高等教育权述评

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Education Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1177/14778785231160062
Lauren Bialystok
{"title":"高等教育权述评","authors":"Lauren Bialystok","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Martin’s argument for the right to higher education is an exercise in ideal theory, which specifically distances itself from the familiar failings of compulsory education. I argue that even using sufficientarian criteria for admission to higher education would perpetuate non-ideal patterns of inequality and that reasonable forms of selectivity would still limit access to autonomy-promoting higher education. Martin’s case should prompt us to think about arbitrary divisions between compulsory and post-compulsory education in an autonomy-oriented system.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"21 1","pages":"71 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary on The Right to Higher Education\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Bialystok\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14778785231160062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Martin’s argument for the right to higher education is an exercise in ideal theory, which specifically distances itself from the familiar failings of compulsory education. I argue that even using sufficientarian criteria for admission to higher education would perpetuate non-ideal patterns of inequality and that reasonable forms of selectivity would still limit access to autonomy-promoting higher education. Martin’s case should prompt us to think about arbitrary divisions between compulsory and post-compulsory education in an autonomy-oriented system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"71 - 76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

马丁关于高等教育权利的论证是一种理想理论的实践,它与人们所熟悉的义务教育的失败有明显的区别。我认为,即使采用充分主义的高等教育录取标准,也会使非理想的不平等模式永久化,而合理形式的选择性仍然会限制学生进入提倡自主的高等教育。马丁的案例应该促使我们思考,在一个以自主为导向的体系中,义务教育和后义务教育之间的任意划分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Commentary on The Right to Higher Education
Martin’s argument for the right to higher education is an exercise in ideal theory, which specifically distances itself from the familiar failings of compulsory education. I argue that even using sufficientarian criteria for admission to higher education would perpetuate non-ideal patterns of inequality and that reasonable forms of selectivity would still limit access to autonomy-promoting higher education. Martin’s case should prompt us to think about arbitrary divisions between compulsory and post-compulsory education in an autonomy-oriented system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Julian Culp, Johannes Drerup and Douglas Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education Education for deliberative democracy through the long-term view Education for flourishing: A social contract for foundational competencies Book review: Barbara S Stengel, Responsibility: Philosophy of Education in Practice How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1