professor Barlow said that the system might have been justified once when old-style publishing put a significant limit on the quantity of scholarship that could be shared. But in a new era, he said, the justifications were gone. (Reflecting the new technology era, Barlow and one other panellist spoke via Skype to an audience that included two tables and wireless internet access to allow bloggers, Twitter users and journalists to write about the proceedings as they were taking place.)
To many knowing nods in the room, Professor Barlow argued that the traditional system of blind peer review – in which submissions are sent off to reviewers, whose judgements then determine whether papers are accepted, with no direct communication with authors – had serious problems with fairness. He said that the system rewards “conformity” and allows for considerable bias.
He described a recent experience in which he was recruited by “a prestigious venue” to review a paper that related in some ways to research he had done. Professor Barlow’s work was not mentioned anywhere in the piece, and he realised that the journal editor figured that he would be annoyed by the omission. And although he was, Professor Barlow said he did not feel that assigning the piece to him to review was fair to the author. “It was a set-up. The editor didn’t want a positive review, so the burden of rejection was passed on to someone the author would not know.”
He refused to go along and declined to review the paper when he realised what was going on. This sort of “corruption” is common, he said.
Professor Barlow has a long publishing record, so his frustrations with the system cannot be chalked up to being unable to get his ideas out there. But he said that when one of his papers was rejected recently, he simply published it on his blog directly, where comments have come in from fans and foes of his work.
“I love the editorial process” when comments result in a piece becoming better, he said, and digital publishing allows this to happen easily. But traditional peer review simply delays publication and leaves decision-making “in the dark”. Peer review – in the sense that people will comment on work and a consensus may emerge that a given paper is important or not – does not need to take place prior to publication, he said.
“We don’t need the bottleneck or the corruption,” he said. The only reason blind peer review survives is that “we have made appearance in peer-reviewed journals the standard” for tenure and promotion decisions. That will change over time, he predicted, and then the traditional system will collapse.
Peer review plus
While Professor Barlow noted the ability of digital publishing to bypass peer review, the idea of an intense, collaborative process for selecting pieces and improving them came at the session from the editor of Kairos, an online journal on rhetoric and technology that publishes work prepared for the web. Kairos has become an influential journal, but Cheryl Ball, the editor and an associate professor of English at Illinois State University, discussed how frustrating it was that people assume that an online journal must not have peer review. “Ignorance about digital scholarship” means that she must constantly explain the journal, she said.
Kairos uses a three-stage review process. First, editors decide if a submission makes sense for a review. Then, the entire editorial board discusses the submission (online) for two weeks before reaching a consensus that is communicated to the author with detailed letters from the board. (Board members’ identities are public, so there is no secrecy about who reviews pieces.) Then, if appropriate, someone is assigned to work with the author to coach him or her on how to improve the piece before publication.
As Professor Ball described the process, thousands of words are written about submissions, and lengthy discussions take place – all to figure out the best content for the journal. But there are no secret reviewers, and the coaching process allows for a collaborative effort to prepare a final version, not someone guessing about how to handle a “revise and resubmit” letter.
The process is quite detailed, but also allows for individual consideration of editorial board members’ concerns and of authors’ approaches, Professor Ball said. “Peer reviewers don’t need rubrics. They need good ways to communicate,” she said. Along those lines, Kairos is updating its tools for editorial board consideration of pieces to allow for synchronous chat, the use of electronic “sticky notes” and other ways to help authors not only with words, but also with digital graphics and illustrations.
Learning from law reviews
Allen Mendenhall, a PhD student at Auburn University who is also a blogger and a lawyer, suggested that humanities journals could take some lessons from law reviews. Mr Mendenhall is well aware of (and agrees with) many criticisms of law reviews, and in particular of the reliance for decisions on law students who may not know much about the areas of scholarship they are evaluating.
But he offered law reviews as an example of how a new web service could challenge the traditional ways of doing things. Many law reviews now use ExpressO to allow authors to submit a paper to multiple law journals at the same time. Once a journal accepts a piece, the author has a set time to reply – and during that time can notify other law reviews that participate of the chance to accept the piece on an expedited basis, in which case the author will place the piece there.
