QuoteStriking professors stopped teaching classes and grading coursework on Wednesday after their contract expired earlier in the week.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/nyregion/new-school-parsons-strike-walkout.html
If the link doesn't work, here is the article:
QuotePart-time faculty members at the New School, a historically progressive university that includes the Parsons School of Design, walked out en masse on Wednesday to protest pay and working conditions.
The strike is a culmination of years of contentious relations between the adjunct faculty and the university's administration and is part of a nationwide trend; earlier this week, 48,000 academic staff in the University of California system went on strike over job security.
At the New School in New York City, teaching staff complained that administrators' salaries were high compared with those of faculty, most of whom are part-time. At one point, the president of the New School was being paid more than the president of Harvard University.
Adjunct professors at the university have not received a raise in four years, and as a result, their real earnings have not kept up with inflation and are down 18 percent from 2018, according to A.C.T.-U.A.W. Local 7902, the union organizing the strike. The union said that while the university had offered a 3.5 percent wage increase, it was not sufficient given record inflation in recent months.
"The New School's reputation rests on its progressive history and professed values — a reputation with which its treatment of workers fails to align," the union said in a statement.
Amy Malsin, a spokeswoman for the university, said that negotiations would pick up again later in the week and that the school was "confident we will successfully reach a new agreement together."
"The New School's bargaining team is continuing to work incredibly hard to reach an agreement that prioritizes the mission of the university and preserves our students' exceptional academic experience, while reflecting the sincere respect we have for our part-time faculty," she added.
About 200 demonstrators showed up at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 14th Street, not far from the New School main campus building, shouting, "We're out here fighting for our contracts," as they carried signs that read "Administrative Thievery."
"We are a majority of the faculty body at the New School, and we have not been treated with respect," said Dianca London Potts, 35, a fiction teacher and a New School alumnus. "We work ourselves to the bone."
Annie Lee Larson, a professor at Parsons School of Fashion who teaches knitting and embroidery for design, said that she had to take three other jobs to supplement her income of $8,598 per year for teaching two semester-long courses.
"I don't have a safety net," said Ms. Larson. "I live alone in one of the most expensive cities in the world. If I can't pay my rent or bills, nobody else is stepping in to help."
The New School posted guidance for students and faculties during the strike, which instructed students to continue their coursework. It said the school respected teachers' right to strike.
Some tenured professors echoed the complaints of the striking adjuncts.
"The administrators seem to view themselves as essential and everyone else as inessential," said Sanjay Reddy, an economics professor at the university, who analyzed compensation data that showed that management salaries had increased by 45 percent between 2014 and 2019.
During that same period, he calculated, revenue increased only 17 percent. The New School largely depends on tuition for its revenue, unlike other institutions with large endowments. In 2017, Mr. Reddy's data showed that the institution's former president, David Van Zandt, received higher wages than his counterpart at Harvard, which has a bigger endowment and larger revenue streams.
The New School is "perhaps an especially pronounced, extreme, case" of a general trend among higher education facilities where administrative expenditures have been rising, he said.
Nearly 90 percent of the university's instructors are part-time, according to a trade union that represents part-time educators.
In response, Ms. Malsin said that the university's administrative costs include "student advisers, financial aid counselors, student health professionals and all manner of other student-facing functions." She said that "instruction and departmental research expenses" represented 36 percent of total expenditures in 2020, the largest portion of the university budget. Another third was spent on support and student services.
Many faculty — both adjunct and tenured — have argued that the university has not been transparent in sharing the details of these expenditures, noting that some senior administrative officials were nominally academics: A dean or an associate dean might have academic titles, even though their roles were administrative.
The total cost to attend the New School, including tuition, fees and on-campus living expenses, was $78,744 in 2021-22, an increase of 7 percent over the previous year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, though students typically pay significantly less when financial aid is included.
The New School, founded in 1919 as the New School for Social Research, an avant-garde institution aimed at countering the traditionalism of Ivy League schools, has produced some prominent academics and intellectuals, including the philosophers Hannah Arendt and Jacques Derrida, as well as Eric Fromm, the social psychologist.
It has been expanding internationally in recent years, and a third of its students are from overseas. Parsons became part of the New School in 1970.Quote
Though the New School could perhaps use some rebalancing of priorities between administration and academics, it would take an enormous infusion of cash from somewhere--higher tuition, taxpayers, friendly billionaires--for the school to afford to pay all its staff a living wage by NYC standards. They don't seem to have any such infusions in the works.
The "New School" is now 103 years old! Well, that's still sort of new by Ivy League standards.
Looks like they've outsourced teaching! You can do that in a couple of metropolitan areas.
To what degree is their research grant-funded?
As I noted on the CA thread, some costs would just be folded into grant applications.
M.
Solidarity! Good luck to the strikers. May they get everything they want.
Quote from: mamselle on November 17, 2022, 08:16:49 AM
To what degree is their research grant-funded?
As I noted on the CA thread, some costs would just be folded into grant applications.
M.
That is a good question. If 90% of the instructors are part-time, they can't have many faculty as PIs on major grants. But maybe instructors are part time because they are on soft money.
Their subjects tend not to get gobs of Federal funding: design, performance, liberal arts, public engagement. Maybe some in social research (https://www.researchnewschool.com/grants-and-sponsored-projects-1).
The blurb on the knitting professor...yikes! I mean, even with an 20% increase in her salary, her adjunct income isn't much better. The professor identity is really hard to let go of.
The NSSR runs one of those dubious unfunded PhD programs in my field. They have 10 FT faculty members, an army of adjuncts, and, like, 100 PhD students and another chunk of MA students.
It's really not OK, especially for a supposedly socialist institution.
The New School runs an unfunded PhD program in my field, too. They have about 10 FT faculty members and some adjuncts in Economics.
The core of what they teach is perfectly fine. The penumbra, in my opinion, is nuts, but that's totally beside the point. Tastes differ. I'm glad they exist and can fund themselves privately.
Some years ago I sent a student to their PhD program. I had some communications with the then chairman of the department. He was perfectly sane.
Look, you gotta pay for a socialist education nowadays. It's another form of sacrifice for socialism! :-)
Quote from: Mobius on November 20, 2022, 02:39:07 PM
The blurb on the knitting professor...yikes! I mean, even with an 20% increase in her salary, her adjunct income isn't much better. The professor identity is really hard to let go of.
Well, she only teaches two classes per year. I don't know anyone who expects to support themselves, 100%, on a job that is basically, what, 20-25% of a full-time job, with school breaks off?
What do the striking faculty want? Higher pay per class? FT positions? I know what the union leadership is negotiating, but rank-and-file might think it would lead to something else.
The strike continues...
https://gothamist.com/news/new-school-and-part-time-faculty-union-to-meet-with-mediator
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/06/nyregion/new-school-parsons-strike.html
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 06, 2022, 04:42:31 AM
The strike continues...
https://gothamist.com/news/new-school-and-part-time-faculty-union-to-meet-with-mediator
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/06/nyregion/new-school-parsons-strike.html
Some of the basic facts don't align well with a socialist operation.
- The total cost to attend the New School, including tuition, fees and on-campus living expenses, was $78,744 in 2021-22.
- The school's chief operating officer [is] a former McKinsey consultant.
- Adjunct professors are paid $5,753 for a three-credit course. The university does not compensate for out-of-classroom hours, which includes time spent grading papers or counseling students.
- Part-time instructors...make up about 90 percent of the faculty.
Regarding the third bullet, there is no mention of prep time! Strange omission for a reporter, unless they spend all their time writing and no time...reporting.
I came across a tweet criticizing The New School for not paying striking faculty. I sympathize with their plight, but that's just a dumb criticism.
I have done a few adjunct jobs over the years and I always assumed the pay, low as it was, covered ALL aspects of teaching a class, both in the classroom and out (such as grading,...). Thus I don't get the complaint being made. The overall pay might be low - probably is for NYC - but it (by my definition anyway) covers everything.
Sometimes the contract specifies the number of hours you're paid for, and that number equals the total number of classroom plus office hours.
My own is like that, in fact. But it generously adds eight hours a year of "professional development" which I have to submit a plan to claim at the beginning of the year, and then prove I used at the end. We're meant to use course prep and publications to justify it. :rolleyes:
(And no, I'm not an adjunct--but we don't have tenure, so we're not much more than adjuncts, either.)
https://twitter.com/TheNewSchool/status/1600305277244346368
Looks like the New School admin are turning the thumbscrews and laying off (or, more accurately - since these are mostly adjuncts - refusing to re-employ) the strikers. It will be interesting to see if this is a bluff, as it's hard to imagine how a university that relies on 90% part-time instructors can run an academic semester without them.
Strike Ends at the New School and Parsons School of Design (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/nyregion/new-school-nyc-adjunct-strike.html)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 11, 2022, 03:17:00 PM
Strike Ends at the New School and Parsons School of Design (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/nyregion/new-school-nyc-adjunct-strike.html)
Excellent. Congrats to the strikers for their stamina and determinations, and their success. May it be an inspiration for other faculty.
Quote from: downer on December 11, 2022, 04:14:37 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 11, 2022, 03:17:00 PM
Strike Ends at the New School and Parsons School of Design (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/nyregion/new-school-nyc-adjunct-strike.html)
Excellent. Congrats to the strikers for their stamina and determinations, and their success. May it be an inspiration for other faculty.
I saw the news last night in the Gothamist and was happy to note that the parents were threatening to sue the school.
QuoteThe workers began striking nearly a month ago, on Nov. 16, when contract negotiations stalled with the school. The action forced students to sit out of classes for the bulk of the fall semester, and many full-time faculty members joined the strike in solidarity.
Parents of the university's students threatened to sue the school for lost tuition while their kids were out of classes.
A teacher for the school, Marie-Helene Bertino, and Carey both said the pressure worked, and that the teachers got everything they asked for.
https://gothamist.com/news/new-school-teachers-strike-ends-as-nyc-university-agrees-to-first-pay-raises-in-4-years
Part-time faculty members at the New School have agreed to end a grueling three-week strike over pay and benefits after reaching an agreement late Saturday with the university.
The sizable walkout had left the school at a near standstill. Classes were canceled because nearly 90 percent of the faculty is made up of untenured adjunct professors and lecturers. The school had also been facing a lawsuit from irate parents, who had threatened to withhold payment or force their children to transfer to other institutions. Some had called for the school's president, Dwight A. McBride, to resign.... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/nyregion/new-school-nyc-adjunct-strike.html
This truly shocked me. I never realized that any legitimate institution would operate with such a high number of adjuncts. Aren't there any accreditation standards around the percentage of adjuncts a school may employ? Isn't this the sort of thing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education should be policing... and/or the New York State Department of Education?
Quote from: simpleSimon on December 12, 2022, 07:14:59 AM
Part-time faculty members at the New School have agreed to end a grueling three-week strike over pay and benefits after reaching an agreement late Saturday with the university.
The sizable walkout had left the school at a near standstill. Classes were canceled because nearly 90 percent of the faculty is made up of untenured adjunct professors and lecturers. The school had also been facing a lawsuit from irate parents, who had threatened to withhold payment or force their children to transfer to other institutions. Some had called for the school's president, Dwight A. McBride, to resign.... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/11/nyregion/new-school-nyc-adjunct-strike.html
This truly shocked me. I never realized that any legitimate institution would operate with such a high number of adjuncts. Aren't there any accreditation standards around the percentage of adjuncts a school may employ? Isn't this the sort of thing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education should be policing... and/or the New York State Department of Education?
Middle States requires quality. There is no law that adjuncts cannot provide quality. The New School got accredited only in 1960, but had built a reputation long before then. [I think they are crazy, by the way, but I want them to survive. It is on private money, after all.]
One objection to guild thinking is that the thinking hurts most of those it is intended to help because the thinking does not extend beyond the first step:
1. Reduce the number of adjuncts.
2. Raise tuition to hire more FT faculty [fewer than the number of former adjuncts, of course].
3. School shrinks. Fewer FT positions + adjuncts than former FT + adjuncts left over.
4. Many adjuncts stay unemployed.
So, we have fewer employed, but at higher wages. For an adjunct, getting one of those FT jobs is like being sent to Vegas.
Quote from: dismalist on December 12, 2022, 11:58:06 AM
Middle States requires quality. There is no law that adjuncts cannot provide quality. The New School got accredited only in 1960, but had built a reputation long before then. [I think they are crazy, by the way, but I want them to survive. It is on private money, after all.]
One objection to guild thinking is that the thinking hurts most of those it is intended to help because the thinking does not extend beyond the first step:
1. Reduce the number of adjuncts.
2. Raise tuition to hire more FT faculty [fewer than the number of former adjuncts, of course].
3. School shrinks. Fewer FT positions + adjuncts than former FT + adjuncts left over.
4. Many adjuncts stay unemployed.
So, we have fewer employed, but at higher wages. For an adjunct, getting one of those FT jobs is like being sent to Vegas.
