Some brilliant economists never got a Nobel Prize, simply because their intellectual merits and influences are overshadowed by their ideological preferences that are different from the mainstream and the people in power.
The prime example is Joan Robinson (1903-1983), who wrote positively on the economics of Karl Marx and socialism at the time of Cold War. Her work stood at odds with the Western mainstream economic and political thoughts and failed to cater the ideological needs of the Nobel Prize committee and those behind the game.
Quote from http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/9870#ixzz1ZxvbAulA
Great Britain’s Joan Robinson may be one of the most exciting figures in the history of “the Dismal Science.” An acolyte of the great John Maynard Keynes, her work covered a wide range of economic topics, from neoclassicism to Keynes’s general theory to Marxian theory. Not to mention, her notion of imperfect competition still shows up in every Econ 101 class. Add to that the fact that Robinson’s greatest work, The Accumulation of Capital, was published way back in 1956 but is still widely used as an economics textbook. So why no Nobel? Some say it’s because she’s a female, and no female has ever won the Nobel in Economics. Others say that Robinson’s work over her career was too eclectic, rather than hyperfocused like that of so many other laureates. Still others claim that she was undesirable as a laureate because of her vocal praise for the Chinese Cultural Revolution, a fairly anti-intellectual enterprise.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thesis passed!
From supervisor:
While you were flying the second examiner submitted and I hear from John you have passed. They have made some extensive commnets whih will be very useful to reflect upon. However niether decided to make you do the implied revisions before passing you!! Lucky boy.
While you were flying the second examiner submitted and I hear from John you have passed. They have made some extensive commnets whih will be very useful to reflect upon. However niether decided to make you do the implied revisions before passing you!! Lucky boy.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Updates
經過一輪波折, 最終我決定回歸澳洲, 當lecturer
4, 5月的一番折騰, 好似坐過山車一樣, 大起大落, 勞師動眾由維也納去Perth interview, 花了不少心機卻落空, 反而不久之後另一大學的視像interview卻成功了, 準備沒有前一次的充足, 也沒有親身interview, 反而輕易到手, 有點得來太易的感覺, 不過, 薪酬同職級實在吸引, 幾乎不用考慮就接受了
6, 7月又先後有些發展, 不過到頭來都讓人失望, 可不可以單純一點? 很討厭這種感覺
8月, 回維也納, writing machine重新啟動, 天昏地暗
4, 5月的一番折騰, 好似坐過山車一樣, 大起大落, 勞師動眾由維也納去Perth interview, 花了不少心機卻落空, 反而不久之後另一大學的視像interview卻成功了, 準備沒有前一次的充足, 也沒有親身interview, 反而輕易到手, 有點得來太易的感覺, 不過, 薪酬同職級實在吸引, 幾乎不用考慮就接受了
6, 7月又先後有些發展, 不過到頭來都讓人失望, 可不可以單純一點? 很討厭這種感覺
8月, 回維也納, writing machine重新啟動, 天昏地暗
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Passport is the final exam
Job offered informally confirmed.
H O W E V E R
The UK austerity turns out to be a kind of protectionism. More restrictions on immigration of non-EU citizens means it becomes much more difficult to get a work visa.
The HR department is not going to give me a formal offer until completion of my PhD degree. It seems the CEO does not want to approve my appointment. And even they approve, there is no guarantee since all ultimately depend on the UK border agency. They may doubt that the salary offered is too low, the job ad was posted last August and should be re-advertised to make no British or EU citizen can get it, or I may fail the exam.
I try to speed up the writing up. But at the same time, I am looking for other jobs - especially non-UK jobs.
I am good enough to get a permanent contract equivalent to lecturership right after PhD. Good reference letters, good network, eight first/sole-authored ISI journal publications (comparing to the average 2-3), highly relevant expertise. So what?
After all, passport is the final exam - Do you have a British/EU passport?
H O W E V E R
The UK austerity turns out to be a kind of protectionism. More restrictions on immigration of non-EU citizens means it becomes much more difficult to get a work visa.
The HR department is not going to give me a formal offer until completion of my PhD degree. It seems the CEO does not want to approve my appointment. And even they approve, there is no guarantee since all ultimately depend on the UK border agency. They may doubt that the salary offered is too low, the job ad was posted last August and should be re-advertised to make no British or EU citizen can get it, or I may fail the exam.
I try to speed up the writing up. But at the same time, I am looking for other jobs - especially non-UK jobs.
I am good enough to get a permanent contract equivalent to lecturership right after PhD. Good reference letters, good network, eight first/sole-authored ISI journal publications (comparing to the average 2-3), highly relevant expertise. So what?
After all, passport is the final exam - Do you have a British/EU passport?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Some thoughts about science
my response to a thread in discussion.com:
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
1)
My epiphany came when I realized that the neoclassical economists manipulate various kind of data trying to fit everything under a math model even this does not make sense or is not appropriate. Then I found that SOME experimental and behavioural economists have joined these economists in manipulating people's value expressions and in effect data and theories under the banner of rationalization. Technical expertise clearly provides a better tool for manipulation of science than what philosophers and ethicists could offer. I can show you tonnes of scientific research papers supporting this enough for you to read for more than a year.
Not long ago I have a sole-authored journal paper accepted by an ISI journal concerning exactly about this issue. I attack some behavioural economists who employ decision theories to support public participation initiatives. They work for a private consultancy firm receiving money from governments and companies and therefore have vested interest.
Knowledge and science are a matter of power. Religions used to be the major manipulating force, but when science took over them, science can become that force, especially when combined with commercial interest (e.g. mining companies & geologists). As a voter, what would you think if decision scientists or economists attempt to 'educate' your preference toward a what they called a 'rational' mode? Such UNCHECKED application of science supported by math that most people cannot understand is what I condemn.
All I said here mainly apply to public policy especially environmental policy and values research. And don't take me as a sociologist or philosopher. I am a heterodox political economist although I don't want to be an 'economist'.
2)
That's just you and many others like you. And I believe most scientists are honest. The reality is many are tempted to do research in that way as their job prospect / income is closely linked to the ability of their employer or sponsor to fool the public. When you become a key part of an organization whose survival depends on some form of manipulation, you are expected to contribute to it in one way or another. And don't forget some of these organizations are in fact led by scientists themselves. Same for economists, who are obsessed to the identity of 'scientists'. The World Bank is home to many academic economists. They have an agenda to expand liberal-capitalism across the less developed world and this is supported by vested interest. This is far from neutral once your appointment is meant to contribute to that agenda. (things may be less complicated in universities)
One of my supervisors has sufferred from an attempted manipulation. He as an economist had a journal article accepted criticizing the government's emission trading policy in favour of carbon tax. The scientific organization he worked for is a national research agency. It is part of the government in favour of emission trading, and is headed by an ex-executive of a big mining company (mining industry has huge vested interest in the policy). They threatened to ban the article for a bullshit reason: government scientists are not expected to make comment on policy (so what's the point to hire the political economist?). They want to make their organization and employees like a group of 'neutral' scientists. Precisely by banning the paper from publication, they are not neutral anymore. So the logic is, you work for the government and the organization being funded by the resource industry, you are not expected do anything not in their interest. Or, you resign, and he did.
It's hard to remain neutral when those who pay you salary have every incentive to do the opposite. I am not sure people are neutral when they consciously know their guns under production are going to be used by someone else for killing people (what else can guns be used for!?).
3)
This is a matter of power. The Nobel econ prize does have values behind and is defintely not neutral. When did Friedman and Hayek got the prize? When did Cold war take place? The western world controls most of the world's power and resources. They have the ability to define what good science is.
No less true in natural science. A few climate scientists were too gagged by the same organization my super used to work for (finally one or two resigned). So what climat science is? the one not clearly against the organization's interest.
Scientists and economists work in their sponsor's interest far more often than in public interest (less in universites, more in governments and private sector). The lay people don't pay for research directy. Powerful organizations can and do.
4)
[one guy said: there is also a distinction between using research to JUSTIFY a position, versus applying research just for selfish gains.] I replied: Such a distinction may exist technically. The paradox is: who is going to draw the line? You may say the scientists themselves CAN. So the scientists who could potentially make selfish gains from research are at the same time the ones to judge whether or not they could separate the two. They have an incentive to justify the distinction and deny of themselves engaging in the second one. There is then a good reason to hold suspicion of the arguments they attempt to make.
Ulrich Beck's seminal monograph 'Risk Society' has made a point: science since the 2nd half of 20th Century has been given a different set of problems to solve. That is, those that are in part created by scientific advance itself, such as risks from GM food, nuclear, ozone depletion, global warming. The modernization created by science is reflexive: science is both the cause of the problems and source of solutions to these problems. The usual internal scrutiny process is then no longer sufficient, as the scientific communities who are charged to provide solutions have every incentive to deny of their contribution to the problems they are asked to solve (or if they couldn't, deny or shift responsibility). There is potential conflict of interest. Scrutiny from non-scientific communities then becomes more reasonable than ever. (unlike Charles Darwin against the Church, he didn't create the latter)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
我最喜愛的大陸劇
仙劍三電視劇插曲，現在的大陸劇比港劇好看多了，這套是我喜歡之一 (其實我也沒看過很多)。
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
喜歡的其中一個原因是情意結。雖然我沒有玩過仙劍，但大學時代迷上的是同類的古代神話風線上遊戲，叫 『軒轅劍』，台灣出品，瘋狂迷上的結果係學業倒退。現在的線上遊戲更吸引，我仍然很想再玩的，不過肯定會影響工作，所以嘛，想想好了，千萬別來認真的。
或者有些東西，懷念就好。
另一套我超喜歡的大陸劇是『人間四月天』，講述徐志摩的愛情故事，這是一部非常出色的電視劇，超出一般電視劇水準，很認真很有味道，所以即使我看了兩次，還是想再看。
也是有情意結的因素，一來我對民初文人的故事很有興趣，二來嘛，就是我大學時代的花名 - 志摩 (到現在也還是有人這樣叫我喔)
Saturday, March 26, 2011
老闆2號
前陣子得知老闆2號John患上lymphoma， 有可能是cancer，還在檢查中。本來，生老病死從來都沒什麼可說的，但如果他有事，我想我會從心底的悲哭出來，原因不是僅僅出於我對他的崇拜，還有他是堪稱這個領域內數一數二的人物，失去了他，就如巨星殞落，是學術界的大損失。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
我對他的崇拜不是盲目的，我看過很多他的著作，幾乎每次都有驚為天人的感覺，再感到自己跟他的距離實在太遠，他的創意、思想深度、寫作技巧及清晰的論證無一不叫人服膺。這三年裡，我的思想一直跟著他走，整套理論架構都是出自他的大架構，而我只不過在另一個稍為不同的領域裡發揚光大。
老闆1號Clive看過我的論文，他深知道我的思想來源，所以就說我的文章在attacking everybody ，但只有一個人我不會attack - John (我也沒有attack Clive)。事實上，我還想把John的其中一本著作翻譯作中文，我的中文水準比英文好多了，應該應付得來。
回想起來，如果當年我沒遇上Clive，就不會遇上 John，那麼我可能只會當個平凡學者，要突破也沒這麼快，理論基礎大概也沒那麼紮實。念PhD，最重要的真是找對老闆，即使不常見面，但光看他們的著作也有灌頂之效，更可況他們的曾先後在我困難或沮喪時候助我一把，作為一個博士生，我是相當幸運。
幾天前喜訊來了，他的lymphoma不是"a scary kind"，不用做化療。謝天謝地。
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sleepless nights
Nearly a month in Vienna.
Sleepless nights over the last week. Why?
Not that difficult to understand why. One key reason is that my intellectual mind got inspired and excited by the conversations I had with supervisor. Every time we talked to each other or they gave me feedback on my works, or even I picked up their words from my recolllection, I couldn't stop thinking - more precisely couldn't turn off my intellectual machinery, no matter how tired I was or how hard I tried to close my eyes. So many ideas flowing around and so much I want to share, sometimes to an extent that I really try to talk to myself!
This means I am passionate, and this is the very character any successful academic must have.
I need to sleep. I need something to cool me down. I need a way out.
But who can stop me? Someone said: 'if you are good enough, no one can stop you'. Perhaps not even himself! The only one who can is perhaps his partner and family. I used to ..... ok, it's gone.
well... my head is big enough, please bring me to somewhere relaxing.
Sleepless nights over the last week. Why?
Not that difficult to understand why. One key reason is that my intellectual mind got inspired and excited by the conversations I had with supervisor. Every time we talked to each other or they gave me feedback on my works, or even I picked up their words from my recolllection, I couldn't stop thinking - more precisely couldn't turn off my intellectual machinery, no matter how tired I was or how hard I tried to close my eyes. So many ideas flowing around and so much I want to share, sometimes to an extent that I really try to talk to myself!
This means I am passionate, and this is the very character any successful academic must have.
I need to sleep. I need something to cool me down. I need a way out.
But who can stop me? Someone said: 'if you are good enough, no one can stop you'. Perhaps not even himself! The only one who can is perhaps his partner and family. I used to ..... ok, it's gone.
well... my head is big enough, please bring me to somewhere relaxing.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
From BBA to Geography & Politics：從鍊金學徒到學術推銷員
自從看過中大校長沈祖堯那篇論大學輕人文主義的文章後，就老是在想，如果當年中大開放日，我沒有被商學院那班衣著光鮮、顧盼自豪的學長們的『專業』形象所影響，也沒有被那本金碧輝煌的小冊子所吸引，大概會挑地理或政治學吧，畢竟我還是輾轉拜入其門下。馬戲團跟少林寺，前者門面華麗，技術主導，後者著重根基，思想為本。馬戲班主深諳市場學，那年在擦得油亮的『中大商學院』金漆招牌下，我跟著羊群一起被招攬了。
學跳火圈不用帶上靈魂
選科的動機，簡單得很，不外乎是就業前景，那年頭經濟不好，重『錢』途也無可厚非。甫入商學院大門，感覺像渡了金一樣，人人都幻想當CEO，最少也得當個什麼什麼師。商學研究不重視哲學基礎，故不入主流學術思想之門，也不會嘮叨什麼任重道遠，秉承經濟學傳統，只論事物的『價錢』而不涉『價值』，訓練職業技能為理所當然，也是眾望所歸。當然，高級一點的master課程，則不是職業訓練所，而是職場俱樂部，多得學員善長慷慨解囊，人間煙火多多益善，高級教授年薪百萬才有著落，這是一個黃金循環，學生成材(財?)，教授也多渡一層金，才有資格顧盼自豪，別忘了畢業生年薪也是課程排名的重要指標，莘莘學子既是金蛋又是母雞。
金蛋我可沒當成。沈校長說大學生缺乏靈魂，慚愧，undergrad年代的我確是一枚遊魂野鬼，少了七魄。商學院裡有一雙無形之手，先賢後進、教輔人員諄諄告誡學生作好職前準備，社稷民祉為重? 抱歉，『朝廷』很需要那五斗米，所以我們是『奉旨搵工』。書要唸，可那只是兼職，更重要的是去大公司當暑期工，找個有名氣的mentor，去exchange，考專業試，考big 4，那年代最好還懂得IT，還得巴結教授拿推薦信。不用像郭靖『為國為民』般腰板挺直，只要贏個青樓薄幸名就行，要會彈會唱會跳，琴棋書畫，CV弄個花團錦簇。師門曰：『你一定要學識踩鋼線、掟飛刀和跳火圈』『變魔術也得拿執照』，商學院食客三千，朱門裡外不是人，好像出了馬戲團就要當凍死骨, 不入大觀園就是阿土伯。校園比倒模廠好些，產品不是一式一樣，而是有ABC餐自行配搭多勞多得，所以有人一畢業就是鳳凰，有人三年後還是山雞，可憐的有些蛋殼也破不了。
真正的畢業證書不是一紙輕如鴻毛，而是硬哼哼的一個工具箱，這樣見工面試的時候才能擲地有聲。可恨我的還生了鏽，屢試不第，不過最後還能討個衙門小吏來當，謝主隆恩，不用當凍死骨。
由馬戲班到象牙塔
蘇東坡被貶才寫出經典詞作，不是那年頭的風暴可能我還是載浮載沉。要是當初在戲班裡歌舞昇平，也不會有出走的勇氣。事情總有個起承轉合，『起』純粹是自我覺悟，『承』則帶點贖罪意味，千金散盡唸個環境學碩士，從那時候開始找回了那七魄。
『轉』是遇上伯樂。作為芸芸眾生的一員，大學成績表上一副大眾面孔，庸庸碌碌平平無奇，冒昧地給大名鼎鼎的詹志勇教授發了個email，為什麼他會看得起我? 可能碩士成績好，也可能研究建議書寫得好，反正最後也能倒茶拜師。他的研究興趣是市區樹木，我則是環境經濟學，將兩者合起來就是我的研究題目。一年間走訪大小屋邨公園，訪問居民對綠化的態度，屢屢碰壁，無處話淒涼。沒唸過研究式碩士博士的人，難以理解當中辛酸。
『合』也是遇上伯樂。他叫Clive，在澳洲當環境經濟學家、有碧咸式笑容的英國人。承蒙賞識，他給我獎學金，並把我引薦到另一名氣頗大的政治學家，結果我左右逢源，得兩位大師指導，研究與氣候變化有關的社會經濟議題。兩年後的今天，也是得Clive的引薦，加上自己的主動，有機會到歐洲工作。
很少唸BBA會跑去做學術研究，更少的是像我回頭是岸，跑去做跟商業風馬牛不相及的題目，所以我起步特別慢，也因為這樣，必須跑得更快。家境不容許我停下來，也沒有什麼退路，破釜沉舟，學無所成的話，回來更苦。拼了，有點孤注一擲的味道。
這一路看似談笑自若，其實比學跳火圈艱難十倍，所犧牲的也是不為外人足道。別人一天工作七小時，我多一倍，左右開弓，苦也吃兩份。也有點像一個招魂的過程，走一步撈一個靈魂，由市區樹木到氣候變化，由香港到澳洲再到歐洲，愈來愈清楚自己能做什麼，想要什麼。唸財務出身，現在也算半個『環境經濟學家』，卻跟投資商業貌合神離，從沒正式唸過地理和政治學，卻如魚得水、游刃有餘。
表面的東西真的不可信。以前總想著要一入侯門，其實是埋沒興趣，連自己也騙了。保持沈默是我的一面招牌，有點現實主義，總覺得行動最實際。我也不愛唸咒，曾經身上掛著一個十字架足足七年，但若要我把剛剛歸位的魂魄奉獻給某某，不是矯枉過正嗎? 還是『本來無一物』的哲學 – 對，只是哲學 – 比較容易入口。色相皆空，只有你心底那把聲音才最真實。
三十歲，不再跟隨羊群，不再嚮往中環，自命清高? 不算吧，其實我不反對別人唸商科，重點是你有多了解這東西。我也常常說缺錢，所以最近常發的牢騷是那份工作薪水太少，也老是在計算怎樣可以從研究資助裡為自己討多點利益，只不過我的現實主義放眼在象牙塔裡，研究也是錢，學者也得拜金，拜託拿了經費再談理想 (雖然如此，有些研究還是豐儉由人)。象牙塔也燒人間煙火，討經費、發表文章也得學會推銷技倆，初級學者就是孤獨的推銷員。這也是一樣的狗咬狗的世界，試過焦頭爛額，還好有後天訓練，我算是比較會咬那一頭。三歲定八十，天生的商人心態偶爾也會作祟，我可能會是個不錯的academic entrepreneur，可是小動作終歸離不開大道理，決不會把我擁護的環境政經哲學商業化，佛祖能吃得住小鬼，阿彌陀佛。
沈校長曾經當過逸夫書院院長，如果當年他在的話，我會不會早點魂魄歸位呢?
(沈祖堯家書 痛批功利教育: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110101/4/m071.html)
(某中大教職員回應沈校長的文章：大學之道 在識時務
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/101230/4/lzfr.html)
學跳火圈不用帶上靈魂
選科的動機，簡單得很，不外乎是就業前景，那年頭經濟不好，重『錢』途也無可厚非。甫入商學院大門，感覺像渡了金一樣，人人都幻想當CEO，最少也得當個什麼什麼師。商學研究不重視哲學基礎，故不入主流學術思想之門，也不會嘮叨什麼任重道遠，秉承經濟學傳統，只論事物的『價錢』而不涉『價值』，訓練職業技能為理所當然，也是眾望所歸。當然，高級一點的master課程，則不是職業訓練所，而是職場俱樂部，多得學員善長慷慨解囊，人間煙火多多益善，高級教授年薪百萬才有著落，這是一個黃金循環，學生成材(財?)，教授也多渡一層金，才有資格顧盼自豪，別忘了畢業生年薪也是課程排名的重要指標，莘莘學子既是金蛋又是母雞。
金蛋我可沒當成。沈校長說大學生缺乏靈魂，慚愧，undergrad年代的我確是一枚遊魂野鬼，少了七魄。商學院裡有一雙無形之手，先賢後進、教輔人員諄諄告誡學生作好職前準備，社稷民祉為重? 抱歉，『朝廷』很需要那五斗米，所以我們是『奉旨搵工』。書要唸，可那只是兼職，更重要的是去大公司當暑期工，找個有名氣的mentor，去exchange，考專業試，考big 4，那年代最好還懂得IT，還得巴結教授拿推薦信。不用像郭靖『為國為民』般腰板挺直，只要贏個青樓薄幸名就行，要會彈會唱會跳，琴棋書畫，CV弄個花團錦簇。師門曰：『你一定要學識踩鋼線、掟飛刀和跳火圈』『變魔術也得拿執照』，商學院食客三千，朱門裡外不是人，好像出了馬戲團就要當凍死骨, 不入大觀園就是阿土伯。校園比倒模廠好些，產品不是一式一樣，而是有ABC餐自行配搭多勞多得，所以有人一畢業就是鳳凰，有人三年後還是山雞，可憐的有些蛋殼也破不了。
