The University Is a Ticking Time Bomb(chronicle.com)
chronicle.com
The University Is a Ticking Time Bomb
https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-University-Is-a-Ticking/246119?key=K9RMtIzWwk9f4WCspEIEE4f2Z-lnxGSx0oKzM1DwdJm3k4GsX_vNyb4T0h6JMHU-Z0ltWHRmS1BsTVBQZVhYYW9FLVFvZkNmS1JoOUI0MVNaeHk4bGhiemxHcw
98 comments
Demand for the professor's product -- education -- has largely kept up with supply (c.f. rising tuitions). What's changed (the article contends) is the percentage of the professorship that is permanent versus adjunct.
The adjunct model is basically scamming everyone at an information disadvantage: for students, it inflates the perceived faculty-to-student ratio, even though many of those faculty are part time. For grad students, it inflates perceived demand for teachers because the total faculty market is growing, even though many positions are underpaid. And this is perpetuated for adjunct faculty, who are often told the position is a step towards tenure track, while universities move the ratios towards fewer permanent positions.
The article's suggestion, to rebalance towards permanent positions, would make true supply and demand clearer so the market can rationalize.
The adjunct model is basically scamming everyone at an information disadvantage: for students, it inflates the perceived faculty-to-student ratio, even though many of those faculty are part time. For grad students, it inflates perceived demand for teachers because the total faculty market is growing, even though many positions are underpaid. And this is perpetuated for adjunct faculty, who are often told the position is a step towards tenure track, while universities move the ratios towards fewer permanent positions.
The article's suggestion, to rebalance towards permanent positions, would make true supply and demand clearer so the market can rationalize.
In general I don’t think education is their product. Their product is research and their ability to bring in high grant dollars is the source of their prestigious pay.
The recent explosion is numbers of students attending university requires them to expand the pool of teachers without a corresponding ability to expand their demand for grant winning researchers. Hence the lower average pay.
I would love to hear an expert in the field chime in on this, because I’m as armchair as it gets when discussing this ecosystem. Are there any high paying professors whose primary responsibility is teaching students only?
The recent explosion is numbers of students attending university requires them to expand the pool of teachers without a corresponding ability to expand their demand for grant winning researchers. Hence the lower average pay.
I would love to hear an expert in the field chime in on this, because I’m as armchair as it gets when discussing this ecosystem. Are there any high paying professors whose primary responsibility is teaching students only?
I'd argue that their product is credentialing.
If the product is actually education, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid but overtrained adjuncts and all of these overcharged but undertrained students, match them up together, and put all existing universities out of business.
If the product is actually research, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid adjuncts, hire them in a private research lab, and profit from their discoveries.
The fact that neither of these business models appears to be viable indicates that the true product is something adjuncts can't provide by themselves: social signaling.
If the product is actually education, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid but overtrained adjuncts and all of these overcharged but undertrained students, match them up together, and put all existing universities out of business.
If the product is actually research, there exists an opportunity to take all of these underpaid adjuncts, hire them in a private research lab, and profit from their discoveries.
The fact that neither of these business models appears to be viable indicates that the true product is something adjuncts can't provide by themselves: social signaling.
Credentialing is the moat. The flywheel depends on critical mass in several cohorts believing that the credential is attached to a strong education.
You're right to separate those products, and that the high paid, permanent positions go to researchers. This contributes to the information imbalance in the education side of the market because universities trade on the reputation of professors who barely teach to attract undergrads who pay heavily for classes taught by adjuncts.
The choice to isolate these functions without clarifying the education proposition isn't a market equilibrium, it's a choice by universities to optimize their information advantage.
The choice to isolate these functions without clarifying the education proposition isn't a market equilibrium, it's a choice by universities to optimize their information advantage.
Isn't this common knowledge in academia?
It's common knowledge among PhD track and Post Docs, but that's the group after they've been scammed... the dreamers stay for the adjunct positions and perpetuate the oversupply and perception of possible demand.