Just my opinion, but I do not believe you can provide the level of quality a reasonable person would want with 90% adjuncts. If the teachers are fly by night, temporary, disposable employees with little voice in how the institution operates those are huge red flags (for me). If the institution is not invested in full time instructors why would those same instructors be invested in the vital work of research and service on behalf of the institution? When faculty are here this semester and gone the next then they cannot invest in each other... invest in students... write letters for students... leverage professional contacts for students... help to raise money for the institution, etc. Does this really need to be explained? I recall reading in another thread that many adjuncts barely know other faculty in their own department much less other departments. So much for collaboration.
I find it curious that you would point to increasing tuition as the way to hire more faculty. As the New School is already at the top of the tuition ladder raising fees is clearly not the answer. It has been widely reported that many universities saw fundraising spike during the pandemic. I confess I haven't taken the time to view the roster of Board members at the New School, but we all know it's in NYC and if you can't raise money there then you have the wrong Board members and development officers in place. I am far from a development officer and over the last 10 years I've raised more than $10 million dollars in support of academic programs. If I can do that with virtually no formal training in fundraising, imagine what a few pros can do? The board members at my school routinely throw in $10 or 20 million every few years... so why isn't the New School able to raise the kind of money it would take to hire more full time faculty? They need to hire more full time faculty and raise the money in order to do so. Period.
Quote from: simpleSimon on December 13, 2022, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 12, 2022, 11:58:06 AM
Middle States requires quality. There is no law that adjuncts cannot provide quality. The New School got accredited only in 1960, but had built a reputation long before then. [I think they are crazy, by the way, but I want them to survive. It is on private money, after all.]
One objection to guild thinking is that the thinking hurts most of those it is intended to help because the thinking does not extend beyond the first step:
1. Reduce the number of adjuncts.
2. Raise tuition to hire more FT faculty [fewer than the number of former adjuncts, of course].
3. School shrinks. Fewer FT positions + adjuncts than former FT + adjuncts left over.
4. Many adjuncts stay unemployed.
So, we have fewer employed, but at higher wages. For an adjunct, getting one of those FT jobs is like being sent to Vegas.
Just my opinion, but I do not believe you can provide the level of quality a reasonable person would want with 90% adjuncts. If the teachers are fly by night, temporary, disposable employees with little voice in how the institution operates those are huge red flags (for me). If the institution is not invested in full time instructors why would those same instructors be invested in the vital work of research and service on behalf of the institution? When faculty are here this semester and gone the next then they cannot invest in each other... invest in students... write letters for students... leverage professional contacts for students... help to raise money for the institution, etc. Does this really need to be explained? I recall reading in another thread that many adjuncts barely know other faculty in their own department much less other departments. So much for collaboration.
I find it curious that you would point to increasing tuition as the way to hire more faculty. As the New School is already at the top of the tuition ladder raising fees is clearly not the answer. It has been widely reported that many universities saw fundraising spike during the pandemic. I confess I haven't taken the time to view the roster of Board members at the New School, but we all know it's in NYC and if you can't raise money there then you have the wrong Board members and development officers in place. I am far from a development officer and over the last 10 years I've raised more than $10 million dollars in support of academic programs. If I can do that with virtually no formal training in fundraising, imagine what a few pros can do? The board members at my school routinely throw in $10 or 20 million every few years... so why isn't the New School able to raise the kind of money it would take to hire more full time faculty? They need to hire more full time faculty and raise the money in order to do so. Period.
As I said, The New School has created a reputation for itself. Customers know what they're getting.
Fundraising? It's not about fundraising, it's about
additional fundraising. If there were leeway there, it must be true that the school is currently doing a poor job of fundraising! There is no reason to believe that.
But the idea of extra fundraising is illustrative of another fallacy beside "the consider only the first step fallacy": It's the money grows on trees fallacy.
Students are now demanding "A"s for all their courses.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/17/a-is-for-audacity-new-school-students-demand-as-for-all-courses-regardless-of-attendance-after-protests/
Quote from: dismalist on December 13, 2022, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: simpleSimon on December 13, 2022, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: dismalist on December 12, 2022, 11:58:06 AM
Middle States requires quality. There is no law that adjuncts cannot provide quality. The New School got accredited only in 1960, but had built a reputation long before then. [I think they are crazy, by the way, but I want them to survive. It is on private money, after all.]
One objection to guild thinking is that the thinking hurts most of those it is intended to help because the thinking does not extend beyond the first step:
1. Reduce the number of adjuncts.
2. Raise tuition to hire more FT faculty [fewer than the number of former adjuncts, of course].
3. School shrinks. Fewer FT positions + adjuncts than former FT + adjuncts left over.
4. Many adjuncts stay unemployed.
So, we have fewer employed, but at higher wages. For an adjunct, getting one of those FT jobs is like being sent to Vegas.
Just my opinion, but I do not believe you can provide the level of quality a reasonable person would want with 90% adjuncts. If the teachers are fly by night, temporary, disposable employees with little voice in how the institution operates those are huge red flags (for me). If the institution is not invested in full time instructors why would those same instructors be invested in the vital work of research and service on behalf of the institution? When faculty are here this semester and gone the next then they cannot invest in each other... invest in students... write letters for students... leverage professional contacts for students... help to raise money for the institution, etc. Does this really need to be explained? I recall reading in another thread that many adjuncts barely know other faculty in their own department much less other departments. So much for collaboration.
I find it curious that you would point to increasing tuition as the way to hire more faculty. As the New School is already at the top of the tuition ladder raising fees is clearly not the answer. It has been widely reported that many universities saw fundraising spike during the pandemic. I confess I haven't taken the time to view the roster of Board members at the New School, but we all know it's in NYC and if you can't raise money there then you have the wrong Board members and development officers in place. I am far from a development officer and over the last 10 years I've raised more than $10 million dollars in support of academic programs. If I can do that with virtually no formal training in fundraising, imagine what a few pros can do? The board members at my school routinely throw in $10 or 20 million every few years... so why isn't the New School able to raise the kind of money it would take to hire more full time faculty? They need to hire more full time faculty and raise the money in order to do so. Period.
As I said, The New School has created a reputation for itself. Customers know what they're getting.
Fundraising? It's not about fundraising, it's about additional fundraising. If there were leeway there, it must be true that the school is currently doing a poor job of fundraising! There is no reason to believe that.
But the idea of extra fundraising is illustrative of another fallacy beside "the consider only the first step fallacy": It's the money grows on trees fallacy.
I started that thread about knowing one's adjunct colleagues. I also think the various anecdotes about empty floors and departments is partly because of the Internet, but it is also a result of fly-by-night instructors who only teach a class or two and then are gone. Sometimes it seems that we no longer have departments, just independent contractors.
It seems to me that higher ed is really failing on many fronts, the adjunct army in particular. And, as Big-D points out, there is no real fix for it. America has the wealth (look at how much the new B-21 stealth bomber costs), it just wants to lowball education and then blame colleges for the rising costs of doing business.
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux link=topic=3221.msg119854#msg119854
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
At least some of the rebuilding is bound to be better than the weak parts that collapse.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2022, 06:45:25 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux link=topic=3221.msg119854#msg119854
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
At least some of the rebuilding is bound to be better than the weak parts that collapse.
Actually, many of the "weak parts" are doing quite well in all criteria except for enrollment. We will have trade schools or the equivalent instead of universities, and perhaps that is for the best.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2022, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2022, 06:45:25 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux link=topic=3221.msg119854#msg119854
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
At least some of the rebuilding is bound to be better than the weak parts that collapse.
Actually, many of the "weak parts" are doing quite well in all criteria except for enrollment. We will have trade schools or the equivalent instead of universities, and perhaps that is for the best.
The patient is in great health, other than being dead.
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 17, 2022, 09:02:16 AM
Students are now demanding "A"s for all their courses.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/17/a-is-for-audacity-new-school-students-demand-as-for-all-courses-regardless-of-attendance-after-protests/
Student activism lives! I guess New School hasn't entirely lost touch with its roots after all.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2022, 05:15:12 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2022, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2022, 06:45:25 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux link=topic=3221.msg119854#msg119854
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
At least some of the rebuilding is bound to be better than the weak parts that collapse.
Actually, many of the "weak parts" are doing quite well in all criteria except for enrollment. We will have trade schools or the equivalent instead of universities, and perhaps that is for the best.
The patient is in great health, other than being dead.
Oh silly Marshman.
Good teachers.
Good scholars.
Good students.
Societal good from their work.
Many scholars waiting in the wings.
Many more eager to become scholars.
That describes many of the very healthy "weak parts" which some *ahem* misinformed peeps, often in STEM, seem unable to comprehend.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2022, 08:41:20 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 19, 2022, 05:15:12 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 18, 2022, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 18, 2022, 06:45:25 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux link=topic=3221.msg119854#msg119854
Time to let the weak parts collapse and then rebuild with something cheaper and less worthwhile.
At least some of the rebuilding is bound to be better than the weak parts that collapse.
Actually, many of the "weak parts" are doing quite well in all criteria except for enrollment. We will have trade schools or the equivalent instead of universities, and perhaps that is for the best.
The patient is in great health, other than being dead.
Oh silly Marshman.
Good teachers.
Good scholars.
Good students.
Societal good from their work.
Many scholars waiting in the wings.
Many more eager to become scholars.
That describes many of the very healthy "weak parts" which some *ahem* misinformed peeps, often in STEM, seem unable to comprehend.
If there aren't enough students who know about the place, or who are interested in going there, it doesn't matter how "good" the experience hypothetically
would be. A 5-star Michelin-rated restaurant with no customers is just an empty building with rent owing.
If the student demographic is shrinking, so there aren't enough students to go around, then unless someone is going to argue that every place that exists is of absolutely stellar quality, then the
necessary (not merely
inevitable) adjustment is for the ones which have the least unique benefits to close down, so that the highest quality is maintained. (And even if somehow funding per student could keep rising to keep everyplace open, even for the students themselves there are things that will suffer as the enrollment drops, since many things like seminars, projects, etc., not to mention extracurriculars, require a certain critical mass to function well.)
Marshy, you are a great guy. But sometimes I think the point just whooshes you by like Maverick in his hypersonic movie plane, so you posit the obvious. But you are, truly, a good dude, no doubt.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2022, 04:31:42 PM
Marshy, you are a great guy. But sometimes I think the point just whooshes you by like Maverick in his hypersonic movie plane, so you posit the obvious. But you are, truly, a good dude, no doubt.
Often I truly don't have a clue what you're getting at. This is one of those times. So please tell me what
your proposed solution would be for the realities of declining enrollment, (fuelled in significant part by the
demographic decline in the sudent-age
population
), which would save all of these "good" places. Related to that, is there
ever an enrollment threshold below which a program or institution should be closed if it is "good"?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2022, 05:16:18 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2022, 04:31:42 PM
Marshy, you are a great guy. But sometimes I think the point just whooshes you by like Maverick in his hypersonic movie plane, so you posit the obvious. But you are, truly, a good dude, no doubt.
Often I truly don't have a clue what you're getting at. This is one of those times. So please tell me what your proposed solution would be for the realities of declining enrollment, (fuelled in significant part by the demographic decline in the sudent-age population
), which would save all of these "good" places. Related to that, is there ever an enrollment threshold below which a program or institution should be closed if it is "good"?
I know you frequently don't get it, my friend. I am perhaps opaque. You perhaps always think in simple, argumentative dichotomies.
I think the solution is to let those majors at those schools losing interest in those majors die. Places like, say, Ohio State or U of Michigan or U of Wisconsin or Berkley will always host a full set of majors. Of course, so will the Ivies and other elite colleges. Places like the school I just retired from are already closing their low-enrollment majors and programs. And that is the way it should be if the community does not want to prop those majors up.
Capiche?
I simply think it is a mistake of culture to let disciplines die and this dynamic is too darn bad, especially if all other aspects of the discipline (other than enrollment) are healthy and worthwhile.
I also suspect that the disparity in prestige and quality of students will broaden when we have true liberal arts universities and de facto trade schools. And I think we will take opportunities away from students of the future. But if that is what the taxpayers want, so be it.
It's pretty simple, really, oh Mighty Marshman.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2022, 06:24:28 AM
I simply think it is a mistake of culture to let disciplines die and this dynamic is too darn bad, especially if all other aspects of the discipline (other than enrollment) are healthy and worthwhile.
Disciplines aren't going to die. However, a significant factor is
fragmentation. As the humanities split into more and more "X Studies, Y Studies, Z Studies, etc., then the combined enrollment may decline slowly, but several of those programs will be non-viable. That's a difficult issue to address because it runs up against "diversity" initiatives.
Quote
I also suspect that the disparity in prestige and quality of students will broaden when we have true liberal arts universities and de facto trade schools. And I think we will take opportunities away from students of the future. But if that is what the taxpayers want, so be it.
The problem here is that how much benefit a given education will provide depends, not only on the student's
interest, but also on the student's
ability. The really bright students will be able to be successful after university regardless of what they study, while the weaker students will need the "de facto trade school" education to have employable skills that take time for them to learn, but which the brighter students can learn on-the-job.
(In this way, STEM has similar issues; brighter students will benefit from the broader university-type education, while weaker students will benefit from more vocationally-focused programs.) University isn't the best choice for all of the students who will benefit from some sort of post-secondary education.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2022, 06:45:52 AMThe problem here is that how much benefit a given education will provide depends, not only on the student's interest, but also on the student's ability. The really bright students will be able to be successful after university regardless of what they study, while the weaker students will need the "de facto trade school" education to have employable skills that take time for them to learn, but which the brighter students can learn on-the-job.
(In this way, STEM has similar issues; brighter students will benefit from the broader university-type education, while weaker students will benefit from more vocationally-focused programs.) University isn't the best choice for all of the students who will benefit from some sort of post-secondary education.
The idea that every student can benefit and should attend a university providing a broad liberal arts education is at fundamental odds with the reality of the products of our K-12 education system.
I would also push back on the notion that schools without programs in the humanities are necessarily trade schools. I can certainly see places like Caltech and MIT offering a high quality STEM education without requiring any courses in the humanities or social sciences.
It appears all the bad news has taken a toll; President McBride will be gone in two months. He was only in office for three years. But getting rid of the president will not solve their problems because their difficulties were brewing long before he came along. McBride has been a convenient target, but with him out of the picture the New School still faces serious financial challenges.
https://www.newschoolfreepress.com/2023/06/08/dwight-a-mcbride-to-step-down-as-the-new-school-president-at-the-end-of-the-summer/
Quote from: simpleSimon on June 14, 2023, 10:50:27 AMIt appears all the bad news has taken a toll; President McBride will be gone in two months. He was only in office for three years. But getting rid of the president will not solve their problems because their difficulties were brewing long before he came along. McBride has been a convenient target, but with him out of the picture the New School still faces serious financial challenges.
https://www.newschoolfreepress.com/2023/06/08/dwight-a-mcbride-to-step-down-as-the-new-school-president-at-the-end-of-the-summer/
The only bad news is for New School.
Three years is long enough for McBride to make bank. He made $3,444,000 in those three years, AND he's got a sweet new job waiting for him at Washington University.
McBride's detractors may think that their efforts "has taken a toll." In reality, even though McBride will take the shame walk, so his enemies can get their satisfaction, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And, while he's standing in line at the bank, McBride's enemies will be holding an empty bag of nothing.
And to think that only three decades ago Vanderbilt University students were bent out of shape over the fact that then-Chancellor Joe B. Wyatt was the highest-paid university head in the country--at $300,000 per year.
Quote from: lightning on June 14, 2023, 11:19:08 AMQuote from: simpleSimon on June 14, 2023, 10:50:27 AMIt appears all the bad news has taken a toll; President McBride will be gone in two months. He was only in office for three years. But getting rid of the president will not solve their problems because their difficulties were brewing long before he came along. McBride has been a convenient target, but with him out of the picture the New School still faces serious financial challenges.
https://www.newschoolfreepress.com/2023/06/08/dwight-a-mcbride-to-step-down-as-the-new-school-president-at-the-end-of-the-summer/
The only bad news is for New School.
Three years is long enough for McBride to make bank. He made $3,444,000 in those three years, AND he's got a sweet new job waiting for him at Washington University.
McBride's detractors may think that their efforts "has taken a toll." In reality, even though McBride will take the shame walk, so his enemies can get their satisfaction, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank. And, while he's standing in line at the bank, McBride's enemies will be holding an empty bag of nothing.
My ambition is to be a really incompetent College President.
I don't think McBride had any "real" enemies. He was just a convenient target; anyone in the President's office would have been similarly targeted. Troubles at TNS have been brewing for more than a dozen years... the Board needs to take a hard look at itself and the decisions they have been making. McBride will be fine; another presidency is waiting for him if he wants it.
Quote from: mleok on December 24, 2022, 12:36:11 PMI would also push back on the notion that schools without programs in the humanities are necessarily trade schools. I can certainly see places like Caltech and MIT offering a high quality STEM education without requiring any courses in the humanities or social sciences.
Fixed that for you.