真正的畢業證書不是一紙輕如鴻毛，而是硬哼哼的一個工具箱，這樣見工面試的時候才能擲地有聲。可恨我的還生了鏽，屢試不第，不過最後還能討個衙門小吏來當，謝主隆恩，不用當凍死骨。
由馬戲班到象牙塔
蘇東坡被貶才寫出經典詞作，不是那年頭的風暴可能我還是載浮載沉。要是當初在戲班裡歌舞昇平，也不會有出走的勇氣。事情總有個起承轉合，『起』純粹是自我覺悟，『承』則帶點贖罪意味，千金散盡唸個環境學碩士，從那時候開始找回了那七魄。
『轉』是遇上伯樂。作為芸芸眾生的一員，大學成績表上一副大眾面孔，庸庸碌碌平平無奇，冒昧地給大名鼎鼎的詹志勇教授發了個email，為什麼他會看得起我? 可能碩士成績好，也可能研究建議書寫得好，反正最後也能倒茶拜師。他的研究興趣是市區樹木，我則是環境經濟學，將兩者合起來就是我的研究題目。一年間走訪大小屋邨公園，訪問居民對綠化的態度，屢屢碰壁，無處話淒涼。沒唸過研究式碩士博士的人，難以理解當中辛酸。
『合』也是遇上伯樂。他叫Clive，在澳洲當環境經濟學家、有碧咸式笑容的英國人。承蒙賞識，他給我獎學金，並把我引薦到另一名氣頗大的政治學家，結果我左右逢源，得兩位大師指導，研究與氣候變化有關的社會經濟議題。兩年後的今天，也是得Clive的引薦，加上自己的主動，有機會到歐洲工作。
很少唸BBA會跑去做學術研究，更少的是像我回頭是岸，跑去做跟商業風馬牛不相及的題目，所以我起步特別慢，也因為這樣，必須跑得更快。家境不容許我停下來，也沒有什麼退路，破釜沉舟，學無所成的話，回來更苦。拼了，有點孤注一擲的味道。
這一路看似談笑自若，其實比學跳火圈艱難十倍，所犧牲的也是不為外人足道。別人一天工作七小時，我多一倍，左右開弓，苦也吃兩份。也有點像一個招魂的過程，走一步撈一個靈魂，由市區樹木到氣候變化，由香港到澳洲再到歐洲，愈來愈清楚自己能做什麼，想要什麼。唸財務出身，現在也算半個『環境經濟學家』，卻跟投資商業貌合神離，從沒正式唸過地理和政治學，卻如魚得水、游刃有餘。
表面的東西真的不可信。以前總想著要一入侯門，其實是埋沒興趣，連自己也騙了。保持沈默是我的一面招牌，有點現實主義，總覺得行動最實際。我也不愛唸咒，曾經身上掛著一個十字架足足七年，但若要我把剛剛歸位的魂魄奉獻給某某，不是矯枉過正嗎? 還是『本來無一物』的哲學 – 對，只是哲學 – 比較容易入口。色相皆空，只有你心底那把聲音才最真實。
三十歲，不再跟隨羊群，不再嚮往中環，自命清高? 不算吧，其實我不反對別人唸商科，重點是你有多了解這東西。我也常常說缺錢，所以最近常發的牢騷是那份工作薪水太少，也老是在計算怎樣可以從研究資助裡為自己討多點利益，只不過我的現實主義放眼在象牙塔裡，研究也是錢，學者也得拜金，拜託拿了經費再談理想 (雖然如此，有些研究還是豐儉由人)。象牙塔也燒人間煙火，討經費、發表文章也得學會推銷技倆，初級學者就是孤獨的推銷員。這也是一樣的狗咬狗的世界，試過焦頭爛額，還好有後天訓練，我算是比較會咬那一頭。三歲定八十，天生的商人心態偶爾也會作祟，我可能會是個不錯的academic entrepreneur，可是小動作終歸離不開大道理，決不會把我擁護的環境政經哲學商業化，佛祖能吃得住小鬼，阿彌陀佛。
沈校長曾經當過逸夫書院院長，如果當年他在的話，我會不會早點魂魄歸位呢?
(沈祖堯家書 痛批功利教育: http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/110101/4/m071.html)
(某中大教職員回應沈校長的文章：大學之道 在識時務
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/101230/4/lzfr.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)