“The author is rushing journals the way college students rush a fraternity or sorority,” he said.
Obviously this system deviates in all kinds of ways from the norms of humanities scholarship, Mr Mendenhall said, in that most journals expect to be the only place considering a piece. But he argued that this system forces journals to stop sitting on pieces. “Everyone is competing, and that speeds up the publication process,” he said.
Recently, Mr Mendenhall had four pieces published in journals – one through ExpressO and three through the traditional peer-review system. The traditionally vetted pieces appeared seven months, nine months and two years after he submitted the articles. The ExpressO article appeared two and a half months after he submitted it.
A speedier process, he said, helps scholarship by getting ideas out there. But it also helps junior faculty members – and that is a legitimate reason to consider changes, he said. “Why should we wait months or years for a response?” he said. “Speed can help untenured professors add to their CVs and build a reputation. It’s more power for authors.”

Une autre difficulté réside dans les insuffisances du dialogue social sur les technologies et les organisations du travail comme vecteur des modernisations. Or aujourd’hui il n’est plus concevable de piloter les innovations technologiques et les transformations de l’industrie sous un angle strictement productiviste lié à une conception de rentabilité de court-terme. De même il faut se garder d’une approche de la relance industrielle essentiellement focalisée sur le développement quantitatif des emplois. Une relance industrielle durable et écologique sera porteuse d’emplois plus qualifiés que l’ancienne industrie, ne générera plus d’énormes unités de production et se diffusera dans des entreprises moyennes qui faciliteront la revitalisation des territoires sans pour autant se détourner du marché mondial.
L’investissement dans la recherche industrielle et ses applications nécessitent un débat politique et citoyen d’où les salariés ne peuvent pas être exclus. Mais ce débat ne pourra se passer d’un vaste effort d’information et de formation sur l’impact des dizaines de nouvelles technologies. Celles-ci sont en train d’émerger, de se diffuser dans l’appareil productif et d’ouvrir le champ à la création de nouvelles entreprises d’un troisième type (après les manufactures et les usines tayloriennes et post-tayloriennes). Ces entreprises existent et leurs innovations ont été partiellement révélées dans les pôles de compétitivité dont l’action est restée encore trop confidentielle. Pourtant le foisonnement des innovations n’a pas manqué à l’occasion de cette initiative qui nécessite d’être accompagnée:
- par une politique environnementale fondée sur l’appui aux technologies « vertes»  ou « propres» .
- par une politique d’investissement plus visible et mieux articulée aux dynamiques et initiatives territoriales.
- par une politique de formation professionnelle initiale et continue ayant comme priorité la restructuration et la modernisation des centres de formation pluri-niveaux à vocation technologique en lien avec les labos de recherche et les écoles d’ingénieurs.
L’exigence environnementale nécessite une politique d’investissement de fonds publics critériés selon des priorités d’intérêt général et de croissance économique. Ces deux objectifs ne sont pas antagoniques mais ne sont pas non plus spontanément convergents d’où la nécessité d’un débat plus transparent sur la compatibilité de ces deux volets. Sans ce débat c’est la confrontation stérile entre les idéologies productivistes et écologiques qui l’importera. Les potentialités d’innovations technologiques sont illimitées mais elles ne dépendent pas uniquement de l’inventivité des chercheurs et des ingénieurs, elles sont conditionnées par la maturité du dialogue social, du débat citoyen et de l’investissement éducatif et formatif.

By Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson. Many need-based student aid programs are designed to solve only one problem–inadequate funds to pay for education. There is no doubt that transferring funds to low- and moderate-income students is a critical component of making postsecondary education an option for them.  But necessary is not the same as sufficient.  And we may have focused so much on attempting to increase the number of dollars we provide to students that we have lost track of some of the other things they need to succeed.
It is not news that financial barriers don’t explain all of the differences in educational attainment across socioeconomic groups. There is extensive evidence that inadequate academic preparation, combined with low expectations and a discouraging history of past schooling experiences, often plays a large role. Nonetheless, we remain highly focused on dollars. One reason is because we know how to cure a lack of money. Give someone more and deliver it more simply. We don’t know how to cure the deeper social and educational problems–not for young children starting out and certainly not for older individuals who have already suffered from limited opportunities.
