...or My Frauduation Speech

Dear Reader!

As I have told you before, Sir Popper prepared an answer - and at last I have time to publish it. The topic is the same, the view is different.

What if the most annoyed student, who also thinks he has got nothing from his degree, had the luck to speak up?

What would you say?

[15.04.2010]

[2:02 a.m.]

Popper

Dear someone,

I am not very good at writing – I do that relatively rare – but sometimes I just can’t help myself. Yesterday I saw a post from my group fellow, and, well, was a bit struck by his words. Not in the positive way. (And I’m sorry – my language is quite simple comparing to his, so this is not really a ‘rebuttal’, as he would have put it.)

I am also graduating quiet soon, and I studied almost at the same programme as Mr. Fox (they are all pretty much alike, by the way). I am certainly not to speak at the graduation ceremony, but, at least, I can think of what my speech would be like.

“Dear professors, lecturers, deans and everyone else!

Thank you for this magnificent opportunity to express my deep gratitude!

First of all, thank you for helping me understand that international relations and political science are not really science. The amount of biases, stereotypes, scholasticism, combined with great politicization and ideologization, lack of expertise in vast areas and unproven belief in the ability to predict – all that make a ‘body of knowledge’ at best, but I cannot call it science. Why do I speak about science? Because science, like physics or chemistry, helps us in real world, it explains something that exists. That doesn't really sound like IR, don’t you think?

Thank you, dear professors, for showing me that not everyone can teach. If you have knowledge, it doesn’t mean that you can transmit it. Especially if you are not perfectly sure about the subject you are teaching – or if your view is one sided, which is rather common. Chemistry teachers are not divided into ideological groups of ‘metal’ and ‘nonmetal’ adepts – they have to combine both types of elements in their teaching; otherwise it is not chemistry. You may specialize in one field, or even one specific topics – but you cannot be ‘ideologically motivated’ to research some features of nonmetals in outer space and oppose a similar research of metals.

Thank you for translating the words ‘interdisciplinary’, ‘broad’, ‘comprehensive’ into a truly comprehensible language. Now I know that by these vague notions you mean ‘no real specialization’, ‘lacking necessary details’ and ‘simplistic’ respectively. I understand that you use these words for marketing reasons, but I still honestly believe that in science (or education) you have to be as clear and accurate, as possible.

Oh, I have almost forgotten! I cannot help but to thank you for wonderful courses and textbooks! I admit that it takes some effort to make a couple of master’s programmes with uniquely similar core and optional subjects, which themselves elaborate on the same vast topic of ‘international relations non-theory and non-practice’. It is rather peculiar: almost all the courses might have different names and even lecturers, but they tend to focus on close, sometimes almost identical vague topics of ‘world order’, ‘regions’ and ‘ultratendencies’.

‘Ultratendencies’! The whole department wrote for this textbook, and every professor and lecturer brought a piece of her or his precious experience and knowledge. The result, however, is a pretentious selection of not-so-related topics, with a lack of deep analysis.  A kit/guide to pass the exams. Bittnais wrote an interesting book with almost the same title some decades ago, but it was his opinion, not an answer to anything that happens on Earth, which the students have to use with deep piety. Thank you for making me realize that indoctrination is still one of the major features of an education in the IR and politics, and it prohibits people from reasonable and unbiased thinking.

I might sound evil, vile or disrespectful, but I am truly grateful for making me understand such essential things. Some people may say that since I am not a professor yet I have no right to evaluate my teachers (this is a quote, by the way) – but I believe that the students, especially the well-educated and conscious ones, are the best evaluators of any teacher and his or her teaching. The student, the one who receives, is able to assess the teacher’s effort, because it is hard to comprehend your own mistakes. If the student does not tell you that you might be wrong, or that something you teach might be nonsense, the education will stagnate. How can you call yourself a teacher, if you cannot, or not ready to, confront your students on your own territory?

Though I usually refrain from using the word bullshit, I cannot evaluate the profound work you have done with me any higher.

Thank you, again, and good luck at your not-so-academic activities!”

Dear someone!

I do not want to be misunderstood: I am not against education, even the graduate one. However if you choose to obtain one, please, choose wisely and be as sceptic as you can.

P.S. Self-education is ALWAYS an answer.