Palabras del Secretario General de la OCDE, Angel Gurría, con ocasión de la mesa redonda de Ministros de Educación que tuvo lugar en la UNESCO, 10 octubre 2009.
Education for the future – Promoting changes in policies and practices: the way forward
Remarks by Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General, delivered at the Education Ministerial Round Table, UNESCO
10 October 2009 – UNESCO, Paris, France
Director General, Madame Chair, Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning:
I am pleased to be part of this session on “How to promote changes in policies and practices”, as this is one of the greatest challenges to improve education and the very essence of OECD work in this field. Thank you very much for the invitation. We have brought with us the ”highlights” of our yearly publication, “Education at a Glance”, as well as some very specific publications on, for example, “Education for students at risk and those with disabilities in the Baltics and South East Europe”, or “Green at Fifteen”.
The current financial and economic crisis is one of the biggest transformations of our lifetime. It is defining a tough new world. Thus, we need to revise our educational policies, to adapt them to such new reality where factors like high unemployment, growing inequalities, stronger competition, fewer jobs, enhanced interdependence, new business ethics, constant innovation and, if we get it right, “green growth” are becoming the new pointers for our societies of the future.
We therefore need to prepare for such a challenging future. This is where education comes in and becomes critical.
1. Rising skills: a first crucial target
We are currently facing the greatest job crisis of our lives. The average unemployment rate in the OECD area could approach 10% by 2010. Youth unemployment has soared to 20-30% in some countries. This figure translates into 57 million people out of a job in the OECD zone. The number of unemployed is even larger in developing countries, and is sometimes hard to track because of the phenomenon of informality.
Education and training are key elements to our response to this crisis. If we want to provide jobseekers with the re-employment assistance they require, and minimise long-term unemployment, we need to emphasize training.
As we documented in the most recent edition (the 29th) of our “Employment OutlooEmployment Outlook”, the job prospects for those with few qualifications are deteriorating rapidly in this crisis environment. Across OECD countries, over 40% of young people who have not completed secondary school are not employed. This is more than the double of the youth unemployment rate. Many of those who become unemployed stay unemployed for a long time. New graduates face serious difficulties in finding jobs and enterprises cut training opportunities in the vocational area. All because of the crisis.
And yet, we have powerful evidence that education is the key to addressing the economic and social challenges of our times, including a way to get out of the crisis faster. We continue to see rising economic and social benefits for those who are skilled, as well as deteriorating opportunities for those without adequate education.
We have made calculation on how worth it is for one to get higher education. It is enormously positive. Actually, there is a considerable earnings premium for people with degrees over their working lives, which averages now $186,000 across OECD countries. Even when you hold such benefits against what governments and individuals spend on education, the net public return from an investment in tertiary education is highly positive. For individuals, it pays to invest in education. You clearly have a very positive costs / benefits ratio.
You can look at the other side of the coin too: the economic loss imposed by poor educational performance might be even greater than the output shortfall in the current economic crisis. For example, if the United States had closed the gap regarding performing education systems such as Finland and Korea, GDP in 2008 could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher (equivalent to 9 – 16% of GDP).
There is no doubt that education systems have responded to the rising demand for better skilled people. Indeed, the volume of educational activity has expanded at an unprecedented pace. University graduation rates doubling from 20% in 1995 to almost 40% in 2007, in the OECD area. In China and other emerging markets, the rate of expansion has been even faster.
Producing more of the same qualifications cannot be the answer when the nature of the skills that matter is changing too.
2. Education systems have to put greater emphasis on 21st Century skills
Our economic growth is increasingly driven by innovation, making skills obsolete at a much faster pace than before. This is why Ministers called upon the OECD to develop an Innovation Strategy that looks, among other things, at how education and training can develop the skills that matter for the world to come. They also more recently gave us a mandate to develop a Green Growth Strategy. Innovation and Green Growth clearly go hand in hand.
How can schools and universities prepare people for a world where work can be digitized, automated, outsourced and green?
The response lies in education. The key to success is no longer simply whether you can reproduce something you have learned, but whether you can extrapolate from what you know and apply your knowledge in a novel and changing setting. This shows that if students learn merely to memorise and reproduce knowledge and skills, they risk being prepared for jobs that are in fact disappearing. The problem is that this is precisely what many schools have focussed on for so many decades.
Of course, state-of-the-art skills in a field will always be important. Innovative and productive people generally have specialised skills. But there are other important competencies that education needs to focus on. Let me mention three:
First of all, in our schools, students typically learn individually and thus, at the end of the school year, we certify their individual achievements. But the more globalised and inter dependent the world becomes, the more we need great collaborators and orchestrators, not isolated individuals, no matter how well they do. We need to form people for a more inclusive world: people who can appreciate and build on different values, beliefs, cultures. Inter-personal competencies to produce inclusive solutions will be of growing importance.
Second, the conventional approach in school is often to break problems down into manageable bits and pieces and then teach students how to solve each one of these bits and pieces individually. But in modern economies, we create value by synthesising different fields of knowledge, making connections between ideas that previously seemed unrelated. That requires being familiar with and open and receptive to knowledge in other fields rather than our own field. But apart from Japan and perhaps the Nordic countries in Europe, there are few incentives for teachers to collaborate across disciplines.
Third, if we log on to the Internet today, we can find everything we are looking for. But the more content we can search and access, the more important it is to teach our students to sort and filter information. The search for relevance is very critical in the presence of abundance of information. We also need the capacity to explain content in one area to people working in other areas.
The 21st century schools therefore need to help young individuals to constantly adapt and grow, to develop their capacity and motivation, to expand their horizons and transfer and apply knowledge in novel settings.
This crisis is exposing the gaps in our education system. For example, nowadays people need a much better financial literacy. They need to be able to think in terms of scenarios, weigh risks and probabilities, and assess the short-term and long-term economic impact of today’s decisions.
Our relation to climate change is another example. Technological innovation and well-targeted policy instruments are essential. But ultimately, green growth will rely on people’s behaviour and on their own individual understanding of its social and environmental impact.
We can extend the list further but the point is that, whatever competencies are considered relevant for success in modern societies, our educational policies and our schools need to adapt to them but mostly, to provide them.
