It's interesting to hear that some of the law faculty aren't exactly experts. The same applies to Dawkins - he's a fine populariser of science and did some useful work in the 70s. But he's not been a scientist for decades now and is pretty much as far from the cutting edge of research in evolutionary biology as I am. If they wanted world leading researchers to contribute, they'd go for a Michael Lynch or a Richard Lenski or a Joe Thornton. Instead, they've gone for a celebrity. For £18,000 a year I'd expect much much better.

I have to say that I find some of the opposition to NCHUMS to be worrying. Whilst I am no fan of NCHUMS and would not recommend anyone to study there (at least on the basis of the information currently available) - disrupting meetings at which Mr Grayling is speaking is wrong. Although establishing NCHUMS may be misguided - the promoters of this institution have every right to do so - and individuals have every right to pay the fees and study there. To restrict Mr Grayling and his colleagues from establishing NCHUMS or to prevent individuals from spending their money on its education is unnacceptable in a free society.

We also have to remember that there is nothing novel in establishing a tertiary teaching establishment as a corporation. University College London was established in 1826 as a joint stock corporation, and the London School of Economics is to this day a company incorporated under the Companies Acts. In both cases, the prevailing academic establishments were unsympathetic (to say the least) to these new institutions.

Apparently the 14 'top academics' aren't even going to provide the one-to-one tuition that is one of the College's supposed offerings.

http://alicejtyler.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-college-new-problems.html

For their canteen, I'm going to re-sell them Tesco Value biscuits at £45 a packet - once I've set myself up as a charity.

@Andrew, the model of a teaching institution preparing students for London external degrees is perfectly valid - that's not the problem.

As David Allen Green said in his post:
"If there is to be some brave new initiative to protect and cherish the teaching of the humanities in this country then it should not be a glorified crammer for rich students [...]" - that's the problem.

Grayling's proposed New College is neither as revolutionary nor as protective of the Humanities as it pretends to be. Instead, it widens participation to students who are happy to pay double in order to get substantial additional (maybe badly needed) academic and pastoral support.

I'm not against Grayling exploiting this niche in the market, I'm opposed to the way he sells it.

Who would read Eagleton on anything at all? The mans a sham.

There are already a number of ways that people with money can pay for the privilege of studying with top professors - Harvard Extension School, for example. For a while, Oxford, Princeton, Stanford and Yale joined forces to offer on-line classes taught by distinguished faculty members (at least that's how it was promoted). It folded after a couple of years. The question then is whether the college is promoting itself by making claims that are bogus.
I suspect I know what David's answer is, but I wouldn't like to put the word into his mouth.

As to whether the college supplies value for money, there are two tests. First, if students at the New College regularly graduate with higher than average University of London degrees. I myself taught in a crammer when I was a postgraduate students, and we all knew that was the test - did our students finish with better than average a-level grades? Since those degrees are not awarded by the New College, they will be a good test of the teachings skills of its professoriate.

Secondly, the College will give its own diploma for extra work done by students that is not part of the University of London's own curriculum. As I understand British law, anyone can set up an institution that gives out diplomas or certificates - as long as they do not call that diploma a degree. These qualifications have whatever value employers choose to give them. The hope of the New College is that employers will seek out graduates with its diploma, because it is meant to certify that they exactly the skills employers seek.

If a diploma or certificate is available to everyone who pays a fee, it is worthless. If some people pay a high price to take a course, but they still fail, then it is reasonable to suppose that the course has high standards.

So, if most students of the New College receive 1st class degrees from London, but a significant proportion of them fail to receive their diploma from the New College, even though their London degrees are respectable, then the New College could be judged an academic success. If their students receive average UoL degrees, but only a tiny proportion fail to receive a New College Diploma, then it follows that all its students are wasting their money.

I wonder why the author felt the need to mention the religious beliefs of the proposed tutors at this college. Will future articles include "How many Muslims are teaching your kids?" or "Blacks in the classroom" - No, I thought not. Best stick to marginalising the safe targets.

Incidentally, why the furore about this institution in particular? Who is forcing students to go there?

Have you written a similar piece about the £19,000 that London's private law schools charge to students to study the nine month long Bar course, when they know full well that only 10% will ever have the chance to earn a living as a barrister? This all seems a little contrived to me.

Many of you lot base your thinking upon a fable concocted by two jews about a hundred and fifty years ago. I have to say that I fijnd it fails to grip. No story telling ability you see.

Ex-Labour

See http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/04/liberal-demo...

:-)

Let it happen, it'll suck out the moneyed halfwits from Oxbridge and leave spaces to those who deserve them.

The Emperor's New Clothes.

The sheer expense of attending NCH will build its reputation as a world leading institution. Those who pay their 18K per year will not want to believe they have wasted their money, so they'll do all they can to make sure everybody knows just how top notch their learning experience was; and so the cycle begins.

Similar to the way a t-shirt with a squiggle that has been made in the same sweatshop, from the same materials, in the same way as a t-shirt without a squiggle can sell for ten times more. The people who buy them believe their t-shirt is superior quality. They have to.

"And having noted atheists involved, such as AC Grayling or Richard Dawkins, is not by itself any discredit"

I most certainly hope not. I don't really understand why the fact that they are atheists is even mentioned. Afterall none of the other contributing academics get mentioned as "catholics" or "muslims".

Would these be a pro-religious bias from the author?

"Would these be a pro-religious bias from the author?"

"More "faithist", I'd say - as in the Blue Labour love of faith, flag, family. The frustrated British left is increasingly admires the utility of religion for keeping the proles in line."

These comments become more priceless :-)

Thank goodness for those who see the world as it is and not based on a fable written thousands of years ago. If having a god that lets children be raped by some in the Church, gives some wealth and others poverty. Let the rich and wealthy show me that they believe in a god by giving away some of their wealth, stop supplying arms to bad people, letting those like Mugabe get away with murder. Shaking hands with Gadaffi. Read A.C.Graylings Secular Bible full of beautiful words not evil and vengeance like the Bible.

The lack of "teaching staff" information on their website speaks volumes.

Mr Allen Green, I'm a bit concerned. Shouldn't we oppose an instution that judges according to one's bank balance, rather than intellect. After all, private education only exists because public education is failing. Surely we would want Grayling et al's efforts to attend to public institutions.