NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[Wahoo Redux]

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

This is where you show you do not really know what you are talking about.

You think these efforts haven't been underway from many quarters for 25 years at least?

[dismalist]

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

This is where you show you do not really know what you are talking about.

You think these efforts haven't been underway from many quarters for 25 years at least?

You got the wrong guy. These inside citations can be a real bitch to navigate. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

This is where you show you do not really know what you are talking about.

You think these efforts haven't been underway from many quarters for 25 years at least?

You got the wrong guy. These inside citations can be a real bitch to navigate. :-)

What's so funny is that this is a thread about "why Americans are dubious about college" and certain posters want to blame the adjuncts, the single most powerless demographic in the Tower.  I guess maybe the non-skill employees (janitors and grounds-crew) are about as powerless.  Shall we blame them as well?

My advice would be to pay for it or quit whining. 

[Anon1787]

People who say that we are lowballing education are really saying that faculty--adjuncts especially--should receive more money. That won't fundamentally change without a change in the supply of faculty (much lower) and a change in the way that universities operate, neither of which will come about by giving universities more money. It's like the legion of starving actors pursuing their dream complaining about being lowballed despite the fact that the U.S. has the world's largest film industry and believing that giving the film industry even more subsidies will substantially improve their pay.

You think the movie industry is an apt analogy?  Pretty silly.

I'll say again: our campuses are crumbling; our FT faculty are paid a living wage which barely follows the COL; who cares what the "adjuncts want"----more than half our faculty are PT----that doesn't strike you are problematic?

You are correct about the glut of faculty vs. the paucity of jobs (in fact, that's old news).

But tell me, how should we "change in the way that universities operate?"  What should we do?

Campuses aren't crumbling even if yours might be and universities relying on a ready supply of adjuncts illustrates the point that like many starving actors, their dreams are unrealistic. Recalibrating student loans is one way to reduce the supply going through the pipeline.

An industry isn't going to start paying much higher wages simply because it gets more cash, but you seem to think otherwise. So how will that work?

[Wahoo Redux]

Campuses aren't crumbling

You are incorrect.  Look it up.  Even flagships have trouble paying for maintenance.

universities relying on a ready supply of adjuncts illustrates the point that like many starving actors, their dreams are unrealistic.

Yeah, I got it. Your analogy is not complex.  It is simply silly, especially considering that we have plenty of credit hours to support FT faculty----we just want a magic university system which does not have to pay for something as unimportant as teaching. 

And sure, I've tried to talk at least three bright young people out of pursuing the PhD. 

But you miss the point: the adjunct army, no matter who has stars in their eyes, is a symptom of a system that cannot pay for its primary mission.

Recalibrating student loans is one way to reduce the supply going through the pipeline.

Recalibrate how?  Should we "reduce the supply?"  College is still one of the best ways to rise from a low socioeconomic background despite what the whiners say.

An industry isn't going to start paying much higher wages simply because it gets more cash, but you seem to think otherwise. So how will that work?

You don't think more money will raise wages?  What country are you in?  And there is more than simply wages involved.  There is every aspect of the university culture involved, tuition especially.  The big reason people are dubious about college is the "R.O.I."  So fine, don't raise wages.  Professors have comfortable lifestyles for the most part.  Lower tuition.

[Anon1787]

I mean reforming student loans (higher interest rates, less money) for those seeking doctorates in fields with worse employment prospects (which will reduce the reserve army of adjuncts complaining about low pay despite the additional education).

Why will giving universities more money cause them to spend it raising the wages of faculty (or janitors) if they don't need to pay more to fill those positions? Administrators prefer spending money on building their bureaucratic empires.

[Wahoo Redux]

I mean reforming student loans (higher interest rates, less money) for those seeking doctorates in fields with worse employment prospects (which will reduce the reserve army of adjuncts complaining about low pay despite the additional education).

Why will giving universities more money cause them to spend it raising the wages of faculty (or janitors) if they don't need to pay more to fill those positions? Administrators prefer spending money on building their bureaucratic empires.

So you make it even more painful to become highly educated?  Okay.

Perhaps the salaries will not go up.  Few of us go into academia thinking we will get rich.  I suspect administrators would be happy to hire and pay more, but fine, pretend that's not how the system works.