One important issue for example is that children nowadays don’t want to become scientists, they prefer to become football players or rock stars. We are running out of vocation, out of the future.
3. The importance of education reform: learning form each other
And thus, we must ask how efficiently are our educational policies adapting to the new global circumstances? Not very well, I should say. This is a key question for the future of our nations.
In OECD countries, political leaders have demonstrated a commitment to reforming education systems. But if we are to keep public policy credible, it is important to make sure that reforms actually do change policies and practices. And here is where we have some worries.
A growing body of evidence and statistics on education systems and outcomes ─ from sources like the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) ─ show that the goals of education reforms are not always materialising. There is a broad consensus on the goals but the degree of execution is not the same. But there are surprising gaps in our knowledge of how to make that happen. The political economy of reforms in the field of education is enormously difficult. Breaking the status quo is not easy.
Overcoming active resistance to change in educational policy is one of our central challenges. We have much to learn from each other to address this challenge.
At the OECD, we have been comparing the effectiveness of our educational policies and reforms for many years. These international comparisons have helped us identify our common challenges and best practices.
We have learned, for example, that teachers and school leaders are still not being systematically prepared to use performance measurement and diagnostic tools to identify students in difficulty and constructively address their learning needs. And they spend too much time in administration issues or in addressing discipline problems of individual students.
But we have also learned that change is possible: by shifting public concern away from the mere control over the resources and content of education toward a focus on outcomes; by moving from “hit and miss” policies to establishing universal high standards; by moving from uniformity to embracing diversity and individualising learning. And we have identified the best practices to produce these changes.
We have seen, for example, good success stories: like the Scottish government’s major reforms, earlier this decade, which started with an overhaul of the teachers training and salaries. Teachers then became advocates and agents of further reform.
We have seen countries like Mexico where the government recently embarked on a series of far-reaching reforms to curriculum, examinations, and teacher training, evaluation and certification, based on OECD benchmarks and exchange of best practices.
We have seen countries like Finland whose reforms focused on teachers’ selection, remuneration and standing in society, with the results that Finland always comes out at the top. There is usually a trade-off between teachers’ pay and the size of the classes, which requires a careful balancing act.
It is no longer enough for national education policy makers to gauge education improvement against their own past outcomes. They have to keep an eye on how much other countries are improving as well. This is the value of multilateral cooperation. This is why these international conferences are so important. This is why we will continue our fruitful collaboration with UNESCO to provide the cross-cutting policy expertise needed to support governments in addressing these challenges.
Dear Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We need to empower the future generations with new tools to produce a better world; to adapt our educational policies to a new, more competitive and globalized reality; to identify our leads and lags, compare our know-how and prepare to learn from each other through enhanced multilateral cooperation. Remember: “In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.” May these words by Eric Hoffer stay in our minds as we try to prepare for the future. This is probably an exaggeration, as being learned is of great importance to become a learner.
I will close my speech by thanking Mr Matsura, with whom I had the privilege and satisfaction to work. I am proud of the work we shared with you. Together we have made a difference. I wish you good luck and present you my congratulations.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Archivo de la categoría: Comunicaciones
Palabras del Secretario General de la OCDE, Angel Gurría, con ocasión de la mesa redonda de Ministros de Educación que tuvo lugar en la UNESCO, 10 octubre 2009.
Artículo que cuenta la visita de S. Freud a una pequeña universidad norteamericano justo hace 100 años, sus conferencias y otros apsectos de su viaje y estadía.
Otros artículos sobre Freud en este Blog:
— Freud en las universidades de los E.E.U.U.
— El status del psicoanálisis en la academia británica
When Freud Came to America
By Russell Jacoby, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 21, 2009.
One hundred years ago, Sigmund Freud arrived in the United States on his first and only visit. As the George Washington pulled into New York Harbor, he supposedly remarked to Carl Jung, who accompanied him, “They don’t realize that we are bringing them the plague.” His more vociferous contemporary critics would probably agree.
Freud came to deliver five lectures over five days in September 1909 at Clark University. Its president, G. Stanley Hall, had invited a number of leading thinkers to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Clark. Clark? For our rank-obsessed society, that might seem surprising. Not Chicago or Princeton or Columbia but a small Massachusetts university with just 16 faculty members had invited one of the pivotal thinkers of the 20th century. Indeed, William James came over from Harvard to listen to the lectures. Perhaps we overlook the role of the smaller and less flashy schools in American cultural life. Twenty-four years later a small outfit on West 12th Street in Manhattan hired many more refugees from Nazism than more celebrated institutions. In its housing of exiled scholars, the New School far eclipsed grander universities.
Perhaps the balance of wealth in the early part of the century was not as skewed as it is nowadays; or at least Hall’s invitation to Freud opens a small window into a neglected question of the economics of writing and lecturing. Hall first offered Freud an “honorarium” of $400 to cover expenses to lecture in July. Freud declined because he would lose too much income by canceling three weeks of private consultations. Hall upped the honorarium to $750, and the lectures were shifted to September, when Freud had no appointments.
An honorarium of $750 is roughly in the league of what might be paid a professor nowadays to fly across the country and give a lecture, if he or she is lucky. Of course a 1909 greenback is not a 2009 greenback. Various indexes exist to update past prices. Readjusted in current dollars, $750 in 1909 computes out to something between $18,000 and $36,000 in 2009—not a bad piece of change! Few writers or professors would turn down an offer nowadays to give some lectures if the invitation came with a $20,000 honorarium. The amount not only suggests the relative wealth of Clark—Hall had $10,000, or half a million in current dollars, to spend on the anniversary—but the generous remuneration for independent lectures in the early part of the 20th century.
Freud spoke off the cuff from notes to a good crowd. Yet contemporary observers of the Clark lectures did not mention what today would be extraordinary. Freud spoke in German with no translation provided. Today if Jürgen Habermas lectured in German at an American university, the audience could comfortably sit around a small table. But a century ago, a series of lectures in German neither diminished the audience nor elicited disapproval. In 1909 advanced study usually meant study in Germany. It was assumed the professoriate knew German. Today the opposite is true. That might not be a reason for dismay, if other languages have replaced German, but that has not happened. The din about globalization evades the reality of the decline of serious language study among American students. Globalization spells “English Spoken Here.”