But another reason we focus so much on dollars is because we hesitate to be overly intrusive in people’s lives. Isn’t it paternalistic to force choices different from those people would make on their own? Isn’t it discriminatory to demand that low-income students follow pre-set paths not required of more privileged students whose parents pay for luxury along with education?  But the number of students following unsuccessful educational paths is too high. Many make the mistake of not going to college at all because they don’t think they can afford it or find the idea of immediate earnings more enticing.  But others enter inappropriate postsecondary programs in which they have little chance of succeeding. Many of these students borrow too much money and/or take loans with harsh terms they don’t understand.
Psychologists and behavioral economists have shown that people often fare better when their choices are limited, in contexts as different as shopping for groceries and selecting a retirement plan. The hands-off, you-are-an-independent-adult approach to college may not work so well even for students with college-experienced parents at home waiting to advise, but it surely is not working well enough for many first-generation and disadvantaged students.  We can’t hope to give a student from a $25,000-a-year family enough money to put her on an equal footing with students from $150,000-a-year families who enter college with such strong educational backgrounds and such strong support (financial and other) from home that she is unlikely to catch up even if she manages to get through college. But we can do a better job of providing direction, academic and social support, and strong incentives for timely completion of quality credentials. We don’t know the perfect way to do this, but we know some promising strategies. These strategies cost money. The money to support these efforts may be more important to student success than a few extra dollars of no-strings-attached financial aid.
This is not an argument for less funding for financial aid. It is an argument for better-designed programs that provide at-risk students with more than just a little extra cash.

By Nigel Thrift. The nature of expertise is a variable thing. It is fascinating how and why people come to be seen as legitimate commentators on issues, sometimes when they can be demonstrated to have little deep understanding of those same issues.
Of course, the tendency is always there in media democracies where having an opinion is often confused with being informed. But the tendency has certainly been fueled of late. Newspapers that attempted to check all their facts New York Times style are flickering out of existence as the Internet achieves a new media hegemony. Those newspapers that are left increasingly seem to be repositories of comments as much as news. Internet search patterns tend to be quite narrow and to confirm rather than challenge opinions. All kinds of celebrity seem to have been given carte blanche to pronounce on whatever they like, often in real time through the use of Twitter (in the U.K., stand-up comedians–a modern plague if ever there was one–seem to be cornering the market). And so on.
Universities are hardly immune to this tendency. Those academics who achieve a measure of fame are often tempted to move outside their area of expertise: how often do we hear Nobel Prize winners suddenly taking on the mantle of knowledge of many other things than the area for which they won the prize, sometimes with rather embarrassing results? Then, some academics have become involved with the press in ways which mean that their opinions tend to be sought out on a wide range of issues, some of which are tangential to their concerns, to put it kindly. Finally, many academics, in their search for media impact, seem to be actively seeking out quirky fact, as can be found in some parts of psychology and economics.
Part of the reason for this state of affairs is clearly competition. It is not only that universities have been challenged as sources of knowledge by some of the tendencies I have already outlined but also that other sources of knowledge have grown up: so-called Type 2 organizations like consultancies and nongovernmental organizations that dispense knowledge in different ways to universities but still make similar truth claims.
If the public is not to fragment into multiple publics all of whom are allowed to believe exactly what they want and are able to find multiple ways of confirming it as the case, then some kind of push back needs to occur. And it is heartening to see the signs of that beginning to happen. Not only are there now all kinds of fact-check Web sites, designed to give as accurate information as possible in the face of the more lurid claims made by politicians and the like but universities are also becoming involved. For example, the Australian university project, The Conversation, is intended to provide trusted and reliable information based on academic research but edited by professional journalists. Individual universities are also becoming active (see, for example, Warwick’s The Knowledge Centre).
In other words, a fight-back has begun and not before time. We can but hope that this counter-attack will not only give universities more confidence in their own worth at a time when they are often under pressure but also feed new practices of informed democracy.