Wrap-up #2

Globalization, Economic Capital and Higher Education in South Korea

For industrialized and industrializing nations, neoliberalism has been a powerful force, transcending borders as an ideology by defining and defending policy and shaping trade and markets around the world.  While the economic growth in a number of nations espousing economic liberalization has been staggering, so too has been the problematic bi-product of economic and consequently social inequality.  Neo-liberalism’s paradox is that the possibility if increasing economic growth and efficiency by way of increased output, open trade, and flexible employment also includes the potential for introducing level of inequality that did not previously exist. More so, these drastic changes in the levels of inequality have very real consequences for the members of society and are especially challenging for workers in the middle class, where in the past governments used to control unequal distribution of wealth with protectionist policies. The neo-liberalism paradox intensifies as it calls for a reduction in domestic protectionist policies and opening of markets to the global economy, which then hits the middle class the hardest by polarizing those with and without economic resources and thus intensifying the struggle to maintain class position.  This has led to massive mobilization of all available resources to obtain training and education associated with occupational stability, reward, and fulfillment. Education remained the single most important factor affecting social mobility in the 1990s. With the exception of the military, whose top echelons were educated at the Korea Military Academy, the postwar elites of South Korea shared one characteristic: they were graduates of the most prestigious universities. There was a well-defined hierarchy of such schools, starting with Seoul National University at the top and followed by Yonsei University and Korea University. Ehwa Woman’s University was the top institution for women.

[Read more…]

Meis Oculis

Looking at my bibliography, I am a bit disappointed (or am I excited?) that I have not found one article yet that lists the issues of today’s Latin 101 class as I see them. Pace, parsing, and practice have come to the surface as the three biggest issues I think I will be looking for as I continue my in-class observations. At this very moment, the 30 or so students of the 2pm MTWF Latin 101 class are taking their first hour test. I have made it a habit to take their quizzes and tests with them, and what took me 9 minutes is causing many others quite a bit of stress (I know the signs). But it’s good stress, the same I remember experiencing just his morning as I struggled to remember some plural forms on my German 101 chapter test. Their minds are working. They are seeing the paradigms in their minds and spitting them onto paper. Soon, I will be able to see how the class did all together on this assessment, in a confidential manner of course. But I am interested to see how they preform on paper, having seen with my own eyes (now the title makes sense) their progress up to this point. The pace is a bit fast for most (it is a college language course, but Latin does have a lot of grammar that has to be nailed down day one), parsing still comes mechanically, and everyone can benefit from more practice. The class has been wonderful, though, about letting me creepily watch them, jot down the questions they ask, and of course ask them relentless Latin related questions.

[Read more…]