Freud suspected that American prudishness would curtail the reception of his ideas. I think, he wrote to Jung before they departed, that once the Americans “discover the sexual core of our psychological theories they will drop us.” Later critics of Freud, especially feminist critics, forget to what extent he showed up as a militant sexual reformer. He wanted to be able to talk about sexual desire and liberalize sexual practices. He made no effort to mute that message. Freud’s five lectures closed with a call to allow greater sexual freedom. He said civilization demands “excessive” sexual repression. “We ought not to aim so high that we completely neglect the original animality of our nature.” He cautioned that it was not possible to “sublimate” all sexual impulses into cultural accomplishments.
To drive his point home, Freud closed with an analogy and recounted a folk tale about the foolish residents of Schilda. They owned a strong and productive horse with one flaw, its need for expensive oats. The thrifty citizens decided to gradually cut down its ration until the horse grew accustomed to “complete abstinence.” The plan of action went well until one day the townspeople woke up and found the horse had died. This perplexed them. Freud closed his last lecture and formal visit to the United States with the following sentence: “We are inclined to believe that the horse had died of starvation and that without a certain ration of oats, no work can indeed be expected from an animal.”
In the first rows of the audience sat Emma Goldman, the anarchist and sexual reformer, with her lover Ben Reitman. She was “deeply impressed” by Freud’s “lucidity” and “the simplicity of his delivery.” (She did not comment that he lectured in German.) She also attended the ceremony where Freud received an honorary degree. The other professors appeared “stiff and important in their university caps and gowns,” but Freud looked “unassuming” in his ordinary attire. She called him a “giant among pygmies.”
If he needed it, a reference from Emma Goldman could burnish Freud’s credentials as a sexual reformer. Yet an opening and incidental sentence to his five lectures may prove more prescient than his last: “I have discovered with satisfaction that the majority of my audience are not of the medical profession.” The observation seems trivial, but much turned on it. With virtually no success in the United States, Freud fought what might be called the monopolization of psychoanalysis by medical doctors. He wanted nonmedical or lay people to practice psychoanalysis, if they were properly trained. This was no minor issue to Freud. He distrusted the medical profession. He feared that doctors would turn psychoanalysis into a subfield, a narrow therapy. I do not “consider it at all desirable for psychoanalysis to be swallowed up by medicine,” he wrote, “and to find its last resting place in a textbook of psychiatry under the heading, ‘Methods of Treatment.'”
In fact, that more or less happened. American doctors banished lay practition-ers and made psychoanalysis into a medical speciality. For decades psychoanalysis prospered as psychiatrists embraced it, but more recently the doctors have moved on. Psychoanalysis was too slow, too expensive, too uncertain, and too unscientific. Along with academic psychologists, psychiatrists adopted chemical, behavioral, and pharmaceutical approaches.
But Freud did not defend psychoanalysis on the basis of its therapeutic effectiveness; he had other, perhaps more imperial ambitions. (“Somewhere in my soul,” he admitted, “I am a fanatical Jew.”) He wanted psychoanalysis to contribute to literature and culture, even reform society. He invoked the possibility of “combating the neuroses of civilization.” He wrote smaller and smaller books on bigger and bigger subjects, such as The Future of an Illusion (on religion) and Civilization and Its Discontents (on happiness and aggression).
This may be the “plague” that Freud brought to the New World: uninhibited thinking. To be sure, the molecular, genetic, or chemical perspective may be perfectly suitable for treating many ailments or behaviors. Yet the clamorous effort to rid the world of Freud is misguided. Psychology departments may relegate psychoanalysis to phrenology and other quackeries as they seek testable results, but Freud’s thought lives on in the humanities—or wherever scholars and students contemplate the vagaries of desire, morality, and religion. In the name of reason, Freud challenged the veneer of reason. He dug to uncover the forces that make us not only loving but also odd, hateful, and violent. Even when he was wrong, a boldness infused his thinking. He remains a tonic for a cautious age. The epigram that Freud chose for The Interpretation of Dreams—a line from Virgil—has not lost its appeal: “If I cannot bend the higher powers, I shall stir up hell.”
Russell Jacoby is a professor in residence in the history department at the University of California at Los Angeles. A columnist for The Chronicle Review, he is author, most recently, of Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age (Columbia University Press, 2005).
Las universidades españolas compiten por recursos públicos para desarrollar megaproyetos colaborativos en vistas a expandir sus capacidades de contribuir a la innovación. El Programa apoyado por el Gobierno se denomina Campus de Excelencia Internacional (CEI) y busca promover la agregación de instituciones que, compartiendo un mismo campus, elaboren un proyecto estratégico común con el fin de crear un entorno académico, científico, emprendedor e innovador dirigido a obtener una alta visibilidad internacional. [Ver más abajo información del diario El País sobre presentación de Proyectos).
Los CEI deben ser verdaderos entornos de vida universitaria integrada socialmente al distrito urbano o territorio, con gran calidad y altas prestaciones de servicios y mejoras en sostenibilidad medioambiental.
Asimismo, se pretende afrontar retos tales como la atracción de los mejores estudiantes e investigadores y la competencia por ubicar instalaciones científicas y empresas de alto valor añadido en los entornos de los campus universitarios.
Las subvenciones reguladas se concederán, en régimen de concurrencia competitiva, a las universidades que hayan sido seleccionadas y se estructuran en los siguientes subprogramas:
a) Subprograma para el Desarrollo y Concreción de un Plan Estratégico de Viabilidad y Conversión a Campus de Excelencia Internacional.
Los Planes Estratégicos de Viabilidad y Conversión a Campus de Excelencia Internacional, que deberán contemplar, como mínimo, los aspectos que se indican a continuación:
a) Mejora docente.
b) Mejora científica.
c) Transformación del campus para el desarrollo de un modelo social integral.
d) Mejoras dirigidas a la adaptación e implantación al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior, incluyendo la correspondiente adecuación de los edificios.
e) Transferencia del conocimiento y tecnología como resultado de la investigación académica al sector empresarial.
f) Interacción entre el campus y su entorno territorial.
g) Además, se indicará cómo el Plan Estratégico servirá para el cumplimiento de los siguientes objetivos:
1º Mejorar la calidad de las universidades españolas con el objetivo de situarlas entre las mejores del panorama europeo e internacional, globalmente o en un aspecto determinado.
