So, our next chore is to look at some of the specific kinds of epithelial tissue. And we're going to consider six kinds of epithelial tissue. I'm going to write them on the board here just so you can see all six of them together. And then we'll talk about the individual ones. So we have what we call simple squamous epithelium. Simple cuboidal epithelium. Then we have simple columnar epithelium. And then we have one that sounds kind of complicated, but it's not. So it's called pseudo stratified columnar epithelium with cilia, pseudo stratified columnar epithelium with cilia. Then we have something called stratified squamous epithelium. And then finally we have one called transitional epithelium. All right. So six different kinds of epithelial tissues. And I wanted to write them up here so you could see them all together for a couple of reasons. And do you see that the first three are what we refer to as simple tissues. And just a second ago we said that a simple tissue is one that's only one cell layer thick.  So that's easy enough. Then the next two have the word stratified in there. And earlier we said that a stratified tissue is one that has layers of cells. Now if you think about the term pseudo, you may remember talking about pseudopodia perhaps if you were looking at cells earlier, that term pseudo means faults. And so pseudo stratified columnar epithelium with cilia is actually a simple tissue but it appears layered. And we'll talk about why it appears layered in just a few minutes. Then the fifth tissue is stratified squamous and it does contain different layers of cells. And then the last one is transitional epithelium and it's found in the urinary bladder and the urethra. And it's a little different depending upon whether the bladder is full or the bladder is empty. So we'll look at that in just a few minutes also. Another thing that I'll point out that will help you remember these tissues is the other terms here. Squamous of course just means square. So when you think about a squamous cell, think about a square cell. Now cuboidal sounds like cube, same kind of thing, but instead of thinking about a square, think about a cube. Now when I'm doing this with seated classes I always ask students to think about what a cube is. About 15 years ago the answer when I said name a cube I would always get Rubik's cube. Now people say ice cube, but think or a dice, sometimes that's a popular answer. So think of something that is cube shape and that's like a simple cuboidal cell. Columnar has that word column in it. And so these cells have that column shape and that they're just as or they're taller than they are deep and wide. So they are column shape. Squamous again think about the square cells, but again they're layered and transitional is a little different. We'll look at that in just a second. So six epithelial tissues, simple squamous, simple cuboidal, simple columnar. And I remember those just because of the way they're shaped. I sort of picture them stepping up a little bit. So squamous, cuboidal, columnar, pseudo stratified, columnar, stratified and transitional. So the next thing we'll do is we'll look at some micrographs and talk about the characteristics of each of these different cells or tissues and what their cells may look like.


And the wizard cast fireball. Wait, what? And like that, your character is dead. What's up guys? My name is Glassfoot. I have gone through a lot of characters playing D&D. The first group that I played with, actually most of us managed to survive our characters for a really long time. And then some way from table stuff happened and we horrendously murdered two of the party members because we were mad at the players. Oops. But after that, the three remaining members of the party, myself, the half-orc ranger, Risok, who was basically just a half-orc version of Aragon from the Lord of the Rings series, our human paladin, Eric and Audric the Dwarf Stormcleric who somehow worshiped Bahamut. Explain how that works. The three of us were the only remaining members. That is until Risok tragically got left behind by the cleric.  After Risok's death, I went through seven more characters. As you can see here, Risok, Bram, Viren, Keth, Rogar, Hadari, and actually, Rogar and Hadari are the only two that technically survived that campaign. And that is because of some weirdness. Technically, Risok also survived. I have a video explaining his whole story. It's not the best comparatively to other videos I've done, just warning you if you do want to go watch that. But yeah, Risok actually kind of survived. In reality, he didn't die. He got brainwashed and fought for the enemy for a bit. And then after the final battle, he went, you know what, I'm just gonna go back to Ranger. See you, fuckers. But yes, I went through six characters in the game. Six, that is a lot. And today on Tabletop Tales, episode four, I'm going to give you the story of how I managed to go through all of those characters. Risok, I've already mentioned what happened to him. Risok was one of the original party members, one of the Holy Trinidad that made it through a long, manned, glorious portion of the game. And by the way, the whole reason we were called the Holy Trinidad is because cleric who worshiped Bahamut and paladin who worshiped Bahamut and me, who just didn't like Tiamat or dragons in general. But Bahamut was okay because, you know, he didn't want me dead. Actually, in our game, we had a running joke that the paladin and cleric met at Bahamut University. And I went through the technical aspect of that school, the rendering academy of Bahamut University. That was just the running joke, but that is why we were called the Holy Trinidad. Anyway, I've already mentioned that the two other members of the Holy Trinidad pushed out in a fight and left me behind to die. Risok was replaced with Bram, a tiefling wizard who I had a hell of a lot of fun playing.  And so evocation felt like the smartest plan so I could still explode the enemies and not explode my party. Bram made it a good chunk. He had a number of fun adventures, including exploding an entire village because we wouldn't leave their land after we said we would. Not gonna say we weren't partially at fault there, but yeah, Bram, after using his magic and exploding a good number of the townsfolk, we went into a lair to fight a dragon. Found a couple of spell scrolls, which I took for myself because meh. And then managed to have more than two party members when we actually fought the freaking white dragon. And so when we fought the white dragon, Bram unfortunately got frozen and died in that sad, sad moment. So that is character two. Character number three, Viran, was a githyanki conquest paladin. Story with him was after the fight with the dragon, I fell through a dimensional portal and just cratered the ground right next to one of the other party members.  Despite the fact that I interacted with almost every other character that could exist. Every single NPC I interacted with. To fair, that was a trickster rogue who like he loved magic a lot and like he really didn't like characters that couldn't use magic. I'm also pretty sure that he thought he brought me to life when that occurred, which is actually rather funny, at least to me. Viran managed to make it through a decent enough chunk. I had a lot of fun with him.  Conquest was a lot of fun to play as a paladin. And then we got to the green dragon and his rider. And so we fought them, got our asses handed to us, but we weren't killed. We got captured and taken to their lair. Where we were hung upside down, I woke up. Used healing hands on myself because I was at low health. The villain came up to me, told me not to do it again. I mocked him, saying too late, I already did it because I was banking on him being a James Bond villain. He was not. After I mocked him, he slipped my throat. Viran died because the player decided to mock a villain. Yeah, character three kinda went a little lamely, but yeah, no, throat slip and death that way. Character number four, Keth. Keth was another hattifork. This time a blood hunter. I wanted to play a blood hunter because I just learned about them and thought it sounded cool. And so my DM let me play them. Keth was the order of the blood hunters that was a lycanthrope. So he could change his shape. He was a werewolf when he needed to be. I personally had a lot of fun with that. I actually worked into his backstory because I was intending him to survive long enough that he would make it to the final boss. I worked it in that him and Risok as children had like some rivalry thing going where they didn't like each other. So I was working that in so I could have that whole character interaction and stabby stabby my old character. That would have been a lot of fun for me. That sadly didn't happen because I die a lot. I actually can't remember exactly how Keth died. Did Keth get crushed to death? No, that was the spine devils. Now I remember the spine devils got him. One of the other players came back and so we introduced his character. The way we reintroduced his character was he came from the blood wars. And so he was being chased by spine devils. And so we were running from them and they got me, sadly. And that was how Keth died. All my characters died really lamely. But yeah, spine devils got Keth and then came Hadadi. Hadadi actually isn't from that campaign originally. He is a character that I was playing in another friend's campaign. He was a high elf wizard war mage. I had gotten the ability to fly like spectral wings basically in that campaign. And Zach let me keep them when I was playing this one for Hadadi. I personally found it to be a lot of fun.  But yeah, Hadadi I played for a while. I think he actually lasted like two sessions of main game playing with him because the cleric, Odric, whose player had come back for a bit and we had to fight a rock, like the giant bird. So his opening move was to use his highest level channeled vanity to give it 90 points of lightning damage, zapping it.  Either way, Hadadi died round one because the rock had grabbed him mid air.    Anyway, next and final character I played was Rogar. Rogar actually is another case of a character I pulled from another campaign. Rogar is what I refer to as a pal berry. He is a barbarian paladin, a multi-class whose backstory basically involved before he was really born.   When he was about 10, he got sold into military service. The military he was in for whatever reason had a barbarian group in there that he was thrust into. Basically they're barbarians or they're infantrymen. I don't know, it was weird.  They were just like, cool, it's power build, let's do that. Anyway, so he was a barbarian for a time and then some of the higher rankings saw him lost in the middle of a rage, save one of his companions and so they recruited him to be a paladin as well so he multi-classed into that. I think it was, I was a bear totem oath of the ancients that that was the combination. Rogar was my bronze dragonborn that I used for that and so he actually managed to make it all the way through to the final fight, to the final boss fight. We killed Tiamat, yay! The death, it took us like three sessions to actually finish that fight because we were like, a number of us were in high school so we couldn't like play super late. We'd play like five or six to like nine to 10-ish so we would only play for about three-ish hours at a time because we had high schoolers that had to go home and all that kind of stuff so we couldn't play super long but yeah, Rogar was the final character I had and he actually managed to make it all the way through to the end of the fight.  But yeah, this is a bit more of a rambly video than I initially intended it to be but oh well, I wanted to make something and get a video out this week. That was character number six or seven. I think I actually only went through six characters. I say seven because Zack put seven but he put Rogar twice so. But yeah, that is the story of how in one campaign I went through six separate characters in one campaign. I do not recommend doing that. Seriously, if you are playing with like two people where it is two people and you're DM, you either need to build your character so that they will not die, aka power play, or your DM needs to not send you against enemies set for parties of four or more people. I hope that you guys enjoyed this kind of rambly story time video from me. If you enjoyed that and would like to follow and watch more videos from me in the future, you know what to do, I'm not gonna say it because every YouTuber does and I'm lazy. But if you do enjoy this content and would like to follow me on social media, links to both my Twitter and Instagram are going to be in the description down below as always. But I hope that you all enjoyed that video from me guys. I hope that you all have a fantastic day and as always, peace out guys.