It's a bit like the people who get scammed on Amazon by highly rated products that don't exist, but fail to rate/return or buy again anyway. There's more suckers born every minute.
It's a bit like the people who get scammed on Amazon by highly rated products that don't exist, but fail to rate/return or buy again anyway. There's more suckers born every minute.
> Probably Ph.D. graduates should consider teaching at a university as a sort of popular avocation like music, art, sports, or video games. Maybe you can make some money at it if you are particularly skilled and lucky, but you will almost certainly need a real day job in order to pay the bills.
There is no shortage of people entering PhD programs knowing full well how bad the job market is, yet somehow still convinced they will get a tenure-track job after they finish.
I spent some time in a history PhD program almost a decade ago. We all knew how bad the academic job market was. Yet all of the students were committed to spending the next ~7 years working toward a PhD so they would get a chance to compete in what they knew to be of the world's worst job markets.
At that point they had been in the academic bubble for so long that it didn't really make sense to consider life outside it, and they viewed academic work as part of their personal identity and could not imagine themselves doing anything else.
There is no shortage of people entering PhD programs knowing full well how bad the job market is, yet somehow still convinced they will get a tenure-track job after they finish.
I spent some time in a history PhD program almost a decade ago. We all knew how bad the academic job market was. Yet all of the students were committed to spending the next ~7 years working toward a PhD so they would get a chance to compete in what they knew to be of the world's worst job markets.
At that point they had been in the academic bubble for so long that it didn't really make sense to consider life outside it, and they viewed academic work as part of their personal identity and could not imagine themselves doing anything else.
This is why economics should be mandatory in most high school and college curriculum: The laws of supply and demand apply to the job market as well. It blows my mind that schools require things like 3 years of foreign language but fail to teach their students anything about the market they will depend on to support themselves the rest of their lives.
When I was at uni the idea was you study whatever you like, and then there will be a job at a big consultancy like Arthur Andersen or whatever waiting for you because they'd take in anyone with any degree (who can jump through their hoops) and then retrain them to do a job.
I was fortunate as although I didn't have the "communication skills" to land such jobs (my hoop jumping skills were terrible), I did had tech skills so plenty of smaller companies and government jobs were possible for me to get.
Anyway if this situation has changed, doing arty degrees should come with a disclaimer that no job might be found as a result, and as such they are hobbies. Doing a full time hobby for a few years at a cost to yourself should be considered a luxury of the rich.
I was fortunate as although I didn't have the "communication skills" to land such jobs (my hoop jumping skills were terrible), I did had tech skills so plenty of smaller companies and government jobs were possible for me to get.
Anyway if this situation has changed, doing arty degrees should come with a disclaimer that no job might be found as a result, and as such they are hobbies. Doing a full time hobby for a few years at a cost to yourself should be considered a luxury of the rich.
Basic economics, first aid, dealing with cops/law, basic nutrition - these should be mandatory subjects for all students, would benefit them and the society in the long run
[deleted]
Teacher unions will get upset about such realities like supply and demand :p
Labor demand is a funny thing. It's clear that there is want, need, and opportunity for services, and yet so few employers, all in pursuit of goals so tightly constrained as to exclude the majority of wanted, needed services.
Why, after all, would I pay workers to improve the lot of the poor? And how, after all, can the poor pay workers at all?
And so we see all talent funneled into a few employers' projects; often wholly detrimental ones, such as peddling fructose, and nearly always tangential to the talent's personal goals, priorities, and passions.
> Given a massive oversupply of replacement workers ready to go at a moment's notice, unionization seems unlikely to change anything.
Perhaps, then, a union of the unemployed.
Why, after all, would I pay workers to improve the lot of the poor? And how, after all, can the poor pay workers at all?
And so we see all talent funneled into a few employers' projects; often wholly detrimental ones, such as peddling fructose, and nearly always tangential to the talent's personal goals, priorities, and passions.
> Given a massive oversupply of replacement workers ready to go at a moment's notice, unionization seems unlikely to change anything.
Perhaps, then, a union of the unemployed.