2º Aumentar la calidad investigadora y su reconocimiento internacional, mediante una mejora de las infraestructuras de investigación que incidan en el desarrollo pedagógico y científico.
3º Crear entornos académicos que promuevan la vida universitaria, con instalaciones pensadas para la atracción internacional de demandantes de educación superior universitaria y de investigación de excelencia.
4º Configurar campus integrados urbanística y socialmente en el entorno urbano o territorio en que se ubican, aumentando las condiciones de calidad de vida y con altas prestaciones de servicios y mejoras energéticas y medioambientales.
5º Promover una política integral en el ámbito de la formación, la investigación, la transferencia y valorización del conocimiento, y la actividad profesional y empresarial.
6º Potenciar la singularidad y especialización de los campus, al objeto de que formen parte de un mapa español diversificado, basado en las correspondientes fortalezas.
7º Mejorar los indicadores de eficiencia académica de los graduados y aumentar del nivel de internacionalización de los estudiantes de todos los niveles educativos.
8º Aumentar el grado de internacionalización de estudiantes, investigadores, profesores y profesionales de apoyo a la actividad académica.
9º Promover políticas de empleo dirigidas a compaginar estudio y trabajo dentro de las actividades de los campus universitarios.
10º Proponer un plan de comunicación innovador para el proyecto internacional del CEI.
11º Aglutinar en el Plan Integral proyectos de varias universidades.
12º La participación en el proyecto de colectivos de estudiantes.
b) Subprograma de I+D+i y Transferencia mediante el cual se concederán ayudas para la ejecución de aspectos parciales de dicho Plan Estratégico, que merezcan una Mención de Calidad en el ámbito de la investigación, incluida la formación avanzada de investigadores de excelencia internacional (que incluye las actuaciones de desarrollo de Escuelas de Doctorado o Posgrado interinstitucionales), de la transferencia de conocimiento o de la innovación, para convertir a las universidades y a sus campus en referentes internacionales de excelencia en I+D+i, siempre que dichos aspectos abarquen en su integridad una o varias de las siguientes acciones especificas:
Identificación de líneas y programas de I+D+i de gran proyección y ambiciosos así como las estrategias, medios y recursos necesarios para llevarlas a cabo en posible cooperación con otras instituciones.
Desarrollo de programas innovadores así como actuaciones encaminadas a la transferencia del conocimiento y de los resultados de la investigación a la sociedad y al tejido productivo.
Desarrollo de agregaciones estratégicas con otras instituciones y entidades públicas y privadas con alianzas estables para poner en marcha los programas de I+D+i diseñados y la utilización conjunta de equipamientos vinculados con estos programas de I+D+i.
Actuaciones encaminadas a desarrollar una estrategia y planificación de captación de personal de alta calidad y excelencia (científicos, tecnólogos, gestores, etc.)
Formación de excelencia de investigadores incluyendo las actuaciones de desarrollo de Escuela de Doctorado o Posgrado de excelencia internacional.
Puesta en marcha de mecanismos para asegurar a las universidades un liderazgo nacional e internacional en sus líneas estratégicas de actuación en el ámbito de la I+D+i.
Las universidades se reinventan para orientarse a la innovación
50 centros compiten por ser los primeros en crear los grandes campus del conocimiento – Deben defender sus proyectos ante un comité internacional SUSANA PÉREZ DE PABLOS – El País – Madrid – 18/09/2009
La actualización de toda una ciudad universitaria, uno o varios siglos después -en la Complutense (que lo hará junto a la Politécnica, que agrupa centros centenarios), Salamanca o Sevilla-; un conjunto de docentes, investigadores y centros de innovación de diversas universidades trabajando sobre un mismo sector, el del olivo (en Córdoba); un punto de encuentro para conectar instituciones de Europa, África y Latinoamérica (en Canarias); dos universidades unidas para potenciar un proyecto regional (Cantabria y UIMP), o la reconversión de un campus para apostar por lo sostenible o saludable (Santiago de Compostela).
Las universidades se han puesto las pilas y por primera vez han ideado un plan con el claro objetivo de contribuir al desarrollo económico y social de su entorno. De los alrededor de 250 campus que tienen las 77 universidades españolas salpicados por las más diversas poblaciones, éstas quieren reconvertir 51 en megacampus del conocimiento o, como se llaman ya en Suecia, ecosistemas del conocimiento. Se han presentado 50 universidades, y la de Barcelona es la única que compite con dos propuestas. Este gran programa es el primer embrión de lo que serán las instituciones superiores en el futuro y es la primera iniciativa que da una idea clara de cómo construir la arquitectura en la que se sostenga el tan anunciado nuevo modelo productivo basado en el conocimiento.
En dos meses escasos, las universidades han elaborado sus planes de acuerdo con las bases aprobadas por el Gobierno el pasado julio. Se trata de proyectos plurianuales (este primero va de 2008 a 2011) de unas 50 páginas que incluyen una propuesta global en la que el centro expone los aspectos generales (como la agregación de centros de investigación, empresas… y los convenios suscritos); un plan estratégico (qué tienen ahora y adónde quieren llegar en cuatro años) y una memoria económica.
Una comisión técnica, formada por 21 expertos, escogerá un máximo de 15 proyectos de megacampus entre los 43 que han presentado universidades públicas y analizará los ocho de las privadas, que no optan a financiación pero sí a la categoría de Campus de Excelencia Internacional (CEI). La lista provisional, sujeta a alegaciones, se hará pública el 29 de septiembre y la definitiva, el 10 de noviembre. Ya entonces recibirán ya 200.000 euros cada una para dar los primeros pasos del plan. Despúes, cada universidad que tenga un campus seleccionado tendrá 10 minutos para defender su propuesta en una exposición oral ante una comisión internacional, entre el 25 y el 27 de noviembre. El 30 de noviembre estará ya todo decidido.
El arranque se empezará a ver en los centros e incluso en las ciudades ya a primeros de 2010, el año que empieza a implantarse oficialmente el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Se moverán o unirán centros, se construirán edificios, se crearán desde guarderías a centros de mayores. “No es un ranking de universidades, aunque sí de proyectos”, explica el secretario general de Universidades, Màrius Rubiralta. “Se basan en cuatro grandes ejes: docencia, investigación, innovación y entorno social”.
La carrera es por colocarse entre las 100 mejores universidades en los ranking internacionales, el objetivo que se marcó el Gobierno con esta iniciativa. A ello destinará 50 millones de euros en 2009 más otros tres para la puesta en marcha (200.000 euros por centro seleccionado). Las comunidades cofinanciarán estos proyectos a través de los 150 millones destinados a créditos. “La excelencia y la internacionalización son los principales objetivos”, destaca Rubiralta. “Los dos valores principales que se miden son el proyecto de futuro, es decir, cuál es la posición de partida y adónde se quiere llegar, y la agregación entre instituciones académicas, de investigación, empresas…”.
La competición se presenta interesante, no sólo para obtener las ayudas del Gobierno sino dentro de un mismo territorio. Por ejemplo, las dos universidades navarras (la pública y la privada) compiten con candidaturas totalmente diferentes por un territorio común, del “campus integral con impacto regional y compromiso social y con el medio ambiente” de la pública al “plan estratégico” de la privada.
Las dos universidades no presenciales, la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) y la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) han presentado sendos proyectos de grandes campus virtuales que integran instituciones a distancia. La ventaja de ambos es evidente: la expansión, campus que pueden llegar hasta Asia.
Una interesante revisión del más reciente libro de Amartya Sen [en la foto], ganador del Premio Nobel de Economía, titulado The Idea of Justice, Belknap Press, 496 pp, se publicó recientemente en The Chronicle Review. Ver a continuación texto completo. Más abajo, el comentario sobre el mismo libro de la revista británica The Economist.
Amartya Sen Shakes Up Justice Theory
Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle Review, teaches philosophy and media theory at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Chronicle Reviwe, September 14, 2009
The economist Amartya Sen’s magnum opus on justice theory is published this month.
Suppose three children—Anne, Bob, and Carla—quarrel over a flute. Anne says it’s hers because she’s the only one who knows how to play it. Bob counters that he’s the poorest and has no toys, so the flute would at least give him something to play with. Carla reminds Anne and Bob that she built the darn thing, and no sooner did she finish it than the other two started trying to take it away.
Intuitions clashing yet? Need something more complex to tingle your justice antennae—perhaps a puzzler from game theory? The example is Amartya Sen’s, from the Nobel-Prize-winning economist’s just-published The Idea of Justice (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press), his magnum opus on a line of work he’s long addressed and now thoroughly re-examines: justice theory. And what a growth industry it’s been since John Rawls revived the subject with his classic, A Theory of Justice (1971), and colleague Robert Nozick made its core principles into an Emerson Hall battle with his libertarian Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Since Rawls, one hardly ranks as a political theorist without a whack at the J-word. Sen’s stepping into the fray should keep things hopping, but justice theory is one subsidiary of philosophy that never really suffers a bad century.
Back in Homeric times, life was simpler. Justice largely meant personal vengeance. Complications began when Plato famously pinned on Thrasymachus the view that justice is simply the will of the stronger, and on Glaucon and Callicles the idea that justice is conventional. Plato argued, through his familiar Socratic ventriloquy, that justice is divine, an ideal to which human justice can only haltingly aspire. Aristotle then introduced a formal criterion of justice that still wins the greatest agreement, perhaps because it’s merely formal: Treat equals equally and unequals unequally.
From then on, follow the history of philosophers’ sentences that begin “Justice is … ” on and you hit so many diverse endings you wonder whether anyone, including the lady in the blindfold, knows what justice is.
To Aquinas, it’s “a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does what he ought to do in the circumstances confronting him.” To Hume, it’s “nothing but an artificial invention.” To Sir Edward Coke, it’s “the daughter of the law, for the law bringeth her forth.” To 20th-century American jurist Learned Hand, it’s “the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society.” Do a survey, and about the only thinker who invites instant agreement is Belgian philosopher of law Chaim Perelman. According to Perelman, justice is simply “a confused concept.”
One reason theories of justice abound is the range of the concept, applied to decisions, people, procedures, laws, actions, events. Justice is usually considered a positive thing, yet some rank it below mercy. It’s divine for some, purely human for others. It’s supposedly majestic, yet many complain of its quotidian banality and everyday scarcity. Recall the old lawyer’s joke:
Petitioner: “Justice, justice, I demand justice!”
Judge: “Silence or I’ll have you removed! This is a court of law!”
When Rawls declared justice “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought,” and began his painstaking probe of the conditions of just institutions, he re-established a modern tradition dating back to Hobbes: using social-contract theory to articulate ideal forms of social justice, sometimes in quasi-syllogistic form. But there was also a longstanding, skeptical, antisystematic tradition in justice theory. One of the suspenseful aspects of Sen’s book is how its author, personally close to Rawls (who died in 2002) but more expansive and historical in regard to justice, walks a difficult line between the analytic foundationalism Rawls and Nozick practiced and the sensitivity to real-world justice in people’s lives that Sen and Martha Nussbaum argue for and describe as the “capabilities” conception of justice.
Although Sen mentions neither the late philosopher Robert C. Solomon, author of A Passion for Justice (1995), nor the very-much-with-us Elizabeth H. Wolgast, author of The Grammar of Justice (1987), both deserve credit for adumbrating ideas in justice theory that Sen, with his enormous intellectual prestige and cachet as a star in Harvard’s firmament, may finally infiltrate into elite Ivy League and Oxbridge political theory.
Solomon wrote in A Passion for Justice that justice is “a complex set of passions to be cultivated, not an abstract set of principles to be formulated. … Justice begins with compassion and caring, not principles or opinions, but it also involves, right from the start, such ‘negative’ emotions as envy, jealousy, indignation, anger, and resentment, a keen sense of having been personally cheated or neglected, and the desire to get even.” In time, suggested Solomon, “the sense of justice emerges as a generalization and, eventually, a rationalization of a personal sense of injustice.”
That common-sense attempt at causal explanation—taking seriously how feelings of injustice spur the intellectual drive toward a theory of justice—had also been observed by Wolgast, who argued in The Grammar of Justice that injustice “grammatically” precedes justice. Sen’s Harvard colleague, Michael J. Sandel, at the outset of his new Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?—not quite The Idiot’s Guide to Justice but, unlike Sen’s work, mainly a summary for general readers of key ideas in justice theory—notes, “At the heart of the bailout outrage was a sense of injustice.”
Might our concept of justice arise when society’s normal moral inertia, the tendency to accept traditions and status quo ethical procedures without challenge, is itself challenged?
Sen inclines to that view. He begins An Idea of Justice by quoting Pip in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations: “In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and finely felt, as injustice.” Sen adds, “The identification of redressable injustice is not only what animates us to think about justice and injustice, it is also central … to the theory of justice.”
Thus the great economist, who long ago transcended the bounds of his discipline, goes full-frontal with justice—and John Rawls. Displaying his customary mix of erudition and worldliness, his irritation at the “parochial” slighting of Eastern thought (see The Argumentative Indian) and resistance to (despite mastery of) purely formal approaches to justice, Sen both praises Rawls profusely for his “rightly celebrated” work and nicks him with a score of cuts.
“Justice,” Sen writes, “is ultimately connected with the way people’s lives go, and not merely with the nature of institutions surrounding them.” Two concepts from early Indian jurisprudence, niti (strict organizational and behavioral rules of justice) and nyaya (the larger picture of how such rules affect ordinary lives), provide a better prism for justice than Rawls’s obsession with the characterization of just institutions. Indeed, Sen writes in a killer sum-up: “If a theory of justice is to guide reasoned choice of policies, strategies, or institutions, then the identification of fully just social arrangements is neither necessary nor sufficient.”
It was Solomon, in A Passion for Justice, who voiced the problem that hangs over ostensibly rigorous justice theory, which Sen plainly finds unconvincing yet never quite denounces. Speaking of the enormous technical literature spawned by Rawls, Nozick, and their acolytes, Solomon wrote: “The positions have been drawn, defined, refined, and redefined again. The qualifications have been qualified, the objections answered and answered again with more objections, and the ramifications further ramified. … But the hope for a single, neutral, rational position has been thwarted every time.” Solomon complained that justice theory had “become so specialized and so academic and so utterly unreadable that it has become just another intellectual puzzle, a conceptual Gordian knot awaiting its academic Alexander.”
Will Sen be that Alexander? In repeatedly bringing back into the discussion Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, Sen signals the need for justice theory to reconnect to realistic human psychology, not the phony formal rationalism that infects modern economics or the for-sake-of-argument altruism that anchors Rawls’s project. (In A Theory of Justice, Rawls writes that in his well-ordered society, “Everyone is presumed to act justly.”) By declaring his desire “to address questions of enhancing justice and removing injustice, rather than to offer resolutions of questions about the nature of perfect justice,” Sen sinks a knife into the heart of the latter utopian program.
On the other hand, Sen’s own understanding of his aim in The Idea of Justice hardly dismisses formal resources or careful reasoning. He cites an alternative tradition to social-contract theory, one he identifies as extending from Smith to Mill and beyond and characterizes as “comparative” in its measuring of the justice actually experienced by individuals. That countertradition issued, Sen explains, in the “analytical—and rather mathematical—discipline of social-choice theory” developed by Kenneth Arrow in the mid-20th century.
Alas, Sen spends some of the most arid sections of his book arguing for how its insights can aid “enhancement of justice.” He’s far more convincing when he sticks to nonformal arguments. Nothing would be sadder than if An Idea of Justice, like A Theory of Justice, generates a fresh industry of acolyte-driven justice literature without moving political actors to improve people’s lives (surely the author’s paramount goal).
Still, one should never underestimate the influence in philosophy of a big book by a Harvard or Princeton luminary that impeaches an intellectual tradition, however politely. Richard Rorty successfully undermined the pretensions of analytic epistemology (except among its practitioners) because he was an ex-analyst whistle-blower. Sen may be just the inside man to redirect philosophical thinking about justice to that real-world “capabilities approach” he and Nussbaum urge.
One irony is that the famously media-shy Rawls had a complicated human relationship to “justice” few students of the magisterial system-builder understood. With the 2007 publication of Thomas Pogge’s John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, we learned that Rawls evolved away from Christianity and toward his secular theory of justice from deep feelings about concrete injustices such as the Holocaust. Another challenge to justice—the chanciness of life—occurred closer to home and similarly left a profound impact on him. In the Philippines during World War II, an assignment from a superior officer that might have gone to Rawls or another soldier went to the other man, who was killed.
“Reasoning,” writes Sen early on, “is a robust source of hope and confidence in a world darkened by murky deeds.” In The Idea of Justice, Sen provides us with a stunning model despite his eternally ambiguous and imperfectible subject. As he so winningly adds, “The remedy for bad reasoning is better reasoning.”
Cómo contar profesor de jornada completa (PJC) y PJC equivalente, y el impacto de esta contabilidad sobre los rankings de universidades así como el juego que éstas juegan para representarse de la mejor manera posible en la carrera del prestigio, es el objeto del siguiente, interesante, artículo publicado por Inside Higher Ed.
Calculation That Doesn’t Add Up
Inside Higher Ed, September 14, 2009
When critics question the validity of the calculations U.S. News & World Report uses to rank colleges, one answer the editors of the magazine have given is to note that it publishes not only the total rank, but also data on how colleges perform in the various categories that go into the rankings. So a prospective student who cares more about faculty resources or competitiveness or any other factor can see how colleges do there, and judge accordingly.
But if the factor that would-be students and their families care about is a percentage of full-time faculty, you can’t count on the numbers about research universities to be correct. The two universities with the top scores in this category (both claiming 100 percent full-time faculty) have both acknowledged to Inside Higher Ed that they do not include adjunct faculty members in their calculations. U.S. News maintains that colleges do count adjuncts (or are told to) so that figure gives a true sense of the percentage of faculty members who are full time. But the two with 100 percent claims are not alone in boosting their numbers by leaving adjuncts out.
Some colleges that do so say that they read the instructions from U.S. News that way, and others say the magazine is itself inconsistent, in effect inviting them to do so. Others just leave the adjuncts out and don’t indicate that unless asked.
The inconsistency shouldn’t be a surprise, given that other publicly available data sources — granted, sources that don’t have the broad readership of the U.S. News rankings — plainly state that most research universities rely heavily on adjuncts and have done so for years, making it difficult to believe that any of them would have a 100 percent full-time faculty. (A note on wording: These days many adjuncts work full time at a single institution, off the tenure track. And such adjuncts don’t diminish a university’s number in percentage of full-time faculty members. But the adjuncts that would — and that are excluded at some institutions — are those who work less than full time.)
U.S. News says that any discrepancies are the universities’ fault and that it does not plan to make any corrections of rankings based on universities admitting that they left out adjuncts — in some cases hundreds at an institution — from their calculations.
“If a school says adjuncts should not be counted or were not reported, that means that particular school was consciously misreporting its faculty data or was on purpose deciding to understate its adjuncts for its own reasons,” said Robert Morse, who runs the college rankings at the magazine. Further, he said no corrections were needed.
“U.S. News is not going to re-rank schools based on any reporting that Inside Higher Ed does that finds schools now say they misreported faculty counts to U.S. News (and probably other publishers, too). The ranking variable in question — percent of faculty that is full-time is based on converting part-time to a full-time equivalent — counts just 1 percent of the Best Colleges ranking,” he said.
Could a University Be 100% Full Time?
The issue of inaccuracies in the rankings was first raised this month by the American Federation of Teachers, in its blog devoted to its campaign to improve the treatment of adjuncts and to create more tenure-track jobs. Focusing on the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, the AFT asked how it could be listed as having a faculty that is 100 percent full time when data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education show it has 401 part-time faculty members (compared to 1,539 full-timers).
U.S. News divides the part-time total in three, in theory because a part-time adjunct wouldn’t be teaching as much as a full-time professor. Ignoring for a minute the reality than many a part-time adjunct teaches more sections than a tenured professor at a research university, applying the formula at Nebraska would not yield a 100 percent figure.
Inside Higher Ed asked Nebraska how it could claim a 100 percent full-time faculty, and it answered that it left out all of its adjuncts, believing that was what U.S. News wanted.
The answer raised the question of whether other universities did the same. One institution besides Nebraska said it had 100 percent: the Georgia Institute of Technology. A spokesman said that Georgia Tech believes U.S. News wants only faculty members with academic rank, and this excludes adjuncts, so Georgia Tech — which does in fact have adjuncts — doesn’t include them.
Surveying the top research universities that U.S. News says have at least 95 percent full-time faculty, it’s clear that those two are not alone in making greater use of adjuncts than the magazine’s rankings state.
Take North Carolina State University, which U.S. News says has a faculty that is 96 percent full time even though it has hundreds of adjuncts. Karen Helm, director of university planning and analysis, said that the university counts as faculty only those whose “whose sole or primary employer is NC State.” So full-time adjuncts are counted, as are some who are close to full time. But most part-time adjuncts are not counted, making it not surprising that the figure results in a high percentage of full-time faculty members.
Pennsylvania State University has 414 part-time faculty members, according to the most recent count by the university. But the university considers them to be employees, not faculty members, and so does not count any of them in its calculation for U.S. News, which says that 95 percent of the university’s faculty is full time. “The problem is in the definition of ‘adjunct’ — because that can vary by institution. We consider adjuncts to be part-time employees,” said Lisa Powers, director of public information.
The University of Iowa (98 percent full time according to U.S. News) gets its high percentage in part because it counts only “permanent” employees, so any part timers who work semester to semester or year to year (a not uncommon circumstance) are not counted. The University of Missouri at Columbia (98 percent full-time faculty according to U.S. News) does not count its adjuncts in its total, a spokeswoman said.
Simeon Moss, a spokesman for Cornell University (98 percent full-time faculty according to U.S. News), said that Cornell excludes adjuncts from the calculation on full-time faculty members, but he said that the inconsistent party is the magazine, not the university, because U.S. News goes back and forth in different items on whether to include adjuncts, explicitly excluding them sometimes. Moss noted that the question is raised by four figures requested by the magazine: average faculty salaries, proportion of faculty who are full time, proportion of faculty who have a terminal degree, and student-faculty ratio.
Cornell excludes adjuncts across the board — so that it is consistent in its faculty counts, Moss said.
“U.S. News is inconsistent in how they define faculty across these areas. They use the most stringent definition for the average faculty salaries, explicitly excluding ‘non-professorial rank faculty with title of instructor, lecturer, or no-rank.’ and in the others they are more generous with what constitutes faculty,” Moss said. “For the sake of consistency, we’ve proceeded on the assumption that when we talk about faculty we should be talking about the same group of people in all areas. This, of course, may help us on the proportion of faculty who are full time, but it certainly does not help us with the student-faculty ratio. But, we are being consistent.”
Beyond these definitional disagreements, there are broader questions about whether the U.S. News approach — counting bodies of faculty members — is the right one. The AFT, which flagged this issue by spotting the Nebraska inconsistency, has argued that what should be counted is course sections — and how many are taught by full-time or part-time individuals.
That’s because — especially at prominent research universities — course loads of many tenured and tenure-track faculty members are low, given the research obligations of these scholars. So to the extent rankings systems are trying to tell prospective students about their undergraduate experience, what matters is how many sections are taught by whom, not the mere existence of full-time faculty members.
A further issue that has been raised by the AFT and other critics is that the U.S. News figures exclude (by the magazine’s choice) all instruction by graduate students — meaning that just about every research university in the rankings would have a lower percentage if the actual section instructors were all counted. Using federal data, the AFT calculated for a report last year that 19 percent of instructional staff members at research universities are graduate students — so nearly one fifth of instructors, almost all of them part-time because they are also graduate students, are not counted by the magazine when portraying the faculty.
Morse, of U.S. News, defends the magazine’s methodology, even if many of the universities ranked at the highest levels in this category are excluding hundreds of adjuncts and all graduate instructors. He said that the magazine has made “a conscious decision not to include grad instructors in the definition, since we are just measuring faculty.” And as for the definitional questions raised by the universities, “U.S. News believes the faculty definition that we use is very clear and that adjuncts should be counted.”
— Scott Jaschik
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
Colegios Particulares de Chile, A.G (CONACEP) convoca al X Congreso Nacional de Educación que se realizará en Santiago los días 24 y 25 de septiembre próximos en el marco del Salón Anual de la Educación en la Estación Mapocho. En esta oportunidad el sector privado de educación se detendrá a analizar y perfilar el futuro de la educación en Chile.