I have 99 problems and one of them is actually trying to decide how to rate this episode. Ooh, that's a hot mug, guys! Hey guys, this is Jeremy here with my review of Episode 17 of Supernatural Season 5, 99 problems. This episode is kind of a bit on the fence for me. I remember enjoying it. I like the whole horror Babylon idea. I like the idea of the town being manipulated and kind of the worst of humanity coming in on each other. It's kind of very reminiscent of, you know, just everything that's happened in the last few years. But the problem is, this episode also kind of is a reflection, if not a carbon copy of a few episodes we've already had before. Obviously, Crotone being one. Good God, y'all! That was another one. Essentially, we've had the same kind of story twice in the same season, except this time there's a catalyst. A different person manipulating people. Rewatching the main crux of the story, it's not the strongest bit. If anything, the main narrative of the horror of Babylon is actually the very boring factor of this episode, because the parts that you're really invested in is Dean's completely breaking faith of everything, Sam trying to pull his brother out of this dark depression, and then Castiel being drunk. Castiel almost single-handedly saves this episode from being a negative. His humor, drunk Castiel, is very forward and very abrasive. The opening line of, I found a liquor store and I drank it, and then she's a whore, or the other part is, well, you're an angel. Very bad example of ones.  I find these elements very funny, and they are very welcome amongst the story. There are some ideas in this episode that I don't mind. I love that we've got some Stargate alumni in this episode. He's just kind of here. Now, you've got to understand Stargate was one of the biggest shows to ever come to Vancouver. Really, some would say the beginning was X-Files, and that is true, but Stargate was a 10-year-long show that was out here. Richard Eganerson, Amanda Tapping, who we know from this show both has an actor and a director. Stargate was huge. Stargate had a massive following. It had a massive impact on the film industry out here. So, to see one of their alumni in this episode, he's just kind of here. I thought that was odd, but, again, Supernatural has always had this mass of alumni of actors and actresses from different walks of life, different shows, different movies, different productions. Again, I kind of thought it was a little odd. It's a little bit kind of like Wesker, back in Good God, y'all. There's this huge prominent person in here, and they're just kind of here. They're just relegated, but that's just how they wrote them in the show. What I think is kind of the disappointing factor about it is while the town is being manipulated and kind of converging on each other, it reminds me a lot of Storm of the Century. If you've never seen that as a Stephen King series, I've probably mentioned that a couple of times in my reviews over all over the years. It's a very good mini-series about a town kind of being manipulated by one man and having to make very difficult decisions. I think it's kind of funny with how quickly they figure out who it is. They are able to solve the issue so fast. That was the bit that kind of got to me a little bit. It was very, very much so. A carbon copy of Good God, y'all. In terms of the episode, the narrative itself, I can't really give this any kind of a positive rating because it just is a boring retread. Maybe the production design is a little bit more interesting than this because the church that they shoot at is in Fort Langley, but then when they go inside, that is a church that is in Maple Ridge. It's one of the oldest churches in BC. It actually came down the river to this place. It definitely is over a hundred years old. So the fact that when I got to go into this building recently, about last year, I remember looking around and thinking, I recognize this church from somewhere and behold, it's from this episode. So that's the negative aspect. But again, the positive aspect is Dean and Sam and Castiel. Dean is absolutely freaking broken. Sam is the one who's the more positive upbeat. It's a good change of the level here. Dean's just completely hopeless in this episode. And when he's able to kill the horrible Babylon because he's supposed to be a servant of heaven, Sam obviously immediately puts his hackles on me, realizes that something's wrong. And then Dean deeks out to go and see Lisa one last time. And that conversation is very heartfelt. It's very breaching. It's very breaking because you know that Dean is talking about Michael. We know that. She has no idea. So she's completely out of the loop. But you know that they're setting up something here and they did kind of with how the show ended or at least sorry, this season ended. It's this element that saves the episode, honestly. If they didn't have drunk Castiel, if they didn't have broken Dean this episode, I don't think this episode would have been a positive. I actually think this would have been on the same level of SWAT lead. But it's those saving races that help pull this episode out from a negative score. So in the end, I'm going to give 99 problems a four out of seven and it squeaks by guys, it squeaks by. Officially now you can definitely say there are two not really great episodes of this show or the season SWAT meeting this one. Fallen Idols is much better than this episode. Now one's still got a four out of seven. Anyways, now that I've said my piece about this episode, let's see what you guys have to say about it. It's a pretty decent monster of the week episode. The horror of Babylon is an interesting idea and Kaylee Mae Maloney was terrific in the role for as this character. I saw a liquor store and I drank it. This has to be one of my favorite Castiel lines, which is funny considering how broken he is in this episode. Actually that is, that is also one of my favorites as well. I like the progression this episode made with Sam Dean and Castiel, especially Dean, he really is the most tragic character at this point. Dean meeting Lisa at the end was the best part of the episode for me. This was a nice part of foreshadowing for Swanson. Overall I give it a five out of seven. You're definitely a little bit nicer on the episode than I am. There are some decent parts to it but that really only happens in like the last five minutes of the episode and can't really say the last five minutes of the episode is the best part, is a good part anyways. This episode is probably most remembered among fans for the horror jokes and drunk Castiel. Both have aged well but it actually is a decently written well shot episode with a number of memorable moments. The fire hosing scene at the start, hunters clashing with demons and the boy dragged under the car. Oh I didn't like the boy dragged under the car bit, I thought that part was dumb. There's a lot of building with Dean's character and setting up for the 100th episode. God's message in the previous episode was fully processed and he's slowly edging away from the continuing to battle the angel's plan. I found myself also questioning whether or not Sam and Dean's resistance to Michael was truly the right decision. Granted Zachariah and Michael are doing evil to accomplish their goal but their goal is paradise which is something I believe a lot of people would choose over the suffering of this world which is the greater value, peace or freedom. Good note to what Castiel says at the end of the season. And is it worth to fight for freedom when the risk might be the destruction of everything? Someone commented on the last video that Supernatural would be unnecessarily cruel or could be unnecessarily cruel and I felt that way about the Red Head's common Dean. Why single him out? She is the most irritating part of this episode although she is a sympathetic character given her grief and desperation. Yeah I find that her turnover is kind of expected but she doesn't really get any kind of comeuppance for what she's done. Like she outright murders a guy at one point. This isn't a strong episode as hammer, dark side or point but I still rather enjoyed it. As I said throughout this review I like the last five minutes of this episode. There are some interesting moments maybe here and there sprinkled through but the fact that so much of this episode is kind of pointless to me. 99 Problems is a decent filler episode. One of the better filler episodes for sure. I love that they made the monster something from the bible to do with Christianity. Sam and Dean seeing the team ready to fight the apocalypse was awesome.  That actually also kind of bugs me as well. I find it's one of the more weaker aspects of the episode because there's nothing to really show. There's nothing that Dean does until after the episode is done. Throughout the episode we never get any kind of conviction that he passes over onto it.  I love the title of the episode mainly because I like to think that a lot of this is happening all over the world due to Judeo-Christian apocalypse.  This episode shows an interesting way if a community would make religious laws above politically established laws and why a theocracy doesn't work in a modern day. Putting that aside it's an interesting episode of where everyone's faith is tested in unique ways. The reward is a town saved more confused from their convictions. A father preacher who is fatherless and free will is now broken up and divided. The appearance of Lisa and Dean confessing hurt to his love to her feels a little shoehorned in. I would have loved it much earlier for the season but it also makes sense his feelings for her and Ben since season 3. All in all I love the jokes, the struggle for the characters and seeing the setup for the 100th episode is really well done. Yeah actually you know you can make good points actually I like the idea I never thought about the idea that there would be other towns going through the same problem but that doesn't make sense actually. This episode is good nothing spectacular but really good.  I don't know I thought it was so funny. Also I didn't notice him the first time but Michael Schenkes aka my boy Daniel Jackson this episode. It's amazing how many similarities Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis have with Supernatural from the same actors to the same story bits and ideas just executed in different styles. Was Brad right friends with Eric Kripke? Don't know but they were both shot out here. Stargate was a big show out here in Vancouver. I actually worked at the studio that it was shot at both actually Stargate Atlantis and the Stargate Universe show as well as SG-1 of course. Okay guys thank you for your comments now we're going to go on to the actual 100th episode of this show. I made the mistake of thinking that was in the last season that was my bad but now we're going on to point of no return the 100th episode of this show so please let me know what you guys think about that episode in the comments below and I'll read those off in the next review. Until then if you liked the video leave a like and if you're interested in more subscribe and I'll see you guys next week. Thanks for watching the video. My name is Knitz and you might remember me from the animated cult classic TV show Undergrads. It's been a while but I'm happy to say the click is finally getting back together in an all new movie thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign but we are still asking for your support. To see any and all updates about the upcoming Undergrads movie be sure to check out and like the bring back Undergrads Facebook page and with any luck we'll see you guys soon.


I'm grateful for coming along this evening, for our events, which is to celebrate the 15-year anniversary of Proud College. A big thank you to Proud College for hosting and the ambassador for hosting our events as well. We're here to celebrate the partnership, 15 years, and to celebrate a lot of you, the alumni who've been through that partnership education over those 15 years. I'm emerged, a life for it. Great relationships are not just about being commercially minded. It is about having shared mission, goals, vision and values. It's about believing the same things. First it's a call out to all of our students and alumni. I'm incredibly grateful that you chose us, whether it was in year one, or in year 15. I'm looking forward to bringing in students for the next 15 years that will continue to benefit from the education that we provide and that we can continue to build this community. The students who graduated in year one and the students who graduated in year 21 become a community together. I'm hoping that that is what we can bring to further development. Actually, a lot of excitement about the next five to ten years or so because we have some of the great plans ahead. So my wish is that those can be fulfilled. That's my greatest wish. To change children's lives here, it's happening in Prague by one of our Prague college students. I think Jan is here tonight. If he's not, there he is. Absolute, a fun tap. Find out about that man's business. It's changing people's lives. And it is about integrating technology, about thinking about society and making a real difference. It's a very important relationship. It's strengthened by good personal relationships between the senior management of Prague College and in Teeside University. So there's people in Prague and in Teeside who work well together. Prague College has achieved so much in the last 15 years with its distinguished alumni who have left the institution, the work it does in the Czech Republic, the number of students that's passed through its doors. I used to be into art and I used to work in advertising buses, creative. And I really wanted to go to the business, to the marketing and Prague College was a great opportunity to open those doors. So I could really learn a lot from very great teachers, professionals that they opened their doors and show me so much experience and knowledge. Prague College came at the point of my life when I was kind of lost and all of a sudden I discovered Prague College and I signed up for it. I never knew I would become the first student of Prague College. Czech design and Prague College are cooperating almost three years and we help Prague College students to be visible and connect them to the right opportunities on the Czech design scene. I guess my main wish is that the college can be some sort of force for good in the world that our graduates can go on to do great things. I have incredible pride about what we've accomplished in the 15 years. Cheers! Welcome to our 15th anniversary of Prague College. Actually our relationship is that we also participated in a job fair when we were trying to acquire some internship from your college which is really cool and we actually find some and also we're now introducing with the Corporation of Prague College a new volunteering platform which we like to pilot next month. I had lunch today with a young, she must be the youngest director of films and movies I've ever met and she's already won an award at Cannes and all she said at lunchtime was she wants another one. That's the sort of ambition you want to see. And then the other great example about, we think about one of the great challenges of our time which is ageing, one of the solutions developed software to allow dementia sufferers to communicate. I mean how fantastic is that using technology to create possibilities for people who aren't well, who aren't well or indeed are dealing with the challenge of ageing. That's the sort of stuff that's happening in Prague College and I think you should all be very, very proud. The future is very bright for Prague College. Tieshaw University has a vision and a mission to work very closely with universities and colleges like Prague College. So for me, I think the success speaks for itself, 15 years of great success, lots of students, lots of alumni and the vision and aspiration for the next 50 years of Prague College being at the centre of what education and learning is about in the Czech Republic. He's okay, he's not giving us too much. He did a wide angle there, I could tell. I think actually we need one more. Wide angle. We need one more. The things this guy is doing with his college jet by the team, are amazing.


Thank you. Around the world universities are in turmoil. There was a time when they stood out to spinnacles of enlightenment where scholarly elites could profess to a superior knowledge based on reasons and evidence of the ways of the world. Their mission was to educate, to spread the light of learning to all nations and deliver their citizens from ignorance, poverty and subjugation. oedd yn ei wneud i'r cyfnod a'r cyd-deithasol yn y rhagisio cyd-dweud y gallu'r opresiwn oherwydd mae'r cyd-dweud yn ymweld i'r cyfnod, yn ymweld i'r cyd-dweud. Fy hwnnw, y dda'r unigion yn ymweld i ddechrau progresifol, ac mae'r cyd-dweud yn ymdweud i'r cyd-dweud yn ymwybodol yn ymddangos cymdeithasol. Llyfriddor hynny'n ei wneud. The Enlightenment programme has more or less collapsed along with the powers that sustained it. These were the historic powers of European-led colonisation by which the allegedly superior ways of knowing of dominant nations were imposed upon subaltern populations. The flag of universality has always been flown by victors in the struggles over knowledge. In our post-colonial world, however, the hierarchies that once propped up the academy's claim to intellectual hegemony have crumbled. As tends to happen at such moments, far from reaching an accommodation that would open up to other ways of knowing and being and to voices previously muted or suppressed, we're witnessing just the opposite, with the emergence on all sides of closed and self-righteous fundamentalisms, whether religious, political or economic. As we're all too aware, the world is becoming an increasingly dangerous and fractious place. Beset by weak and compliant leadership, universities present soft targets for hostile takeover, be it by multinational corporations wedded to the doctrines of neoliberalism, or by totalitarian regimes bent on the suppression of critical inquiry, or by sectarian organisations aiming to spread their own particular versions of bigotry and intolerance. So in the face of this threat it is imperative for universities to redefine their purpose. There is no going back to a rose-tinted version of the past to an imaginary golden age of cosited erudition. Universities can no longer take refuge behind self-serving appeals to academic immunity that have ceased to have any traction beyond their ivory towers, nor can they surrender to the profoundly anti-democratic forces that threaten their very existence. Some might argue, indeed do, that universities are already so tarnished by the historical legacy of colonialism, and today so corrupted by corporate interests that they would be better abandoned to their fate. For in their present form they are indeed bound to collapse as surely as the powers that sustain them. So perhaps they should be replaced with something entirely different. But I disagree. We still have our universities and they represent a priceless asset. So I want to argue in this lecture that rather than standing by and waiting for them to fall, we should already commence the task of shaping universities for the future. And for anyone of good conscience who cares about fashioning a world fit for coming generations to inhabit, no task could be more urgent and we need to start now. But there's very little sign that the regimes of management which have allocated themselves for business of controlling our universities have more than the slightest grasp of the issues at stake. Factuous mission statements merely paper over the abject failure of university leaders to address the question of what universities are for with the depth and seriousness it deserves. Their myopic vision is circumscribed by crude indices of rank and productivity. Financially universities have come off relatively lightly from years of austerity driven by the insatiable demands of international capital which have hollowed out many of our most cherished public institutions. But they've done so only by playing the same game. So across what many call the sector by which they mean a lucrative business operation conducted in national and international markets of the knowledge economy, knowledge is understood as a commodity. Research is driven by the demand for measurable outputs. Students are customers and teaching is designed to satisfy their expectations. Now it's long been obvious that this business model of higher education is unsustainable. Grossly overpaid vice chancellor of all principals acting as chief executive officers swelling ranks of managerial staff and ever growing proportion of academics whose career prospects are blighted by precarious conditions of employment and a student body bearing unprecedented levels of debt add up to a toxic combination. It cannot continue, least of all when the massive loans taken out by university executives to finance vanity building projects come up for repayment. Who will teach the students when universities can no longer afford to pay their staff. Everywhere indeed universities are in a crisis of headline grabbing proportions only temporarily overshadowed by the calamities of Brexit and Trump's America. But ultimately this crisis is not financial but existential. It is a crisis of purpose. And it mirrors to an extent a crisis in the global order. As the engine of economic growth collides with the realities of climate change the world it seems is poised on a knife edge. And we live in an age when people and ideas are moving and meeting on an unprecedented scale but also one in which arguments may be twisted and data manipulated to serve competing and often jarring world views. Public debate in many arenas has been reduced to a trade in sound bites. Truth is up for grabs. We need no reminding of the hazards that this entails to democracy, to society and to the environment. So to address these hazards nothing can be more important than to bring people of all nations and generations together across their multiple differences to learn and study in a spirit of reason, tolerance, justice and common humanity. No other institution apart from that of the university is currently equipped to take on this challenge. But to live up to it universities must rediscover their civic purpose as indispensable components in the constitution of a democratic society charged with educating its citizens and furnishing them with the wisdom and understanding that will enable every generation to begin afresh to imagine a world different from the one we have and to offer hope for the future. In the marketisation of higher education however this purpose has been all but eclipsed putting at risk the freedom on which the integrity of scholarship depends as well as the trust that enables it to flourish. Education in the business model is limited to a narrow view of service provision with research answering to the needs of commerce and industry and teaching and learning geared to the demands of graduate employment. Moreover in its embrace of the principles of new public management dedicated to competitiveness and cost efficiency in the provision of services the model systematically undercuts the openness, generosity and collegiality that are of the essence if we are to collaborate in addressing the challenges of the years to come. Instead of collegiality we have the consortium which is a quite different thing resting not on openness and generosity but on partnerships of mutual self-interest. But most troubling of all perhaps is the extent to which the assumptions built into the business model have come to be normalised. They are so deeply embedded in the everyday discourse and practice of the university that it is increasingly difficult to imagine any other way of doing things let alone to put it into effect. It takes an effort of will to shake off the dense web of expectations, indicators and metrics that govern every aspect of academic lives especially when they are incorporated into the IT systems to which these lives are increasingly shackled. Originally intended as vehicles of facilitation these systems have instead become powerful instruments of surveillance and control. Now all this of course is well known. The causes and effects of marketisation in higher education have been much analysed and thoroughly understood. But we are much better at explaining what has gone wrong than we are in setting out what to do instead. Conspicuously lacking up to now has been an alternative vision a clear and coherent statement of the principles to which a university of the future should aspire the values it should uphold and the way it should work and that's what I want to present today. Let me acknowledge it once that the ideas I put forward are not purely my own they have rather emerged through intense conversations both with colleagues and students in my own institution, the University of Aberdeen and with friends in other places in Scotland, more widely in the UK and internationally. And these conversations began as part of a campaign to reclaim the university which I launched in Aberdeen in October 2015 and which has since joined forces with a number of similar campaigns initiated in other institutions under the banner of the university of the future. And what came out of them was a vision of the university as resting on four pillars namely freedom, trust, education and community. These are not mere keywords. Every pillar carries a heavy moral and philosophical burden and our conversations cause us to reflect in some depth on what they really entail. So in what follows I shall revisit the four pillars and spell out some of their implications and I begin with freedom. As a concept, freedom has been sorely abused as indeed has its cousin democracy. It is widely taken to mean a right or entitlement to be exercised by individuals, thinking or collectively in the pursuit and defence of their interests. Applied to society, it leads to the fateful equation of democracy with the will of the people, a kind of totalisation that drives out the very difference on which continuity and social renewal depend. Applied to the university however, it leads to the perception of its academics as an interest group, a scholarly elite, jealous in the protection of rights and privileges denied to ordinary folk. It's no wonder it appeals to academic freedom couched in such terms, cut little ice in a wider society suspicious of all forms of elitism and claims to superior expertise. But this is a false sense of freedom. Real freedom is not something one has. It's not a property or an entitlement. It is a condition that is fundamentally... It's rather the condition in which one is in which is founded one's very existence. It's a condition that is fundamentally open to others and to the world rather than circumscribed by pre-existing interests. So far from offering immunity or protection, real freedom portends exposure. It rests on a willingness to relinquish the comfort of established positions to take the risk of pushing out into the unknown where outcomes are uncertain and destinations yet to be mapped. So in the academic sphere, the real freedom open to all in a truly democratic society is both exemplified and intensified. Not in the defence of common interests but in the ongoing fashioning of community indifference. Now I'll return to that idea later. For now I just want to highlight the intrinsic connection between the respective freedoms of education and democracy. We cannot have one without the other. It's a connection to which the great American philosopher of education, John Dewey, drew our attention over a century ago. These freedoms, as Dewey insisted, are not handed down on a plate. Freedom, he tells us, is something to be achieved, to be wrought out. It's not a right that is given but a vocation that falls to us and that we have continually to work at. We can never give up on it and assume that it is already won. Or to put it another way, freedom is nothing if it is not practised. This, the practice of freedom, lay at the heart of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire's manifesto for a pedagogy of the oppressed. It is a means, he said, by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and to discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. To participate is to follow a calling in which one both responds to others and is responsible to them. There can therefore be no freedom without responsibility. As academics, we are responsible for what we do in our studies and for the social and environmental transformations they set in train. And so the underside of academic freedom is care. Care for others, for the world we live in, for generations present and to come. And we care for others and for the world because we depend on them for our own existence, our own freedom. So this combination of freedom and dependency is of the essence of trust. And that's the second of the four pillars on which the coming university rests. To trust others is to acknowledge that we depend on them and on what they do without in any way curtailing their freedom to act responsibly towards us. There can be no freedom without trust and no trust without freedom. And that's why loss of trust is the greatest enemy of academic freedom since it leads to the replacement of autonomy and self-determination with surveillance and control. Of course there'll always be rogue individuals in the university community as any other who fail to live up to the trust placed in them. But it is surely better to start from the generous assumption that all can be trusted than from its negation that none can. Nevertheless, the premise that everyone is in it for themselves and that they will react only to threats and incentives lies at the root of much that currently goes under the name of management. That's a set of precepts and practices that universities have adopted more or less wholesale from business organisations. Regimes of management founded on the business model in which employees are classed as human resources, tasked with delivering corporate objectives and monitored for their compliance in doing so are inimical to the flourishing of any community of scholarship. Their importation into our universities, mainly during the 1980s and 90s, has done immense damage. For far from promoting openness and collegiality, they are virtually designed to set colleagues up in competition with one another for their own security and advancement and to create a pervasive atmosphere of suspicion, mistrust and even fear. I'm not exaggerating. Not only have I witnessed this at first hand, I've also had it confirmed in reports from one institution after another. We all know how trust, which may have taken years to build, can be broken down in no time at all. We know too that this breakdown affects relations not only among academic staff but also with students. They too are increasingly subjected to regimes of monitoring and assessment geared to the achievement of measurable results which are founded on the default assumption that students are motivated in their studies by strategic self-interest and therefore cannot be trusted. It hardly comes as a surprise that in a system of education explicitly set up as a competitive game with prizes in the form of grades, many students will seek to gain the system. The game familiar to any student essay writer is how to convert received knowledge and information into original results. The rules of the game set out in elaborate handbooks that are themselves devoid of scholarly content forbid copying a demand that all work should be novel. Players then are required to rearrange fragments of text or particles of information by means of a word processor into previously unrecorded permutations and combinations while evading detection by the monitoring software seamlessly known as Turnitin designed to catch them out. That this exercise should be thought to have any educational value whatever is a good indication of just how far, sorry, a good indication of just how far education has itself been devalued through its reduction under the business model to a results driven service industry. So when we speak of higher education what exactly do we mean by education and what makes it higher? It's extraordinary that in all the debates that are arranged around what universities are supposed to offer so little attention has been devoted to the question of education itself of how it is conducted and what it is intended to bring about. By and large these debates have been conducted as if we already knew the answers. Typically education is equated with a practice of pedagogy known as teaching and learning. A one way transmission of knowledge from insights of production in centres of research to those namely students who are contracted and have in most cases paid to acquire it. Universities tend to pride themselves on their teaching being research led implying that learners receive their knowledge at first rather than second hand. Students have the privilege of being taught by those at the top of their game working at the cutting edge of research in their respective fields. The closer their education approaches the summit of scientific and intellectual advance the higher it purports to be. But that is about the transmission of knowledge products newly minted by research is assumed without question. For at the very time that education has contracted into the pedagogy of teaching and learning research has been co-opted as an engine of the global knowledge economy and the one is a direct consequence of the other. So to recover the real meaning of education we must first think again about the meaning of research. Now there was a time when the main business of universities was scholarship and where their teachers and students were scholars. Teaching, learning and research insofar as they could be distinguished at all were all aspects of scholarship. But this time is no longer. The Don may on occasion assume the mantle of the scholar yet knows full well that in the new republic of academia it is an anachronistic charade. In today's regime of evaluation exemplified in the UK by the so-called Research Excellence Framework or REF scholarship