CHE: Tenured, Trapped, and Miserable in the Humanities

[Wahoo Redux]

I like (not love) academia.  I will make this my career if I can.  It's better than 90% of the jobs out there.

I am also stuck.  My career may fizzle.  I don't regret doing this for 20 years and meeting my wife.

I totally understand why colleges are faltering and the need to let things dwindle and slip.  It is nobody's and everybody's fault at the same time.

I think it is a complete disaster for our society that we are letting education dwindle and slip, and someday society will regret it.

Things are not exclusive.

[Hibush]

Personally, I am just bored with teaching. Students are great, but grading and paperwork and teaching the same darn topics over and over again has gotten stale.

I can't imagine doing any job for more than 5-10 years. There is the fun of the fresh challenge, the feeling once one has a routine, the sense that one is getting better and making improvements, and then... I dunno. Either need to create fresh challenges in the current job or look for something else.

It's like Groundhog Day.  Every Fall you come class and the students don't know a damn thing you taught last year.

[Ruralguy]

I just start to get worn out from all of the special requests. Make up for this or that. Request for independent study because they forgot to sign up for the one majors course nobody has forgot in 25 years.
With all of that and service expected from a full prof, scholarship just seems to add to the slog, especially idiot reviewers. I'm proud of my work and earn my salary, but I too feel that 10 years would be a hard limit.

[onthefringe]

Personally, I am just bored with teaching. Students are great, but grading and paperwork and teaching the same darn topics over and over again has gotten stale.

I can't imagine doing any job for more than 5-10 years. There is the fun of the fresh challenge, the feeling once one has a routine, the sense that one is getting better and making improvements, and then... I dunno. Either need to create fresh challenges in the current job or look for something else.

It's like Groundhog Day.  Every Fall you come class and the students don't know a damn thing you taught last year.

Ha! That's one of my constant feelings I have to hold in check "I explained this all so clearly just last year! Why do you not retain it?"

[mamselle]

One of my elementary school teachers said that, once.

"Every year, I have to teach what looks like the same people how to read. The first couple years it was really confusing, until I got used to it."

M.

[lightning]

Folks,

It's Pannapacker. He writes these articles because he's a  humble-braggart. When he wrote his first "I quit" article a few months ago, he said he's outta here. Then in the subsequent article, he's just taking a leave of absence. So in addition to humble-bragging, he's also just a bunch of hot air, because he's too cowardly to just quit. At first, I thought he came out of Thomas Benton retirement, and wrote that article to convince himself to quit and find validation for his life decision, in the commentary. And I would totally get that. Nah. He wrote the article to humble-brag, just like all the other articles that he has ever written.

[marshwiggle]

I totally understand why colleges are faltering and the need to let things dwindle and slip.  It is nobody's and everybody's fault at the same time.

I think it is a complete disaster for our society that we are letting education dwindle and slip, and someday society will regret it.

How much of the dwindling and slippage correlates directly with the increasing proportion of the population being automatically funneled into higher education? (And in high schools, how much correlates directly with enforcing higher "graduation" rates?)

Given that societies all over the world have been trying to educate people for all of recorded history, and have always had differential outcomes, it is ridiculous to believe that a government can by fiat decide that a specific percentage of the population can achieve some arbitrary level of education. The only way to pretend to do that is subtly (or not so subtly) change the standards until the required number of people "meet" it.

The way to have the "better" system of an earlier era is to, among other things, only accept the proportion of people accepted in that era.

[Cheerful]

It's Pannapacker. He writes these articles because he's a  humble-braggart. When he wrote his first "I quit" article a few months ago, he said he's outta here. Then in the subsequent article, he's just taking a leave of absence. So in addition to humble-bragging, he's also just a bunch of hot air, because he's too cowardly to just quit.

I avoid his articles but did read the "I quit" one for unknown reasons.  So, he did NOT quit, just LOA?   Thanks for sharing the sequel which cancels the original.

I wouldn't call him cowardly if leaving brings financial problems, the quit piece sounded legit and I wondered about his decision.  As I recall, he's at an age where quitting higher ed may not be advisable in terms of finding something else with same pay, conditions, and benefits.

[Wahoo Redux]

I totally understand why colleges are faltering and the need to let things dwindle and slip.  It is nobody's and everybody's fault at the same time.

I think it is a complete disaster for our society that we are letting education dwindle and slip, and someday society will regret it.

How much of the dwindling and slippage correlates directly with the increasing proportion of the population being automatically funneled into higher education? (And in high schools, how much correlates directly with enforcing higher "graduation" rates?)

Given that societies all over the world have been trying to educate people for all of recorded history, and have always had differential outcomes, it is ridiculous to believe that a government can by fiat decide that a specific percentage of the population can achieve some arbitrary level of education. The only way to pretend to do that is subtly (or not so subtly) change the standards until the required number of people "meet" it.

The way to have the "better" system of an earlier era is to, among other things, only accept the proportion of people accepted in that era.

You are correct.

Higher ed is a government conspiracy to make people smarter.  How dare they.

[dismalist]

I totally understand why colleges are faltering and the need to let things dwindle and slip.  It is nobody's and everybody's fault at the same time.

I think it is a complete disaster for our society that we are letting education dwindle and slip, and someday society will regret it.

How much of the dwindling and slippage correlates directly with the increasing proportion of the population being automatically funneled into higher education? (And in high schools, how much correlates directly with enforcing higher "graduation" rates?)

Given that societies all over the world have been trying to educate people for all of recorded history, and have always had differential outcomes, it is ridiculous to believe that a government can by fiat decide that a specific percentage of the population can achieve some arbitrary level of education. The only way to pretend to do that is subtly (or not so subtly) change the standards until the required number of people "meet" it.

The way to have the "better" system of an earlier era is to, among other things, only accept the proportion of people accepted in that era.

You are correct.

Higher ed is a government conspiracy to make people smarter.  How dare they.

There is some truth to that. With cheap community college enrollments declining, free community college was in the Build Back Better bill and may not be a dead letter yet. Customers are not willing to buy at low prices because it's not worth it to them, so we lower the price! The beneficiaries are the faculty and administrators, rewarded for their voting. [I have nothing against Pell grants by the way].

Then there's talk of student loan forgiveness. This would benefit current and past cohorts, but would largely go into price [tuition] for future cohorts. Fools gold for current voters.

What is not at all recognized is that much or most of higher education is signalling. So government support fuels an arms race. The customers and the taxpayer pay for the benefit of faculty and administrators.

We need not have quantitative rationing. It would suffice if government stopped supporting higher education. And tighten the limit on what can be borrowed -- watch tuition come down.

[Wahoo Redux]

We need not have quantitative rationing. It would suffice if government stopped supporting higher education. And tighten the limit on what can be borrowed -- watch tuition come down.

I agree with everything you post.  And I see its inevitability.  And its logic.

But I also see the devolution of American ed.  Tuition will come down, and so will quality.  It is the way the system works.

I am watching this very scenario right now at my current employer.

[Caracal]

I totally understand why colleges are faltering and the need to let things dwindle and slip.  It is nobody's and everybody's fault at the same time.

I think it is a complete disaster for our society that we are letting education dwindle and slip, and someday society will regret it.

How much of the dwindling and slippage correlates directly with the increasing proportion of the population being automatically funneled into higher education? (And in high schools, how much correlates directly with enforcing higher "graduation" rates?)

Given that societies all over the world have been trying to educate people for all of recorded history, and have always had differential outcomes, it is ridiculous to believe that a government can by fiat decide that a specific percentage of the population can achieve some arbitrary level of education. The only way to pretend to do that is subtly (or not so subtly) change the standards until the required number of people "meet" it.

The way to have the "better" system of an earlier era is to, among other things, only accept the proportion of people accepted in that era.

You are correct.

Higher ed is a government conspiracy to make people smarter.  How dare they.

There is some truth to that. With cheap community college enrollments declining, free community college was in the Build Back Better bill and may not be a dead letter yet. Customers are not willing to buy at low prices because it's not worth it to them, so we lower the price! The beneficiaries are the faculty and administrators, rewarded for their voting. [I have nothing against Pell grants by the way].

Then there's talk of student loan forgiveness. This would benefit current and past cohorts, but would largely go into price [tuition] for future cohorts. Fools gold for current voters.

What is not at all recognized is that much or most of higher education is signalling. So government support fuels an arms race. The customers and the taxpayer pay for the benefit of faculty and administrators.

We need not have quantitative rationing. It would suffice if government stopped supporting higher education. And tighten the limit on what can be borrowed -- watch tuition come down.

Name a single country where the government doesn't provide substantial support for higher education.

[TreadingLife]

We need not have quantitative rationing. It would suffice if government stopped supporting higher education. And tighten the limit on what can be borrowed -- watch tuition come down.

Tuition will come down, and so will quality.  It is the way the system works.

I think quality has already declined due to the push to send everyone to college in the first place. At my institution over the past ten years, the quality of the student attending has fallen. Not only are students less prepared, they also lack the drive necessary to succeed in college.  To them, it is just something else they "have" to do, rather than want to do. Yes, this is a reflection of the type of student who attends my institution, but we are far from being outliers in this.  Not everyone should go to college, and yet society sends the message that everyone should go to college. On top of that, when students cannot make the grade, we lower the standards, not because they cannot do the work, but because they refuse to do the work because school isn't about learning, it is about doing just enough to get by.  I think we can thank 'No Child Left Behind' for reducing learning to teaching to a test and externally-driven metrics instead of internally driven ones.

[dismalist]

...

Name a single country where the government doesn't provide substantial support for higher education.

Virtually free tuition at university for the people who are going to be high income earners is a crime against humanity.

[dismalist]

We need not have quantitative rationing. It would suffice if government stopped supporting higher education. And tighten the limit on what can be borrowed -- watch tuition come down.

Tuition will come down, and so will quality.  It is the way the system works.

I think quality has already declined due to the push to send everyone to college in the first place. At my institution over the past ten years, the quality of the student attending has fallen. Not only are students less prepared, they also lack the drive necessary to succeed in college.  To them, it is just something else they "have" to do, rather than want to do. Yes, this is a reflection of the type of student who attends my institution, but we are far from being outliers in this.  Not everyone should go to college, and yet society sends the message that everyone should go to college. On top of that, when students cannot make the grade, we lower the standards, not because they cannot do the work, but because they refuse to do the work because school isn't about learning, it is about doing just enough to get by.  I think we can thank 'No Child Left Behind' for reducing learning to teaching to a test and externally-driven metrics instead of internally driven ones.

--Quality has already come down while tuition has gone up. That's how the system works!

--The rot started long before No Child Left Behind. The push to send everyone to college makes sense to an individual when one sees the college wage premium. But that's a result of signalling, not learning. Thus, those fewer in college would be better off if they didn't go to college -- provided there were lots of them. They could resort to a cheaper signal. High school maybe ?