[deleted]
Why are people so incredibly keen to teach at universities that they'll put up with these conditions? I don't think these positions even come with the usual up-side to the bad conditions - getting to do the research you're passionate about. Do people just enjoy teaching so much? It seems genuinely that a job at McDonalds would have better pay, conditions, stability, and respect.
Because they've invested 5-10 years of their lives in a doctorate, publications, and connections that are specifically aimed at an academic position and very little good for anything else. Adjuctships are a holding pattern that allows you to still be "part" of the academy and thus leaves the tenure track dream alive, however tenuously. Leaving is admitting that your whole career, and probably sense of personal identity, has to be discarded and rebuilt from scratch in your mid 30s.
I think you’ve hit a key psychological insight. And they have a choice to also push through an existential Sunk Cost fallacy.
I spent the first 11 years of my professional career in the Navy flying airplanes. It was a niche skill set. When I left, I had the airlines available, by I would’ve been bored to tears in the job.
So at 35 I started over in a new career. It’s been challenging - but there is a future. I’m 6-8 years (at least) “behind” my colleagues.
The choices we make have consequences. And if you have your health, you can always choose to change your course.
I spent the first 11 years of my professional career in the Navy flying airplanes. It was a niche skill set. When I left, I had the airlines available, by I would’ve been bored to tears in the job.
So at 35 I started over in a new career. It’s been challenging - but there is a future. I’m 6-8 years (at least) “behind” my colleagues.
The choices we make have consequences. And if you have your health, you can always choose to change your course.
You could spent nine more in the navy, retired with a pension, and got a cushy DoD/government job (assuming you wanted to live near a base or government contractor)
True. Even better is flying for the airlines and taking a reserve flying gig to get the reserve retirement. Wasn’t for me.
Flying that won't bore you to tears:
1. service to antarctic bases
2. water bombing forest fires
3. test pilot for a Navy contractor
4. dirt airstrips in Alaska, with animals on the runway and weather
5. dirt airstrips in Lesoto, short and high altitude
6. Zero Gravity Corporation (commercial "vomit comet")
1. service to antarctic bases
2. water bombing forest fires
3. test pilot for a Navy contractor
4. dirt airstrips in Alaska, with animals on the runway and weather
5. dirt airstrips in Lesoto, short and high altitude
6. Zero Gravity Corporation (commercial "vomit comet")
I'm sure there are relevant industry jobs for people no matter what their PhD is in.
I admire your optimism.
https://gizmodo.com/there-are-5-000-janitors-in-the-u-s-with...
https://gizmodo.com/there-are-5-000-janitors-in-the-u-s-with...
That's the sort of cargo cult mentality that has been fueling abusive work relations in higher education.
[deleted]
"getting to do the research you're passionate about. Do people just enjoy teaching so much?"
Yes! I look at research as a boring, stressful pain-in-the-butt, and I love teaching my students. I am contingent annually, but full-time with benefits, and I would not want to be on the publish-or-perish track. Teaching smart kids hard stuff is what I am passionate about.
Yes! I look at research as a boring, stressful pain-in-the-butt, and I love teaching my students. I am contingent annually, but full-time with benefits, and I would not want to be on the publish-or-perish track. Teaching smart kids hard stuff is what I am passionate about.
[deleted]
The vast majority of people employed as professors or lecturers at university are there because they want to do research, and teaching is the compromise that lets them do it. They definitely do not want to be teaching. Most people try to find ways to reduce their teaching schedule to make time for research.
[deleted]
One reason: some can make $150K+ (some can even make $500K+). If you get a coveted post, then you could end up with a high salary and the freedom to research what you would likely research in your free time anyways.
Also, if you move from professor to administrator you can make $300K+ with arguably fewer work hours and responsibility.
Also, if you move from professor to administrator you can make $300K+ with arguably fewer work hours and responsibility.
[deleted]
What surprises me is that there aren’t institutions that take advantage of this in a different way — by paying significantly higher salaries and health benefits, attracting the top 1% of adjuncts with skills like teaching and mentorship, then advertising that as a differentiator for students.
> Second, if Ph.D. students are training for but then leaving the profession, and if the humane, short-term solution to adjunctification is to close down or drastically shrink Ph.D. programs, then universities are effectively admitting that there is no future for those fields.
I think this plays right into other employment issues. There is a feeling that employers will not train you. Many STEM based employers that need highly trained individuals (DoD, Pharma, data-science, etc) are outsourcing some of that training to PhD programs. Thus far, the situation has been acceptable in STEMy fields. But the PhD program is not structured to train the high skills workforce (it just happens to be okayish at doing so) and that mis-match is coming to a head.
I think this plays right into other employment issues. There is a feeling that employers will not train you. Many STEM based employers that need highly trained individuals (DoD, Pharma, data-science, etc) are outsourcing some of that training to PhD programs. Thus far, the situation has been acceptable in STEMy fields. But the PhD program is not structured to train the high skills workforce (it just happens to be okayish at doing so) and that mis-match is coming to a head.
As a DoD employee....you are incredibly wrong. The DoD paid for my undergrad, then paid me a full salary to get a masters, and they do the same for a PhD. This is a very common thing for them to do.
That guy: DoD outsources training to PhD programs.
You: Wrong! The DoD actually outsources training to PhD programs.
You: Wrong! The DoD actually outsources training to PhD programs.
> you are incredibly wrong
And this is why you are so confident in your claim that you made a new account a few minutes ago to argue with people?
How long have you been on HN using your real account, if I may ask?
Or perhaps you'd like to claim that you randomly stumbled into this board a few minutes ago and happened to see this thread and decided to post with your relevant expertise.
And this is why you are so confident in your claim that you made a new account a few minutes ago to argue with people?
How long have you been on HN using your real account, if I may ask?
Or perhaps you'd like to claim that you randomly stumbled into this board a few minutes ago and happened to see this thread and decided to post with your relevant expertise.
well yes, but DoD is basically an aberration in the labor market from an economics perspective.
First you have to overcome the moral barrier problem to get people to work there these days (resulting in higher conditions for those who do)
Then you have the fact that its products are not easily measurable in terms of consumer utility or organisational profit/ utility, and its own budget/demand side is not based directly on consumer choice, competition or revenue.
DoD has a specific unique position in most of our cultures and market, and its conditions cannot and should not be extrapolated to other parts of economic life/debate unless you can also bring those other aspects of defense which make its particular environment possible (Which is generally neither possible nor desirable).
First you have to overcome the moral barrier problem to get people to work there these days (resulting in higher conditions for those who do)
Then you have the fact that its products are not easily measurable in terms of consumer utility or organisational profit/ utility, and its own budget/demand side is not based directly on consumer choice, competition or revenue.
DoD has a specific unique position in most of our cultures and market, and its conditions cannot and should not be extrapolated to other parts of economic life/debate unless you can also bring those other aspects of defense which make its particular environment possible (Which is generally neither possible nor desirable).
The moral barrier problem goes both ways. How could you possibly spend your days making addictive games and web trackers when you could instead support your country?
Absolutely, for better or for worse, labor markets will effectively pay a "bonus" for immoral or contentious industries and employment, and discount wages and conditions for those which are virtuous or desirable.
In short, being able to sleep at night is a form of non-cash benefit, and the fact that everyone wants to do it increases the supply of labor for those jobs.
contentious or morally repugnant jobs are just the opposite, shrinking the available labor pool and inducing an intangible cost on normal people who take them on. Of course, if you're a psychopath or morally blind, you as an individual do not pay this psychological cost, and benefit from the increased wages and conditions deriving from the relative shortage of labor.
There's a reason they call it the dismal science... :p
In short, being able to sleep at night is a form of non-cash benefit, and the fact that everyone wants to do it increases the supply of labor for those jobs.
contentious or morally repugnant jobs are just the opposite, shrinking the available labor pool and inducing an intangible cost on normal people who take them on. