In his Diary of a Bad Year, Coetzee makes mention of a philosophy seminar in Australia which was organized entirely by non-academic civilians. However, this seminar was in no way, for that reason, second-rate. Rather, in Coetzee's eyes at least, this seminar had its unique merits, the chief ones of which is those which stem from the fact that this was founded on sincere, free motivations.
Nowadays, the seminar in a university setting is taken for granted, to such an extent that many students wouldn't, I imagine, feel at all that they are voluntarily being part of a movement. The institution of the university has become such a normal, well-established environment, that a seminar rather appears to the average student as something which already exists somewhere out there, waiting to be "filled in" before class one. No wonder then that many such seminars end up being not as lively as it could have been.
Perhaps this shift in the meaning of seminars is reflected in other parts of the university. University is turning into a tool for boosting one's career, to repeat a cliche. In any case, it is a cliche worth repeating, since it makes it clear that, for the pure learner, it is not necessary to get a Ph.D. And yet. Many people still believe that a Ph.D. is an absolute requirement if one is to become a successful academic.
The main justification for this belief is that only a person with a Ph.D. can get the chance to teach, do research, and get published in journals. However, in the contemporary world, this is no longer the case. By using the world wide web, it is possible to organize a local seminar on just about anything. People can in this way teach each other. They can also conduct research on their own thanks to Open Source Journals and Creative Commons Licenses. And, they can publish their works in electronic book form without any cost, and can also write on other avenues.
Traditionally, professors were respected and revered just because... they were professors. The old joke goes that everyone knows that a professor has done something important but no one can tell exactly what it is. The 19th and 20th century Russian novel repeatedly satirizes the "academician" who is respected for no substantial reason.
Now, if free access to journals were granted to the ordinary person, this would have a huge impact on how professors conduct and present their research. I do not mean that they should cater to the needs of the average layperson - such a turn of events would be unfortunate, since it would compromise the quality and rigor of their ideas. Rather, professors would have to be conscious that someone out there is actually going to read his or her work. In other words, they would no longer be able to treat their duty of research merely as part of their "career." If the long list of publications happened to be comprised of articles and books which, upon inspection, appear to be of almost no value (in one sense or another,) then it is clear that that fact would severely damage the professor's reputation. This scenario would have been very unlikely in an environment where ordinary people were barred access to academic publications, and thus were unable to see for themselves just what the professors were up to. Hence the mysterious aura of the "respectable" professor and the corresponding joke.
But if more and more scholarly material become available to the ordinary citizen, then two things would happen. First, the academic ability of individuals will be assessed not according to what kind of credentials they have on their CVs, but rather on the quality and reception of their works, both in research and in teaching. Second, getting a Ph.D. merely for the sake of career-building will become an obsolete option. The whole Ph.D. system, especially where the subject-matter demands a broad comprehension of a variety of topics rather than a rigid and narrow focus on one point, will have to be reconsidered. If a Ph.D. were to continue to be a sign that one is a professional in one's field, then a dissertation would have to satisfy certain qualitative requirements including that of being intelligible, meaningful, and not excessively narrow or short-sighted.
Academic institutions are valuable sanctuaries for theory and thought. They should not turn into mere tools for career-building. Philosophy, in particular, shouldn't be taught for the sake of "transferable skills." It ought to be an end in itself. If academia ceases to insist on this point, then Coetzee's civilian seminar will become necessary, for where else would philosophy be able to enjoy unconditional attention and respect as it is in itself?
Additionally, if academia is to become a retreat for higher level students, it ought to make the necessary changes that will give breathing space to those students. At present, there are too many time-consuming duties, which have very little to do with learning academic content, seem to weigh heavily on the student's shoulders. Attending conferences in order to "make connections," doing TA work in order to "pay the bills," and taking courses and writing papers which will "get the approval of the professors," are all extraneous activities. It might be the case that a non-student outside the university has a better chance of learning his or her own topic of interest. I am currently assuming the latter position by working a job that will pay my bills and then devoting the rest of my time to academic activities without worrying about external matters.
Again, this does not mean that people ought to start doing research outside the university. Rather, this means that the current higher education system needs to be improved quite fundamentally, so that students are actually given the space to focus freely on their primary vocation, namely, to learn. At present, such a free focus seems easier to achieve outside the university. This is a problematic situation.
