Having sold my soul to the corporate world I now desperately want to retrieve the academic spirit that I earlier thrived on. Over the years I have seen how students graduate & then go through the rituals of a master’s programme devoid of any knowledge. Students "seem" to know but have no knowledge. The pedagogy of savviness much to my chagrin ascribes to the student imaginary, matchless individuality arrogance steeped in mediocrity. This pedagogy provides instruction not in knowledge but in savviness a knowing that knows what it knows is an illusion but is undeluded about that illusion; it integrates the illusion, and thus makes itself immune to critique. The principles of the market and its managers are more and more the managers of the policy and practices of education. Market relevance is becoming the key orienting criterion for the selection of discourses, their relations to each other, their forms and their research. I am against any kind of pedagogy which leaves the self empty, and this is what I fear most of all, the emptying of the self and the role of pedagogy in such evacuation, and I think we have to mount a critique. Knowledge after nearly a thousand years is divorced from inwardness and literally dehumanized. The knower is being distanced from what is to be known; the concept of 'trainability' is fast replacing the concept of commitment to knowledge, separating it 'from the deep structure of the self'. This market oriented pedagogy is exactly the kind of education capital requires for its "new" workforce: workers who are educated but non-thinking; skilled at detailed jobs but unable to grasp the totality of the system-- energetic localists, ignorant globalists. Why has no one raised a voice about the irrelevance of a degree in commerce? The seven years after matriculation that it takes to complete masters in commerce could be easily taught in 2 years. A critique is desperately needed.