di Marco Bascetta, da Il Manifesto on line
Non è colpa di von Humboldt, padre dell'Università moderna europea, e nemmeno del Sessantotto, padre e madre di ogni vizio e dissolutezza. La miserabile Università italiana che miserabilmente si intende riformare per l'ennesima volta ha una paternità assolutamente certa: i cosiddetti liberisti di sinistra. Da dove proviene, se non da loro, il moltiplicarsi insensato dei corsi di laurea, il fiorire di pseudodiscipline come l' "etica aziendale" o la "consulenza filosofica"? La proliferazione di master e specializzazioni psichedeliche a costi esorbitanti? Il sistema creditizio che ha trasformato il corso degli studi in uno spezzatino insipido e indigesto, in una competizione autistica tra futuri sottoccupati?
Il sistema delle lauree brevi, destinato a produrre competenze tanto precarie quanto le occupazioni nelle quali (solo in teoria) sarebbero state impiegate?
E adesso i responsabili di questo disastro, ormai conclamato, i riformatori, i modernizzatori, i cantori della libera impresa, ci vengono a dire: «non vorrete conservare questa porcheria? Come dare torto a Tremonti e Gelmini che vogliono tagliare il costo esorbitante di questo baraccone, eliminare sprechi e inefficienze?». Di memoria breve, seppur di consulenza lunga, i liberisti di sinistra, hanno già dimenticato quando l'Università La Sapienza Rome boasted through expensive advertising campaigns, the questionable title of "knowledge factory" and the universities were running in the 'red herring invented and lessons trendy with the aim of attracting more students to be trained as quickly as and with the least possible expense, staging a ridiculous criterion of productivity.
They quickly removed the stories about the involvement of businesses and local production companies that accompanied the widespread diffusion of universities even in the most remote provinces, to reach out to a certain fate of misery and of black cultural insignificance. Can no longer recall, our reformers, the silly courses that would had to satisfy the demand of the legendary firms, managing to satisfy, at most, nepotism and patronage.
What should be clear to anyone not blinded by ideology is that the Italian university has not been devastated by a lack of reforms, but from an overabundance of bad reforms to which that of the minister Gelmini, now arrived in the Senate, be added, also conveying the immodest claim that the cutting of resources can be more efficient use of their air purifier, in a virtuous circle between merit and likely savings. Not having any idea of \u200b\u200bthe mass function of the University in our time, or rather the sharing advocated, with the results we have seen, from liberal left, unable to book, according to a different logic, spending and investment, the left opposition will choose, once again, between complicity and powerlessness.
Moreover, the golden rule, since the time of sequins and Berlinguer, reiterated again yesterday by Mariastella Gelmini, is always the same: "the task of reform is the approximation of the University in the labor market." Objective failure for more than three decades in the vain pursuit of a mythical vision of the enterprise system and its alleged commitment to innovation. The Italian labor market, capricious and petty, is a photograph of this, perhaps even a nostalgia for the past certainly not a projection of the future. Although, in precarious employment, the cutting of resources, strengthening of the hierarchy, the rapprochement has certainly got a good point. And if the market instead of having to adjust to university work, suggestions for research and experimentation, to the cultural level of our society, its needs and its potential? For the liberal left is a blasphemy. As wanting to impose a law of nature to artifice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment