Is It Time To Close All But The Top Humanities Ph.D. Programs?

[dismalist]

...

For my part, I think we should just select politicians by sortition. But that's just me.

Hell, this is frightening, Para. You're in good company:

"I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty."
                                                                                                                         --William F. Buckley

[Parasaurolophus]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

[dismalist]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

I am relieved, Para! You and I do live in different worlds after all. :-)

[marshwiggle]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

So many possible problems:

These single-issue legislatures would be chosen by lottery from the political jurisdiction, with each single-issue legislature consisting of 300 people. Each person chosen would serve for a three-year term. Terms would be staggered so that each year 100 new people begin, and 100 people finish. All adult citizens in the political jurisdiction would be eligible to be selected. People would not be required to serve if selected, but the financial incentive would be significant, efforts would be made to accommodate family and work schedules, and the civic culture might need to be developed so that serving is seen as a significant civic duty and honour.

Two obvious problems based on the highlighted parts:

• Whoever runs the lottery (or provides machines, etc.) has incredible power to rig the outcome.
• The poorest people will have the least freedom to serve; the most able to serve will be independently wealthy with no responsibilities. Rule by elites.....

[Anon1787]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

Define minority rule. Please don't nationalize the electorate in our federal system.

[Parasaurolophus]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

Define minority rule. Please don't nationalize the electorate in our federal system.

The party that doesn't win is still mostly the one that governs, by making it impossible for the party that wins to govern.


But we're getting too far off-topic.

[Ruralguy]

Yup. Tyranny of the minority.

[dismalist]

The party that doesn't win is still mostly the one that governs, by making it impossible for the party that wins to govern.

i. The party that doesn't win is still mostly the one that governs... . Patently untrue.

ii. ... impossible for the party that wins to govern. That was the plan!

No tyranny of the majority. Madison, Federalist # 10.

But let's get back to the subject of the thread, or drop it.

[kaysixteen]

It's interesting.   I mentioned that I was called for jury duty last week, under our state's 'one day or one trial' rule, and of course was not selected to serve on a jury.   Ah well.   The law here requires that jurors who are employed be paid by their employers for up to three days of jury service, after which, if the employer refuses to pay for additional days, the state takes over compensating the juror... at the rate of $50/day, a rate unchanged from the time this law was passed in 1981.   I thought on it and realized that had I been in a voir dire pool for a case that might have exceeded three days, I was going to have to beg the judge to excuse me, because, well, it would have meant financial collapse for me to pass on those days of low wage retail compensation, and replace them with starvation wage jury compensation.

[Ruralguy]

The losing party may not be able to actually govern, i.e., set the agenda, but they can certainly block quite a bit of what the majority wants (and not just the majority of a governing body, but potentially an overwhelming majority in the country). This is even worse in a parliamentary system, such as Israel in particular (dead lock for several years now).  This is what I mean by tyranny of the minority. By inaction, or refusal to cooperate on anything much, they can keep several well-liked proposals from being seriously considered. I agree that this is partly by design, but by design or not, it does often keep the majority at bay.

[Anon1787]

It frightens me less than minority rule by Republicans or rule by corporations.

Define minority rule. Please don't nationalize the electorate in our federal system.

The party that doesn't win is still mostly the one that governs, by making it impossible for the party that wins to govern.

The U.S. doesn't have a party parliamentary system either. And the filibuster is ultimately maintained by the majority since a simple majority may--and has--gone "nuclear" to change the rules. The biggest roadblock to majority rule in the U.S. system is judicial review.

[Parasaurolophus]

Let's get back on topic, please.

[marshwiggle]

Let's get back on topic, please.

You kind of created the rabbit hole....

I'd be surprised if your average 16 year-old made worse political decisions than your average [insert adult age here], for example. But I'd bet they're likelier to, say, drink (or smoke up) and drive. They might also be worse, on average, with money (although I don't have clear intuitions about that). But if the teen is at all interested in whatever the subject is that's at hand, I'd trust them to be better on average than any old adult picked at random.

I mean, just look at the adults around them right now, especially where politics are concerned. They're as bad as can be. Adding 16 year-olds to the mix isn't going to make anything worse.

For my part, I think we should just select politicians by sortition. But that's just me.

Going from students' choices regarding post-secondary education to problems with government diverted the discussion.


Parasaurolophus comment: That's enough. I wear two hats here, a poster's hat, and a moderator's hat. I may well sometimes post something that distracts others and causes us to get off track. That happens, and it's no big deal (it's no big deal when others are responsible, either). But, as per the discussion here, I sometimes have to put on my Big Boy Hat and intervene to steer us back on topic. This is one of those times. In fact, this is the third time I have said this, and it will be the last. Commenting on such interventions is not at all helpful, and only serves to further derail the topic.

Believe me, I would be all too happy to continue that discussion--but it will be in another thread, or not at all. Note, further, that I am not posting this as a new post because (1) four members have already worked to steer us back on topic, and I don't want to undo that, and (2) their comments have hit a fresh page, which makes that a natural cutoff point for this subdiscussion.

[apl68]

Spork's comments above about doctoral programs existing largely to provide cheap TA labor is what I was trying to get at earlier.  I'm not privy to all the decision-making that goes on, but from the grad students' perspective it certainly looks like that was what was going on.  It's in many cases an exploitative system.

[bio-nonymous]

Spork's comments above about doctoral programs existing largely to provide cheap TA labor is what I was trying to get at earlier.  I'm not privy to all the decision-making that goes on, but from the grad students' perspective it certainly looks like that was what was going on.  It's in many cases an exploitative system.

This is the same in biomedical sciences at most places, except instead of TAs the pyramid scheme is to provide cheap lab labor in the form of grad students and then postdocs (though postdocs are getting more expensive and harder to hire). There is usually not enough money to hire actual employees (BS or MS technicians or Ph-level research scientists).