Jueves 24 de septiembre de 2009
14.45 Llegada y acreditación
15.00 – 15:40 CEREMONIA INAUGURACIÓN Saludo Alumno(a) destacado Saludo Profesor(a) o Director(a) Intervención del Sr. Rodrigo Bosch Elgueta, Presidente de CONACEP, “Educación Bicentenario y rol de privados”
“La magnitud de las reformas educacionales en marcha”, Sra. Mónica Jiménez de la Jara, Ministra de Educación
15:40 – 16:00 Educación para el Bicentenario: exposición del candidato presidencial Sebastián Piñera
16:00 – 16:25 Comisión de expertos y actores del sistema educacional
16:25 – 17:00 Café
17:00 – 17:20 Educación para el Bicentenario: exposición del candidato presidencial Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle
17:20 – 18:00 Comisión de expertos y actores del sistema educacional
18.00 Cierre primer día. Recordatorio actividades viernes
Viernes 25 de septiembre de 2009
9.00 Llegada asistentes; se recoge encuesta a participantes sobre temas tratados.
9:30 – 9:45 Sistema de Aseguramiento de la calidad. Expone principales aspectos del Proyecto Ley, Alejandro Hasbún, Vicepresidente de CONACEP.
9:45 – 10:15 Diálogo con parlamentarios de la Comisión Educación Diputado Sergio Bobadilla Diputado Gabriel Silver Diputada Clemira Pacheco Modera Rodrigo Ketterer, Director CONACEP
10:15 -11.00 Innovaciones de CONACEP al servicio de la calidad Sello de calidad de la CONACEP, Josefina Rossetti, Gerenta Calidad Mapcity: buscador de colegios , expone… Herramientas para la calidad , Ricardo Awad , Gerente BancoEstado Pymes Modera: Josefina Rossetti
11:00 – 11.45 Iniciativas regionales de la CONACEP en torno a la calidad Marco Riquelme, Director Regional CONACEP Antofagasta Daniel Villarroel, Director Regional CONACEP Bío Bío Modera: Josefina Rossetti, Gerenta Calidad CONACEP
11:45 – 12:00 Café/Se recoge encuesta y procesa.
12:00 – 12:20 Educación para el Bicentenario: exposición del candidato presidencial Marco Enríquez-Ominami
12:20 – 12:45 Comisión de expertos y actores del sistema educacional
12:45 – 13:00 Cierre Principales conclusiones del X Congreso y Desafíos CONACEP Expone: Rodrigo Bosch, Presidente CONACEP
Colegios Particulares de Chile, A.G (CONACEP) es una agrupación que reúne a sostenedores de establecimientos educacionales particulares chilenos, tanto subvencionados como pagados. Actualmente posee 500 socios, y representa un total de 840 colegios, los que en conjunto atienden a 435.000 estudiantes, es decir, 25% de la matrícula particular del país. La presencia de Colegios Particulares de Chile – CONACEP se encuentra distribuida en todo el país, y cerca de 40% de la matrícula atendida por establecimientos socios se encuentra en regiones.
La corporación fue creada en 1977 por un grupo de sostenedores preocupados por las características del sistema escolar chileno de la época, y fue evolucionando hasta su transformación en asociación gremial, en 1983.
Entre los objetivos fundacionales de Colegios Particulares de Chile – CONACEP destaca el entregar información que permita “a los sostenedores y representantes legales de colegios particulares adoptar una decisión homogénea con respecto a situaciones generales, sin perder las características particulares que impriman a su quehacer docente” y promover entre sus asociados el respeto a normas éticas que contribuyan al bien común del país.
Colegios Particulares de Chile – CONACEP se ha convertido en la voz de los colegios particulares en Chile, defendiendo la igualdad de trato desde el Ministerio de Educación y en relación a los establecimientos municipales; abogando por autonomía en la administración de los colegios de su dependencia; por la correcta interpretación de la regulación vigente; respaldando aquellas propuestas que promueven mayor competencia y calidad; y combatiendo las opciones que reducen o abiertamente atentan contra la participación privada en la provisión de servicios educativos.
La presencia de Colegios Particulares de Chile – CONACEP en todas las instancias formales de opinión (Comisión de Educación de la Cámara de Diputados y del Senado, reuniones con distintos niveles jerárquicos del MINEDUC, Consejo Asesor de la Calidad de la Educación, e innumerables seminarios y conferencias), son muestra de la posición que ha logrado la corporación como representante del sector privado en educación escolar.
Colegios Particulares de Chile – CONACEP tiene especial interés en promover mejoras efectivas en la calidad de la educación en Chile y en especial de sus socios; y es por ello que está en permanente búsqueda de buenas prácticas para ser difundidas entre ellos, así como facilitando la colaboración e intercambio de experiencias.
Adicionalmente, la corporación se mantiene permanentemente actualizada de nuevos sistemas y modelos que sirvan de ejemplo y apoyo al sistema educativo en Chile; para lo cual ha realizado misiones técnicas a países de Latinoamérica y Europa, teniendo la oportunidad de conocer experiencias interesantes en evaluación y sistemas de aseguramiento de la calidad, entre otros.
Los días 1 y 2 de octubre del año en curso, el IIPE – UNESCO Sede Regional Buenos Aires organizará el Seminario Internacional sobre “EDUCACIÓN Y TRABAJO. Interrelaciones y Políticas“.
La actividad se llevará a cabo en el Auditorio de la Fundación OSDE, Av. Leandro N. Alem 1067 – 2do subsuelo. El acceso es libre y gratuito y contará con la asistencia de los siguientes conferencistas:
María Rosa Almandoz, Argentina
Mariano Fernández Enguita, España
Ricardo Ferraro, Argentina
Gustavo Gándara, Argentina
Víctor Manuel Gómez, Colombia
Claudia Jacinto, Argentina
Guillermo Labarca, Chile
Getúlio Marques Ferreira, Brasil
Philippe Méhaut, Francia
Marta Novick, Argentina
Tomás Valdés Cifuentes, España
Daniel Filmus – María Antonia Gallart – Agustín Salvia – Emilio Tenti Fanfani
Ver la agenda de actividades aquí 65 KB