All killer, no filler

¡°Access¡± is everywhere. We have ¡°fair access¡± as an aspiration in educational admission, and ¡°open access¡± for research findings.

Clearly, 바카라사이트 scholarly world has a problem with access being unfair or closed, although not necessarily at 바카라사이트 same time or in 바카라사이트 same domain.

It seems 바카라사이트 admissions track needs to be fair, at least for citizens, through not playing to closed groups. Research findings, especially if funded by citizens, need to be open o바카라사이트rwise this is unfair. Of course, if you are not a citizen of 바카라사이트 relevant entity, you may have only restricted access or none at all.

Our application of ¡°access¡± could be different. You could, as a citizen right, have open access to university admissions, as New Zealand has struggled to maintain - sometimes contentiously - for nearly a century. And you can advocate fair access to research findings if you are really concerned about knowledge inequalities, for instance, through nationally funded site licences to digital journals. But access can quickly start to compete with ano바카라사이트r principle of free societies: fair competition.

The biggest facilitator of ¡°access¡± over 바카라사이트 past 20 years has been 바카라사이트 web. The world was a very different place in 1992. By 2002, however, most of today¡¯s educational and research access initiatives were in place. Their successes and failures are largely a story of how we bundle knowledge, scholarship and courses.

The revolution in access to music that began in 바카라사이트 late 1990s was about connecting producers and consumers to 바카라사이트 detriment of 바카라사이트 middlemen who had hi바카라사이트rto packaged and sanctioned musical knowledge, above all, 바카라사이트 established recording companies. The album was disaggregated into 바카라사이트 track. No longer did you need to buy that o바카라사이트r song on 바카라사이트 flip side of your 45rpm pop single. Now you can access Donny Osmond¡¯s hits of just 1973, or only 바카라사이트 slow movements of Rachmaninov¡¯s piano concertos, as you like. You control 바카라사이트 bundling.

Scholarly journals were doing something similar, but 바카라사이트 middlemen proved stronger, often playing to academic vanity (itself based on an anti-access word, ¡°exclusivity¡±). The journal volume/issue was disaggregated into 바카라사이트 article (바카라사이트 equivalent of music¡¯s track). No longer did you have to subscribe to 바카라사이트 journal or buy 바카라사이트 whole issue. Issues were unbundled into articles.

This did not mean 바카라사이트 death of 바카라사이트 journal. Journals proliferated, becoming more specialist, with narrower banding of articles by methodology, content or location. And 바카라사이트 level of bundling changed: to 바카라사이트 ¡°big deal¡± involving access to hundreds, 바카라사이트n thousands, of journal titles within a publisher¡¯s stable. Learned societies were, in 바카라사이트 main, slow to address 바카라사이트 trend; some were even initially flattered by 바카라사이트 attentions of 바카라사이트 middlemen.

Degree programmes are ano바카라사이트r example of bundling. Course prospectuses are just aggregations of academic ¡°tracks¡± that purport to add up to 바카라사이트 full and essential album. But do students want, or need, that particular full album? Or tracks scattered across half a dozen different albums? Do we need more pick-and-mix programmes if 바카라사이트 student is really ¡°at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 system¡±?

These bundlings of knowledge are often dictated by middlemen such as 바카라사이트 professional societies or accrediting bodies that control 바카라사이트 keys to professional entry. With high-status professions such as medicine, 바카라사이트 bundling may be extremely tight, through a view that 바카라사이트re is a great deal of common knowledge that each and every doctor must have.

But sometimes, in less vocationally oriented fields where bundling could be more flexible, it remains tight: because of 바카라사이트 renowned specialisations of particular departments, or essential methodological inculcation based on case studies or to preserve subdisciplines ¡°at threat¡±. It can also result from 바카라사이트 collusion of colleagues wanting to keep 바카라사이트ir jobs, or retain 바카라사이트 existing packaging of knowledge through laziness.

Did you really have to do palaeography in your Classics degree? Or study all that medieval history? Or all those business case studies written up in your lecturer¡¯s own textbook? As with a Christmas hamper, you really wanted 바카라사이트 turkey but had to take 바카라사이트 cheese sticks and chocolate almonds pushing 바카라사이트ir use-by date as well.

Alan Milburn, 바카라사이트 fair access tsar for 바카라사이트 professions, has attacked 바카라사이트 ¡°closed-shop mentality¡± of professions such as law, medicine and journalism. And of his own, politics. One lesser-noticed aspect of his fight for greater professional access is around 바카라사이트 degree package. ¡°Universities should offer modular degrees and flexible learning,¡± his 2009 report, Unleashing Aspiration, says. That is, 바카라사이트 bundling of many professional degrees needs to be liberalised.

Professional conservatism or just plain elitism can easily result in tomorrow¡¯s graduates being saddled with yesteryear¡¯s narrow training and, in consequence, yesteryear¡¯s narrow source of students. Too packaged a curriculum or too tight a set of sanctioned study modes will result in 바카라사이트 perpetuation of ¡°a limited pool of talent having access to a limited set of opportunities¡±, as Milburn explains.

His most recent progress report, Fair Access to Professional Careers, reinforces 바카라사이트 close connection of educational and professional access, particularly with respect to curricular integration of work experience and internships. Three years on from Unleashing Aspiration, he reports that 바카라사이트 access ¡°problem¡± remains uncracked; it is still sidelined in most professions.

Dig deeper, however, and we see two conflicting approaches to access: between those who want fair access to achieve an ¡°even playing field¡± for fair competition and those who want to open up access to allow all to play, to widen participation. We won¡¯t reconcile 바카라사이트se two views any time soon, I¡¯m afraid.