So? Use the money for maintenance; full time teachers at the going salary; better technology; more scholarships; travel and scholarship funds; room and board for low-income students; married student housing; daycare so single parents are not caught in an endless loop of low paying jobs while trying to raise a child; library funds....or (and here's the big one) make it more affordable for people to get educated and they probably will not want to bust our chops so much.  You may now pretend I didn't post that one either.

[marshwiggle]

Bored now (insert evil Willow gif here). It is obvious that some will not agree with my belief that public spending on education, health care, social programs and infrastructure is a public and societal need that is just as important as defense and public safety. No amount of posting past each other will change that.

It will be a minority of people who will categorically reject public funding on those things, including education. The essence of the debate is going to be around how much funding and based on what criteria. For instance, I'm in favour of solid government funding of PSE, but I'm NOT in favour of free tuition. All kinds of evidence shows that people need some skin in the game to take things seriously. On the other hand, society needs all of the bright minds it can get, and so we need to make sure that deserving students aren't prevented from attending just because of family background.

People who say that we are lowballing education are really saying that faculty--adjuncts especially--should receive more money. That won't fundamentally change without a change in the supply of faculty (much lower) and a change in the way that universities operate, neither of which will come about by giving universities more money. It's like the legion of starving actors pursuing their dream complaining about being lowballed despite the fact that the U.S. has the world's largest film industry and believing that giving the film industry even more subsidies will substantially improve their pay.

Arts funding is great analogy, because the cliche of the "starving artist" is ubiquitous. News stories regularly show some individual or organization, pointing out how wonderful the art is, and how terrible it is that these people aren't paid a living wage. I can stand on a street corner and play my guitar, but no-one is going to pay money to hear it. Arguing that the government should subsidize any "artist" so they aren't living in poverty is arguing for a hole with no bottom. The fact that many people are choosing to take part-time teaching gigs that pay peanuts does not immediately imply that taxpayers have a moral obligation to subsidize them.

[Wahoo Redux]

Arts funding is great analogy, because the cliche of the "starving artist" is ubiquitous. News stories regularly show some individual or organization, pointing out how wonderful the art is,

Cliched 19th century trope, Marshy, that has nothing to do with anything.

Art is wonderful.

The fact that many people are choosing to take part-time teaching gigs that pay peanuts does not immediately imply that taxpayers have a moral obligation to subsidize them.

We're talking about teachers, and it is a practical concern, not a "moral obligation."  Yet another straaaaaaaaawmaaaaaan. 

And as always, we talk about a social good----art is a social good, even if some people are too limited to see it.

[marshwiggle]

The fact that many people are choosing to take part-time teaching gigs that pay peanuts does not immediately imply that taxpayers have a moral obligation to subsidize them.

We're talking about teachers, and it is a practical concern, not a "moral obligation."  Yet another straaaaaaaaawmaaaaaan. 

If you have strong evidence that the quality of teaching done by these underpaid people would be improved significantly by either paying them more or being able to hire more qualified people instead, then by all means present it. That would establish the practical value of higher pay.

And as always, we talk about a social good----art is a social good, even if some people are too limited to see it.

"Art" is basically whatever someone *claims it is. To argue that it should be funded because someone claims it is, without ever having to establish whether there is an audience for it, is ridiculous.


*Is a snuff film "art"?

[Parasaurolophus]

We may not have broad agreement on necessary and sufficient conditions for 'art', but that doesn't mean there are none, or that there is no agreement on any (intention-dependence is pretty much universally accepted, for example, although it doesn't mean what you probably think it means). It especially does not mean that someone's say-so is sufficient; some artists in the seventies thought so, but it's a pretty much incoherent thesis. We've got pretty broad accounts of art as a social phenomenon today (starting with the institutional theory, but culminating in lots of recent work on social kinds and social reality).

And sure, a snuff film could be an artwork. That doesn't mean it's morally good. 'Art' is sometimes used evaluatively, but it shouldn't be.

[Wahoo Redux]

The fact that many people are choosing to take part-time teaching gigs that pay peanuts does not immediately imply that taxpayers have a moral obligation to subsidize them.

We're talking about teachers, and it is a practical concern, not a "moral obligation."  Yet another straaaaaaaaawmaaaaaan. 

If you have strong evidence that the quality of teaching done by these underpaid people would be improved significantly by either paying them more or being able to hire more qualified people instead, then by all means present it. That would establish the practical value of higher pay.

Oh Marshy, Marshy, Marshy...

How and Why Adjuncts Affect Student Outcomes

If that doesn't work try this:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/how-and-why-do-adjunct-instructors-affect-students-academic-outcomes.pdf]How and Why Adjuncts Affect Student Outcomes

IHE: Adjunct instructors can cause lower grades for students

Adjunct Teaching Fuels Grade Inflation and Distorts Student Choices

And it goes on.  These sorts of studies make adjuncts angry, of course, but most point out that it is the situation, not the teacher, that is the problem.  Many adjuncts are great teachers and there are some positives.

Now, your dander is up and you are frustrated, and you need to do your own homework in the future, but I am going to point that you really never seem to get the gist of the adjunct situation and have no actual experience of it on your own.

And as always, we talk about a social good----art is a social good, even if some people are too limited to see it.

"Art" is basically whatever someone *claims it is. To argue that it should be funded because someone claims it is, without ever having to establish whether there is an audience for it, is ridiculous.


*Is a snuff film "art"?
[/quote]


Congrats Marshy, you have joined the august lists of people who have misunderstood and dismissed Beethoven, Baudelaire, Oscar Wild, Stravinsky, Orson Wells, Jimi Hendrix and David Lynch, among many others.  Good job.

Never seen a snuff film and I don't even know if they really exist.  But art about death, yeah, that is a big one.

[Anon1787]

The supply could decrease with more information given to people about their realistic job prospects in academia, changing the incentives of faculty and administrators to use and abuse graduate students, reforming government loan programs, etc.

This is where you show you do not really know what you are talking about.

You think these efforts haven't been underway from many quarters for 25 years at least?

General data are nice but not all graduate programs provide readily available information on their placement rates or they just list names and positions rather than give statistics, so there's room for improvement. Making universities liable for graduate student loan defaults would make universities a bit more reluctant to contribute to the excess supply of academics.

Perhaps the salaries will not go up.  Few of us go into academia thinking we will get rich.  I suspect administrators would be happy to hire and pay more, but fine, pretend that's not how the system works.

So? Use the money for maintenance; full time teachers at the going salary; better technology; more scholarships; travel and scholarship funds; room and board for low-income students; married student housing; daycare so single parents are not caught in an endless loop of low paying jobs while trying to raise a child; library funds....or (and here's the big one) make it more affordable for people to get educated and they probably will not want to bust our chops so much.  You may now pretend I didn't post that one either.

Universities have been receiving more money over time and the pattern has been for administrators to reduce the share going to instruction (Richard Vedder: "if the ratio of campus bureaucrats to faculty had held steady since 1976, there would be 537,317 fewer administrators, saving universities $30.5 billion per year and allowing student tuition to decrease by 20%"), so, yes, I'm skeptical that they would allocate a much larger share to faculty. Many of those other items you list are more non-instructional bloat.

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay.  So we need to make those adjustments to the way money is being utilized.  I cannot imagine the classroom academic who would balk at redistributing resources. 

Of course, I accepted Pollymere's explanation that the administrative bloat is in part necessitated by increased governmental oversight---we need more personnel to make sure our schools are meeting regulations and requirements from various higher learning commissions and to write the reports explaining how. 

And we need money-makers.

We just hired a new associate dean in the midst of our layoffs.  Why?  Because the dean has been given a new directive to raise money.  Yup.  The dean is no longer administrative, he's a salesman.
We have a new $100k+ a year admincritter because we are running out of money.  I've met our dean----that guy has all the charm of an old shoe, but we need money and someone has to find it.  What is a school supposed to do?

Look, it is so simple and axiomatic it is stupid to debate it.  It's the old have your cake and eating it aphorism.  Either admit we are not going to support a thing and watch it slip towards the drain or give it adequate resources to do what you want it to do.  Pick one or the other.

BTW: most of the things I listed above are student resources, not "administrative bloat." 

[downer]

This is relevant and has useful links.
Some Colleges Don't Produce Big Earners. Are They Worth It? https://nyti.ms/3wkHJTY