Here are two wicked questions for Gillian Tett on the Math and physics vs. English and history debate.

Sir, Gillian Tett, with a lot of good reasons and arguments, raises the issue of whether it is good for America that fewer students opt for, let us say harder science subjects and settle for, let us say easier English and history courses, “A need to change the subjects of desire” June 15. This is a really difficult topic and to prove here are two wicked questions for the debate:

If there were too many Americans studying science and therefore too many American scientists could be out of work, could that not provoke the kind of protectionist actions which could lead perhaps for some of the best scientists in the world not being able to get to America?

In terms of keeping the society strong, united and peaceful, what courses would you prefer that a forever-unemployed had taken…English or physics?

Will now tenured university professors retire on senior retirement campuses?

Sir, in 2004 I published in Venezuela an Op-Ed titled “Real or virtual universities” and in which I discussed imaginary ongoing heated budget debates in the universities, between those who wanted better classrooms and those who wanted better servers. 

When now reading Gillian Tett’s “Welcome to the virtual university and budget learning” February 2, I get the feeling that soon many university campuses might retire by being acquired by chains specializing in retirement homes for the baby boomers, and where perhaps many retiring professors can remain feeling at home. 

Really, if the incentives of the physical universities are not better aligned with the future income realities of their student, their current business model is bound to break. Perhaps the professors’ retirement plans should be based on a percentage of the future earnings of the graduates, at least so as to decrease the risk they will be sued by their former students for failing to deliver what was implicitly promised them.

Access to bank credit on especially good terms is also an unfair privilege

Sir, if GillianTett can argument for more equal opportunities for all to access higher education, “Privilege is price for college admission” October 21, why does she refuse to argue in favor of equal access for all to bank credit, by eliminating the regulatory privileges given to those perceived as “The Infallible”?

By the way, one thought that Tett´s article inspires, since donations to universities have tax advantages, as long as nothing “tangible” is received in return, is whether these donations should not be shared, for instance 50 percent to the receiving university and 50 percent with the rest?

Inefficiencies are often very precious.

Sir, Martin Flash in response to your editorial “Corporate France comes into focus” raises the question of “Is inefficiency a cost worth bearing?” May 17. I would dare to go much further, even stating that inefficiencies are in fact extremely valuable societal factors, that should be nourished and protected, of course in an efficient way. Think of it, if the world was really as efficient as it could be, what would there be left to do for the likes of me and you. And this by the way reminds me of another issue close to my heart and that I have not written to you previously about, I think.

We often see tables where they discriminate between occupations, like agriculture, manufacturing, services and so on, but when it comes to the unemployed they are usually bunched up into one and the same group. This is tragic, we urgently need to create new categories of unemployed so that we for instance can start recording those millions that more and more belong in special categories such as the “employed unemployed” (see Scandinavia) and also the gainfully unemployed. In a global world order disrupted by more efficient job allocation it is important for Universities and others to start giving courses on how to be and make a living being structurally unemployed, (Unemployed BA)and perhaps this is something that the French, with an intuitive efficiency, have been able to pick up.

On the other hand the French, with their savoir faire, might have just decided that the markets should not be trusted in its efficiency, and personally I think they have a point, especially when some few credit rating agencies have been ordered to substitute for so much of the market.