has been consigned to the menial function of research support epitomised by such dog's body work as the compilation of dictionaries, critical editions, catalogue and databases. In itself it carries little value. Those who cling to a life of scholarship are treated as the fossils of a bygone age at best with indifference at worst facing redundancy. Research on the other hand takes pride of place as anything meeting the needs of commerce, industry or the public sector. Insofar as it leads to what the REF describes as new or substantially improved insights, materials, devices, products and processes. In academia as in industry the tagline new and improved must be attached to any proposal if it is to attract investment funding and to any product if it is subsequently to succeed in the marketplace. That's why so much effort is dedicated to demonstrating the novelty of research and to measuring the business take up the so-called impact of its outputs. For in the global market with ever more intense competition for dwindling returns only what is new sells or rephrased in the brutal language of corporate capitalism excellent research is the driver of innovation and innovation drives up profits. Now all this flies in the face of the real vocation of the scholar for whom research means what it says to search and search again. It means a second search. In this what was an answer in the first search becomes a question in the second and so it continues every search both doubles up on what was done before and is yet an original intervention that invites a double in its turn. There is no end to this. No final breakthrough into the light. Real researchers are anxious souls always ffondling in the dark where nothing is ever quite what it seems and there's little room here for optimism. There is however room for hope. For as every closure turns into an opening every apparent end point into a line of further enquiry research is the guarantor that life will go on that the well of learning will never run dry and that every generation can begin afresh. So what does research seek that ever evades its grasp? The answer of course is truth. Research in its proper sense uncorrupted by the business model is characterised neither by the novelty of its results nor by their impact but by its resolute and relentless pursuit of truth. Now of course truth can mean different things depending on the scholar's discipline or philosophy. What is truth for the physicist might not be what it is for the theologian or the anthropologist or the musician. Nevertheless the search for truth is common to all and is driven by a burning desire to get things right whether empirically, intellectually, ethically or aesthetically and what fuels this desire is not profit but curiosity with curiosity however comes care. Do we love the world enough past the philosopher Hannah Arendt? Do we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it? Are we curious enough to care? Because only if we are, Arendt foretold can there be hope of renewal for generations to come. Without care, without responsibility curiosity can only lead to ruin. Indeed curiosity and care both derived from the Latin verb curare meaning to attend to things or persons to look after them and to respond curiosity and care are two sides of the same coin and that coin is truth. So care, not impact is the hallmark of the responsible of the responsible search for truth. It is a way as I've already said of giving back to the world what we owe for our own existence and for the freedom that comes with it. But couldn't the same be said not just of research but of education in general? Isn't education also dedicated to the pursuit of truth? Is it not equally motivated by curiosity and care? And again it pays to attend to the words themselves because if research literally means to search again then to educate means to lead out. The word comes from the Latin compound of X out plus curare to lead. In this sense education is research-led not because it conveys the results of research at first rather than second hand but because it leads out along the path of inquiry that research in its iterative redoubling ceaselessly opens up. Insofar as it turns all answers into questions research can hardly be taught as though these questions were already answered. Education must go beyond the transmission of newly minted knowledge products as mandated by the pedagogy of teaching and learning if it is to truly follow in the footsteps of research. Now as a way of leading out education is fundamentally a practice of exposure that today's purpose is not to arm ourselves with knowledge or to shore up our defences so that we can better cope with adversity it is rather to disarm to relinquish the security of established standpoints and positions and by the same token to attend more closely to the world around us and to respond with skill and sensitivity to what is going on there. So in education lies the path to real freedom and it's a path along which teachers and researchers go along in each other's company as fellow travellers in the pursuit of truth. The journey can be difficult even uncomfortable with no certain outcome. The job of the teacher is certainly not to make things easy for students. It is however to set them an example to serve as a generous guide and constant companion in the conduct of their research and as a tireless critic of their work. And students following the teacher's example should not be afraid to copy just as a young musician would copy the teacher in learning an instrument or as the apprentice or be the master in learning a craft. This is not plagiarism, this is practice. As an apprentice in the crafts of the intellect the student practices under the eyes of the teacher only eventually to become those eyes watching in turn over the next generation. And therein lies the continuity of scholarship. It's a continuity founded on trust and the assurance that students who cannot be forced to learn are nevertheless eager to join in the scholarly endeavours of their teachers and to relay the torch of learning to generations to come. And that brings me to the fourth pillar of the coming university, namely community. And again, as with education and research I go back to the original that in sense of the term wunus meaning giving together. In the community we all have things to contribute because we are all different. The educational community to borrow a felicitous phrase from the philosopher Alfonso Lingus is a community of those who have nothing in common. It is a coming together in difference. And the university is a community in this sense. It is first and foremost its people a place in which they gather to study. One can only study by joining with others. No one ever studies alone. And that's why every university has to offer a place of gathering not just the socialisation in time off from study but for deep conversation. But we only have to look at the spaces of study of the contemporary university to see how the reduction of teaching and learning to service provision and the designation of students as customers has broken up the gathering. Classrooms that once hosted practices of study are rebranded as resource centres populated with banks of computers before which individual students, oblivious to their fellows play the information game on which their grades depend. Chalk boards around which teachers and their students previously gathered to write and draw screens for the projection of images on which drawing and writing are strictly forbidden. And the auditorium, once a place where students would assemble to listen together and to share in the experience becomes a theatre whose only function is to achieve economies of scale allowing the same information to be transmitted simultaneously to a mass audience. So how can community be restored to the university? Only, I think, by reclaiming it as a place of gathering a place to which students and teachers, researchers all are drawn by their love of learning and by their desire to study. Now this place is of course both one and many singular and plural and its greatest community, United Indifference comprises a plethora of lesser communities in just the same way that the universe of scholarship from which the university takes its name comprises a multitude of subjects. In short, the university is a multiversity. It has long been the convention to call every subject a discipline and to designate as a department the little community of teachers and students who in any particular place gather to study it. For every discipline then, there corresponds a department. These terms are not ideal, but we can live with them. They're not ideal because they rest on the model of the academy inherited from the Enlightenment which no longer really applies, if indeed it ever did. Following a vision originally articulated by the greatest of Enlightenment philosophers, Emmanuel Cunt, the task of academic scholarship is to raise a grand edifice of knowledge upon the foundations of the human mind like a castle with a thousand ruins in each of which is contained all there is to know about some aspect of the world. Every room of the castle corresponds to a particular branch of scholarship, a discipline and in it you'll find the assembled knowledge of that discipline along with a personnel dedicated to its study, that is the department. Put all disciplines together and you have the universe of human knowledge put all departments together and you have a university. But these days it's more common for disciplines to be compared less politely to concrete bunkers or silos, while a manager in my own institution was recently heard to say of departments including mine that they are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. Who's purpose, I wondered? Have disciplines become ossified? Have departments become prisons? In practice, departments have never been the walled in divisions of a greater whole that their name suggests. They're in reality no more and no less than the transient convergence of scholarly lives coming together in difference that makes of each a community. And as communities they have always been open there never has been a time when scholars following their various lines of inquiry have not been drawn to other lines emerging from other sources. They've done so whenever it has been germane to their research. But the fundamental openness of both disciplines and departments is an inconvenient truth for those who would seek to manage the university along corporate lines. In their model the university is constituted not by interwoven lines of inquiry but by lines of control that work from the top down. The loyalty, cohesion and self-reliance of disciplinary communities which come from an intimate knowledge of the field and from working together and teaching the same students is perceived as an immediate threat to this control. And in the eyes of corporate management the way to address the threat is to use the alleged ossification of departments their silo mentality as a pretext for dissolution. They have to be amalgamated into larger multi-disciplinary conglomerates within which the bonds of community are broken and collegiality gives way to compliance. Now of these conglomerates the largest are in the fields of science, technology and engineering. And so far I've studiously avoided any mention of the division which more than any other rends the academy between these fields and everything else commonly bracketed under the rubric of the arts and humanities. I've avoided it because I believe it was inappropriate and unhelpful. But there's no escaping the way in which science, technology, engineering and rather oddly mathematics have been weaponised in the corporate capture of our universities. And this has happened under the cover of their acronym S-T-E-M, STEM. Higher education policy documents are full of references to STEM subjects. But what is evident from these documents is that STEM is not really a shorthand for a congerese of subjects but a front for the business model and the umbrella under which it has been imported into the university. The institutions of science and technology if not scientists and technologists themselves have been undeniably complicit in this. But it places champions of the arts and humanities in a quandary. Some advocate playing the same tune by marketising their disciplines. You only have to insert an A for arts in the midst of STEM, they say. Thus turning STEM to STEAM and all will be resolved. But that would amount to capitulation. In my view to the contrary it is to the arts and humanities to carry the flame of scholarship not against science in which it has been all but extinguished but in its defence. It is to rescue science from itself and to rekindle its founding commitment to the common good and it is to this commitment to the common good that I now turn. Having reviewed the four pillars of freedom, trust, education and community where does this leave us? Certainly with a picture of the university very different from what we have today. In this final part of my lecture I want to revisit the key question of what the university is for of its purpose in the light of the principles I set out. There is no better place to begin than from the vision and foresight of the founders of our ancient universities here in Scotland. And just as we should aspire to do today they in their own time were attempting to establish something for which in these lands there was no president. In 1495 William Elphinstone Bishop of Aberdeen and Chancellor of Scotland declared his ambition to founding university which would be open to all and dedicated to the pursuit of truth in the service of others. Well this ambition should be ours too and it could hardly be stated more succinctly. Yet it is betrayed in every single respect by the contemporary business model of higher education. I've already shown how the principle of education as the pursuit of truth has been trounced by an exclusive emphasis on novelty in research and on transmission in teaching and learning. In the UK's frameworks of excellence for the evaluation of research and latterly of teaching the word truth appears not once. What comes is rather innovation when it comes to research and employability when it comes to teaching. But I want now to turn my attention to the other two components of Bishop Elphinstone's ambition namely openness to all and service to others. Now these principles of openness and service are inextricably linked and they add up to what in my title I call the common good. A university that is open to all and of service to others is a university for the common good. So let me first be clear what I did not mean by this. I make no appeals of the common man the universal human subject endowed by nature the interest from the start whose improvement was the project of the Enlightenment. To explain what I do mean I return to John Dewey who is thinking on democracy and education I touched on earlier. So Dewey education was fundamentally about communication but he meant this in a sense very different from what we understand by the term today. Our present idea of communication inflected by contemporary data technologies implies the transmission of information. But for Dewey communication was about forging community and as he insisted does not rest on what people have in common to begin with. Like the freedom it entails it is rather something that continually has to be worked at. So participants coming in with different experiences and perspectives on things must be ready to move on from where they stand and cast their imaginations forward along paths that meet with the imaginations of others who do look likewise so as to achieve a degree of consensus or what Dewey called like-mindedness that makes it possible for them at once to carry on their lives together and to go their own ways. Communication for Dewey or what I think we might be better called commoning but coming together in difference and the differentiation made possible by coming together and a university should be a place of commoning. So then what's the good to which commoning contributes? It's not a commodity nor even a supply of commodities. It's not the same as goods. Factories produce goods that universities are not factories. Goods are finished. Universities however are places of renewal and the common good is nothing if not perpetual renewal. In his recent book called Reimagining Britain Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby describes the common good thus. The common good and all the values and practices it encompasses is not something legislated or mandated but is the sum of innumerable small and large actions by every participant in society. That's Welby. It is in this sense none other than social life itself, the ongoing creation of persons in community. It's you and I and everyone else in our mutual relations or in short it's the world we inhabit in all its fullness and commoning is a guarantor that this world can carry on of its continuity and sustainability. So to say that universities serve the common good is to insist that they play an essential role in underwriting this guarantor. But it's a role from which today's universities have largely abdicated. Indeed they've set themselves up as providers of knowledge products for government, commerce and industry and as services in the form of training and qualification for their students beyond tell. And just as the common good is distinguished from the supply of goods. So there's all the difference in the world between acting in the service of others and providing services to others. One is founded on generosity on giving what we owe for our formation as participants in a social world. The other is founded on contract or rendering services for payment. Now to contribute to the common good as I've suggested is to follow a calling in which it combines both freedom and responsibility. It is to accept a certain way of life motivated by a duty of care. And in the university this is a life of study. And literally the call to study is a vocation. And yet just like service vocation is also a term that can be taken in quite different senses. So the brand of course of study as vocational implies that it is expressly designed to provide the individual student with qualifications to entry into a career. Now it's easy to gloss over these ambiguities in the understanding of service and vocation or to conflate good with goods as universities routinely do in their mission statements. They can declare their aim to transform the world with their research and in their teaching to enable every student to fulfil his or her calling while boasting about the millions of pounds earned in grants and contracts and their success in securing high paid employment for their students. But no amount of papering over can hide the fact that mission and boast are in flagrant contradiction. Universities cannot operate as profitable businesses and serve the common good at the same time. And to adopt for the former is to renake on any commitment to the latter. Or which is it to be? Or more to the point, if universities are not to run on the business model where is the money to come from that would keep them afloat? Well, pay for it. For there are financial costs to be born and like any other organisations, universities have to balance the books. Now in the UK most universities are set up as charities. Some of their support comes from philanthropy and some from other charitable organisations that part fund their research. But much of it still comes from the public purse. Arguments range over the justifications of this support given that the benefits are cruel overwhelmingly to the better off in our society. Universities to their credit can point to the real efforts they've made to open their doors to students of poorer backgrounds to give them opportunities never enjoyed by their parents and grandparents and to set many on a path to distinction in their careers. It sounds perverse and indeed downright elitist to argue that it is not for universities to operate as agents of social mobility to assist students who start out at a disadvantage and yet this is what I propose. As charitable institutions whose educational purpose is underwritten by service to the common good universities should certainly aspire to provide the support necessary to allow anyone drawn to academic study to accept this calling regardless of wealth or background. What they should not do however is present this study as a means to an end namely to set up those who undertake it at an advantage or to raise them up the ladder of attainment in a meritocracy that puts the highly educated at the top with the most powerful positions the best incomes and the most enviable lifestyles. For if that were the purpose of higher education then its claim to work for the common good would be a sham. It would serve only the good of those lucky enough to succeed in it and for that very reason it would scarcely warrant public support. Think the problem lies in underlying assumptions that are perhaps inadvertently brought in whenever we use such words as disadvantage or mobility. These words conjure up a competitive society in which some inevitably fare better and others worse and where the same words are used to frame policies of higher education they cannot help but reproduce the very hierarchies that universities are pledged to overcome. There will be winners and losers and this is not to serve the common good it is to reserve it for some at the expense of others. Now cynics of course will argue that the ideals I presented of fulfilling a calling and service to others are fine for those whose own prosperity is otherwise assured that for those who lack the means they surely remain a pipe dream. How can the idea of a university that is open to all in the surface of others can have any traction beyond a moneyed class if in practice it's open only to individuals who can afford to study there. But this objection only underscores the importance of providing adequate levels of public support for students who need it precisely on the grounds of the contribution to the common good that their studies will enable them to make. It may sound crass but it is surely preferable for public money to be used to enable those who are fired by a burning desire for academic study to fulfil their ambition than to subsidise the upward mobility of those who are not and whose only interest in higher education is to obtain the qualifications that would open the door to comparatively well paid employment. And yet from the pronouncements of most politicians and policy makers you'd not only think that the vast majority of students enter university expressly in order to enhance their employment prospects but also that it is entirely right that they should do so. It's a view moreover that resonates powerfully among members of the public whose own children's education is on the line. And it accounts at least in part for the profound antipathy towards university education bordering on contempt that is widespread among the many who have been left behind in the race to the top and made to feel surplus to requirements in the shiny new world of corporate globalisation. These are people, be it noted, who are also vociferous in their defence of democracy. Their idea of democracy may be dangerously warped for reasons I've already outlined and yet in their diagnosis of higher education they are not wrong. It is perceived to be a system designed to produce a cosmopolitan elite that has gone out of its way to corner every advantage for itself and whose global ambitions have been allowed to ride roughshod over people's grounded sense of belonging to place, community and nation. Indeed the corruption of democracy under the banner of populism is in part a backlash against the globalisation of higher education for which the latter must take its share of the blame. This list between democracy and education is already tearing our societies apart and it's vital that we find ways to heal it and to do so I suggest we need to return to the idea drawn from the work of John Dewey of both education and democracy on the basis of commoning. This is to insist on the one hand that democracy lies not in the willful imposition of majority rules of the exclusion of all other interests but in a never ending quest for like-mindedness for ways of going along together in difference. And on the other hand it's to insist that education is not a gateway to the higher echelons of society but a way of leading life in which generations even as they overlap can contribute to each other's ongoing formation. In a recent interview following the release of this film Peter Liu documenting the events that took place in Manchester two centuries ago with the violent suppression of a protest to demand the reform of parliamentary representation the film's director Mike Lee observed that the people who gathered on that day in St Peter's Square were hungry for education and hungry for the vote. They knew that education and democracy go hand in hand as twin foundations for human flourishing. And yet nowadays Lee went on to say people who feel themselves to be equally downtrodden are both apathetic about education and cannot be bothered to vote. What, why he wanted is that. And there could be no more dramatic demonstration of the need to reconnect education and democracy on the basis that the commitment of both is to the common good. It is no more for education to keep the wheels of the economy turning than it is for democracy to protect its vested interests. So why should people participate in the democratic process and why should they go to study at a university? They should do so as Lee intimated in his interview because they are hungry. This hunger is not for advancement or promotion. It's not satisfied by eating at a higher table. It's a hunger to enjoy a life that is rich, fulfilling and generous. Lived in freedom and in trust. And this is to find in study a way of life not the means to stage a career. Titan means something different here. There's been much discussion about the length of the degree course. Should it be four years or three or even two? The pressure for those who see in education the means to an end has always been to compress the time it takes in order to reduce costs and drive up efficiency. But what if we were to apply the same logic to human lives? Wouldn't it be much cheaper and more efficient to get them over and done with more quickly? The proposition is of course absurd. But it's no more... it's no less absurd than measuring out the duration of scholarship in years. To align study with life rather than with preparation for a career is to acknowledge that life carries on sorry that scholarship carries on as life does. We don't cease to study any more than we cease to age. Education is about maturation not matriculation. And the university should be open to all for any length of time but at any time of life who are hungry for scholarship. But any hint of advantage or disadvantage any idea of relative status and mobility must be laid down at the gates. It has no business within. We should not even hear of it. For the university I insist is a place of freedom wherein the structuring forces of society should be set aside or at least held in abeyance. So they may be returned finally to the founding ambition that the university should be open to all. For it to be a place of gathering this openness must primarily be to those who live around and about in what we could call the region. By this I don't mean a level of administration intermediate between the city and the state but a territorially unbounded field of life and activity within which are nevertheless hubs of concentration. The university is such a hub and a concentration of the intellectual life of the region. So without denying that universities and their scholars are and should be in continual dialogue with one another unconstrained by political and administrative barriers I want to insist that the region is nevertheless the lifeblood of the university in the very source of its vitality. This isn't just about outreach about offering the public or school children occasional glimpses behind the scenes or bringing in a bit of local culture to burnish the university brand. It's about fostering a scholarship that breathes the air the air of the region of its people and their history communities and environment and that's what makes every university different in its character and in its operandi even in its languages and customs. Without this differentiation higher education would become the bland, monotonous and standardised affair that it is increasingly becoming today. And undoubtedly the most pernicious effect of this standardisation is the rise of global rankings which the university is jostling for position on a scale that pits eminence against regional affiliation. The higher up the university the more disconnected it is from its media and the more wedded to the service of an international corporate elite. A university for the common good to the contrary is one that seeks distinction in its service to the region. Well I began with the purpose of the university and I'll now conclude with it. For William Elphinstone you'll recall it was to be open to all dedicated to the pursuit of the service of others. And when I and my colleagues at Aberdeen set out to draft our manifesto to reclaim the very university that Elphinstone had founded over 500 years previously we had once again to define its purpose in a manner appropriate to our times in the defence of democracy peaceful coexistence and human flourishing. And I'm rather proud of the formulation we came up with than I want to read it out. The primary civic purpose of the university in a democratic society is to educate future generations of citizens and to forge the knowledge needed to sustain a just and prosperous world. The university is a place where people of integrity from all nations gather in order to learn to think and think deeply about the nature of things about the ways we live about truth and justice, peace and conflict freedom and responsibility the distribution of wealth health and sustainability beauty and virtue They learn to weigh these thoughts against the evidence of experience and to translate them into policy and practice systems of law and governance as well as to great works of science, literature and art. These things are the foundations of civilised life our university will be a place in which they can be incubated and nurtured. It is what it means to build a university for the common good and I commend it to you. Thank you.


Wow, what a reversal in the markets yesterday. There was the Fed member, one of the FOMC members of the Federal Reserve Parainat saying that the cost of an economy which is overheating is not as high as an economy which has been slowed down too soon. So she has made some dovish tones and some dovish statements yesterday on markets relaxed and priced out any probabilities any serious probabilities for a September 8 hike. We see that there was a sharp reversal in the Dow Jones industrial which has lost a lot of several hundred points on Friday. Now it has regained most of that already again. There was a double top foaming in the Dow Jones of industrials, a technical double top target of which has almost been reached yesterday with the lows that have been made in pre-market trading. So well, technicals speak for themselves. The bearish scenario, the double top has been defused. There has been a sharp reversal after they hit the target and now everybody asks which rate hike. So for September nobody really expects that there will be a rate hike by the Federal Reserve. Now there is a quiet period until the 20th and 21st of September. So next week we will hear the next statements from Janet Yellen and this will be, if she doesn't act, if she doesn't hike the rates, this will be the last chance for her to hike rates before this November elections. The next meeting will be in November just some days before presidential election. So the chances are very low that she will hike in November. So if she doesn't do it in September there will be several months of low rates and this environment is actually very positive for stocks because rates will be low for several more months. Now we have China. We saw that there was some repetition starting, repetition of what we had in the markets in August of 2015 and in January of this year that traders were building up short positions in the Renminbi short positions in the Yuan to bet that there will be interventions by the Chinese government to stem the strength in the US dollar. This all has been in connection with the rate hikes and expectations that there will be a September rate hike, which has been the cause of this, has been the speech of Mr Rosencreen from the Federal Reserve and traders have been building up the most bearish positions on the Yuan in almost four months because they speculated that there will be interventions by the Chinese government. This morning we see retail numbers and the industrial production out of China which came in better than expected. We see the sharp reversals on Wall Street. We see the pricing out of the September rate hike fears in the market so there's less need actually for any intervention from the Chinese government. Then we see OPEC which has actually forecasted just by yesterday or before yesterday forecasted that there will be a decrease in non-OPEC production. Now they change their forecast to see an increase in non-OPEC production for the whole year of 2017, which the cause of this is a new oil field which is coming on stream later in the year in Kazakhstan. We see more bearish signals for the price of oil, price of WTI and print is something you should watch because they're still momentum building. There's been a turn in prices yesterday as well with all the risk assets after the pre-net speech from the Federal Reserve so there might be something of a trading opportunity there in print and WTI possibly today.


Live from San Francisco, California, theCUBE, covering MarkLogic World 2015. Brought to you by MarkLogic. Now, here are your hosts, Jeff Frick and Jeff Kelly. Welcome back everybody, we are live here on theCUBE at MarkLogic World 2015 in San Francisco. I'm Jeff Kelly and I'm with my host Jeff Frick. We are getting towards the end of our wall-to-wall coverage here. It's been a long day, but we've heard some great stories. We're going to hear another great story. We've got Freddie Quick, who's the director of strategic initiatives at Wiley, joining us, Wiley Welldown Publisher. Thank you for your welcome. Freddie, thanks for joining us, first time on theCUBE. Appreciate it. Probably most of our audience is familiar with Wiley, but why don't you tell us a little bit about Wiley and your role and then we'll kind of get into some of the things you're doing. Yeah, I don't think many people actually know of us, right, the thing that they probably know is this is for Dummy's brand, but we do more than just Dummy's. We are one of the oldest publishers in the world.  That's a long time. And we do a lot of things. We have three main core businesses, one around research, academic scientific research, one around education, and then one around sort of professional development, professional practice, what you do in your professional life. We are a $1.8 billion company with 5,000 employees globally. So, you know, it's been interesting in the sense as a company, I was at a conference recently and I asked the audience, how many people work for a company that's been around in the last 20 years? Lots of hands. When I asked how many work for a company that's been around for 200 years, I'm one of the few. Well, I would imagine being on the one hand, a media and a publishing company, and the fact that you've been around for 200 years, you've got quite a lot of content from a lot of different systems that you're trying to juggle and manage to deliver to your readers. Yes. Tell us a little bit about that environment from a content and data perspective that you're working with. I mean, as you just said, we have lots of content going all the way back to the 1800s, right? And when the internet came along, that was when, in fact, one of the sort of perception on me is about publishing companies that we are traditional, we are all, we are not, we are followers rather than leaders, but when I'm looking back now, that is not quite true because when you saw the emergence of the internet, guess who were the first people that put lots of content on the internet? It was the publishers. I used to work for another major publisher and now I work for Wiley. And that was the beginning of where lots of content was put on the internet. But because of that, we were also the first to start discovering the problems around dealing with what is now called big data. In those days, you don't have those terms, but we have problems with lots of content that we have no idea what to do, right? And of course we were looking for a solution that helps us to not only just put the content out there, but to be able to put it in a way that we can do more with it. For example, to be able to reuse that content to what they call slice and dice content. And one of the things that we did was to introduce Maclogic as not originally back in 2005, very long time ago, as our content repository. So keeping all that raw data in one place, in one repository. And then a few years later, we had Maclogic building us a custom application and it's called Wiley Custom Select. It is a custom publication application for people to produce their own work from the content that we have. And that only took three months, right? You say that people, is that enterprise customers, is that individuals, I mean? This is mostly academic institutions for like professors who wants to create their own syllabus for teaching. Okay. Yeah, but of course, you know, anybody can go to the website, it's website comes to life and just do it. We call it, you can produce your own custom book in three simple steps. Yeah, anyone takes, you know, as long as it takes you to do it. And where did you implement that? What year did you implement that? That was back in, I believe 2009. Yeah. So is that, that's a use case that Maclogic has been kind of- Yeah, so and this is something that I've, you know, because I only joined Wiley in 2006. So prior to that, they already had that content store, they built that custom application tool. But when I joined Wiley, one of my responsibility was to be in charge of the, is largest customer facing application called Wiley into Science. And we had a big acquisition of another company called Blackwells, which then sort of double our size. And of course, one of the things that I was asked to do is how do we combine everything into one single platform? And I took that as the opportunity to sort of create the next generation platform. I have to look into what kinds of solutions are out there that would help us to solve that problem. And originally, I was looking at Maclogic definitely as the XML store. But very quickly, I realized that, and it was also Maclogic saying to me, why are you not using our other capabilities? Because at that time, I was aware of the version three which was just an XML store. But by that time, there was version four. And version four comes with Enterprise Plus search engine. I didn't know that. So we had to take a chance to not only use the Consense Store but the search engine and also very quickly because of the limited sort of skill sets that we have there. I have to rely on my engineers and they're very great. And some of them actually work for Maclogic today to say, what do we do? And they say, look, you can actually do almost anything with Maclogic. So we also started using Maclogic as one of the application services. And we became sort of part of the application engine that we used to drive this Wiley Online platform. And it's our largest platform. We have 75 million page views a year, sorry, a month. And we have 270 million visitors a year. So it's huge numbers. Yeah. It's always an interesting debate between a platform and an application. And clearly these guys came into your world as really an application. But it was a fundamental platform that we keep hearing more and more, Jeff. People coming on saying that we're building new products, new applications on this platform.  Exactly. And that's what I meant by, you know, it's a myth that we are followers because we had, we realized that we had to build those foundational things in there. And one of the stories that I probably want to talk about is the American Geophysical Union project because, you know, people asked me why that was successful. And I said to them, that didn't happen by accident. Right? It happened by design and it happened by the fact that we had already had that investment before having the right content store with the right technology, having shown that we can build a custom application too in a very sort of rapid fashion, having built the next generation sort of platform to serve that huge amounts of users. And finally, when we were being asked to do a challenge like this, where we only had four months to integrate, you know, 160,000 articles, you know, we had to integrate 60,000 customer data. We had to improve the content. We had to build 60 features in a six-week development cycle. Everybody said, wow, impossible. Of course it's impossible. But because of the foundation that we had, it became an enabler. And that's why we see technology as helping us through that journey to achieve different things. So for that one, it was an enabling technology, but for the other ones, it's more about creating the foundation. And are you seeing kind of a renewed entrepreneurial vigor inside the company now that people know that they can build some of these applications based on this platform that you put in to really go after new opportunities, new markets, new ways to slice and dice as info? Yeah, I think the way my colleagues and I were looking at the opportunity is not just from a technology perspective. It's about the fact that we want to be, we are on a journey to become a knowledge company. Probably, I would say 10 years ago, most of the things that we do are in print. And only about five years ago, we were at a sort of 40% mark. As of today, we are 60% digital. 60% of our revenue comes from digital. And our target is to be at 75% in 2017. So we are clearly on that journey. And part of that journey is to come up with sort of more products and services, not just being a content provider, but more products and services that will benefit our users. And we want our users and customers to be a lifelong partner with us, right? On the journey from being in school, in college, part of the higher education, getting sort of materials, not just from what we provide, but online and product services that goes with it all the way through when they are in industry and they are sort of working professionals to help them and also to help their organizations with tele-management, right? We have tools now that goes into sort of pre-hire assessment, to post-hire assessment, succession planning. So we're moving from just providing content to creating knowledge-enabled services. Talk about the transformation of going from the print to the digital world, right? A lot of people are going through that right now with their own businesses and clearly probably cannibalize some of your own business. And I'm sure there was some interesting debates around the table in starting to eat some of our own business with some of this digital delivery of the content. And yet, it's still an objective it sounds like to make that move. Talk a little bit about the business decisions and why that's an important move for you guys to go. Right, in fact, just before I came here, I sort of looked at some of the materials that we've put out there in the public domain and our CEO, Steve Smith, back in 2013, he actually, there was an article written about an interview with him and the title was Reinventing Wiley. And it was a very sort of a good story about why we're on this journey because clearly the print business has been sort of, a lot of that market has been eaten away by obviously electronic media. And of course, you're gonna do something about it, right? We can't just wait there and do nothing. Watch it fade away. Exactly. And no matter how hard we try, that sort of attrition replacement is not gonna be the same, right? We lose 50% in terms of what we used to get revenue from Printed Books. It doesn't mean that we get the same 50% from digital. So we have to obviously keep looking at different ways of achieving that. And I think one of the strategies that he mentioned in that interview was that we want to make sure that on this journey, the stuff that we are very good at doing for 200 years, that will still remain as part of our core business, but it's no longer gonna be 100% of our business, right? That's 75%. We have to look at 25% from other opportunities, from other revenue streams, and those revenue streams that I briefly mentioned earlier on will be into sub-knowledge and able services, tools and products that is more than just providing content. How important is that essentially that CEO mandate when it comes to adopting new types of technology, such as Mark Vodrick, does that make it a smoother transition when you know you've got top-down initiative to make it happen? Right, I think we all know that it's so important to get clear leadership because otherwise you'll be doing so many different things and what Steve has provided us is that clear mandate about where we wanna go and as a technology function, our job is to provide the best solution, right? Who knows what the solution might be tomorrow? And I think we are glad that at least we make the right bet in those early days to create a foundation who knows what would happen tomorrow, but at least we have given ourselves a chance to be successful in the meantime as we continue the journey. Yep, fantastic. Well, Freddie, thank you so much for joining us on theCUBE. Unfortunately, we're out of time and there's a great conversation. Right, great call. Hopefully we'll have you again on soon. Pretty quick from Wiley, thanks so much. Thank you for watching Stick Around. We'll be right back with our next segment live here at MarkLogic World 2015. You're watching theCUBE.