I searched a bit, but it doesn't seem like we have an all-purpose 'state of higher ed' thread . . . several threads on more specific topics such as tuition costs. The NY Times has an article on the state of the historical profession this morning (discussing among other things 16 percent fewer jobs being advertised than before the pandemic), but what really jumped out at me were other statistics: for example that 70 percent of all college faculty are now non-tenured, or that administrative jobs have increased anywhere from 150 to 450+ percent since the 1970s. (My administrator wife's response to that last factoid was "Well, you can thank the federal government for that," pointing out that at the institution we both work at there are over 20 people working on Title IX compliance alone, let alone research compliance, NCAA compliance, export compliance, etc etc). Not sure this bodes well for higher ed as an institution. The top institutions will probably always do well, but as the student population numbers decline, so will some of the smaller schools. And entire fields of study (yes, I said "fields"), particularly in the humanities, will decline as well, just as the NYT article describes for the historical profession. anyway, here's the link to the article The Dangerous Decline of the Historical Profession https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/14/...e=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Sunday Opinion
I used to work in a higher ed services field. The problems are real. Too much designed bloat. Even with the govt money taps wide open, students are bailing on the industry (I call it that purposefully) and the writing is on the wall for many institutions. We've incentivized all the wrong behaviors and created an unsustainable bubble. Education is getting strip mined and devalued all while costs are through the roof. It's rife for correction.
I'm not sure there's much to debate, but the topic contains interesting if depressing aspects. Nearly all human systems seem to age poorly, as laziness, inertia, and greed corrode the positive aspects (be it governance, a company, or an allegedly mission-driven enterprise like higher ed). To the initial post and Donny's comments, I'd only add: * A lot of talented people are leaving higher ed or, for the incoming pipeline, just not entering it. I see it in the sciences at least; that's where I live. * Governing boards / trustees of universities have, IMO, become increasingly obsessed with monitoring universities as businesses; they do exert influence and have been part of the corporatization of higher ed, the erosion of a "life of the mind," which naturally puts pressure on turning faculty into a sort of migrant, cheaper labor pool and then growing "support" bureaucracies. * Most profs can definitely share some blame for their general myopia (the current semester, and maybe next semester, but not the long view of what's happening around them) and their tunnel vision (specialization uber alles). A lot of profs also exert pressure as they request more support staff, (e.g. on my side of things, lab techs, etc.) It is fair to blame federal oversight for the ballooning staff of universities, but that's not the only cause. Bureaucracies, by their very nature, grow. Also, as state support for higher ed has significantly decreased, the universities have greatly expanded their own fundraising arms. And finally, as competition for students has grown and as student needs have grown, the universities add more and more staff to keep up with the Joneses, if you will. Psych services, learning centers, etc, etc. Finally, the stats still support that higher ed in most cases "pays off" in terms of lifelong earning potential, but that data set has a natural historical weighting factor. i.e. I can't predict if the avg college student going $100k into debt for a BA in 2024 is making a good decision, but I think we can say one who did that in 2002 made a good decision, on average. The whole sector badly needs a reset, but market forces are already exerting some pressure and more small schools will keep closing. Perhaps we will see a wave of consolidations in the years to come. One would think my predictions here have more merit than my NFL picks, but who knows. @rimbaud -- you still in the game?
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/...quire borrowers,at 5% of discretionary income. It's important the mention the new rules the biden folks rolled out. It's the largest transformation of the system in decades. Students monthly payments will be capped at 5% of income now (used to be 10% so this cuts payments in half) it also allows borrowers to have their entire loan forgiven in 10 years with consecutive payments. The other major change is that from now on negative interest won't build up. As long as you pay the minimum payments you can't have your balance grow over time which is what happens to most folks now. Also the education department has shut down more fraudulent colleges and any other time in modern history. The administration is also thinking about proposing a rule that would how much tuition can up depending on inflation. It will stop universities from prematurely jacking up rates.
Seems to be a symptom of the larger issue of the US becoming increasingly administrative and bureaucratic. We just keeping adding more stuff on top of more stuff instead of having major reforms.
I'm looking forward to attending Walmart university, where the greeter has a PhD in communications. But seriously, we should collectively understand and resolve the price and value issue or all our mesures will briefly stem waves of consolidation and shareholder maximization.
another item on the historical profession https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...-the-decline-and-fall-of-academic-history.php January 16 2023 8:15 PM Thought for the Day: Me, on the Decline and Fall of Academic History by Steven Hayward (Steven Hayward) I have a chapter on “When Reason Replaces Wisdom: How the Neglect of History and Statesmanship Has Diminished Political Science,” just out in a multi-author collection from Bloomsbury Academic entitled Applied History and Contemporary Policymaking, edited by Robert Crowcroft of the University of Edinburgh. Here’s an excerpt: Today academic history is going through something of an identity crisis, with the number of undergraduate majors in the discipline plummeting while its academic practitioners descend further into esoteric or narrow investigations that have little appeal or importance beyond a tenure review committee. One sign of this identity crisis can be seen in the fact that Harvard classifies history as a “social science,” while Yale places history in the humanities. Another clue comes from this curious fact about biographies of major historical figures: The general reading public can’t get enough of them. Biographies especially of presidents and figures from the American Founding, but also generals and major business leaders, have not only rocketed to the top of the best-seller lists, but even spawned Broadway musicals. And yet very few of them are written by academic historians any more, unlike the 1950s and 1960s when leading academics such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Arthur Link, and James Macgregor Burns produced multi-volume works on American presidents. Academic historians today still write often about presidents, but usually confine themselves to a narrow aspect rather than a synoptic biography, i.e., “President X and Civil Rights,” or “President Y and Latin American Policy.” Instead, today best-selling biographies tend to be written by journalists or professional non-academic writers like Ron Chernow (George Washington, Andrew Hamilton, Ulysses S. Grant, and J.P. Morgan), James Grant (Bernard Baruch), Doris Kearns Goodwin (Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln), or David McCulloch (John Adams, Harry Truman). There are some exceptions such as Yale’s David Blight, author of recent biography of Frederick Douglass, but these tend to be exceptions that prove the rule. The few academic historians like Blight who have written popular biographies tend to be older, and withdrawn from the mainstream of academic history, like Douglas Brinkley, H.W. Brands, Andrew Roberts, Julian T. Jackson, Joseph Ellis, and the recently deceased Jean Edward Smith. If you’re interested, you can download my chapter here.
I like narrower historical works. I learn lots of new interesting things. General biographies... once you've read one... you've largely read them all.
Re: consolidation https://www.sfasu.edu/about-sfa/new...s-intention-affiliate-university-texas-system
Just an aside, but for a long time now, Blight and Yale has made available his Civil War and Reconstruction class from 15 years ago. I think all the lectures and classwork is available for free here: https://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119 . I've listened to every lecture at least four times and read all the study material - it's great stuff if you're into US history. I've integrated a lot of it into my classes when we cover that era.
apparently the Honor Code is discriminatory Princeton’s criminal justice-inspired Honor Code hurts FLI students https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/a...onor-code-first-gen-low-income-justice-system
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/...support-barring-speakers-with-opposing-views/ Survey: Many MIT Faculty Fear Speaking Freely While Students Support Barring Speakers with Opposing Views There is a fascinating and chilling survey on the state of free speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The newly released Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) survey shows a growing fear among faculty over their ability to speak freely in classes or other forums on campus. Conversely, a majority students believe that it is acceptable to shout down or block speakers who hold opposing views. The survey captures the downstream impact of students who have been taught in their primary, middle, and high school educations that speech is harmful and preventing free speech is a noble and necessary action. more at the link
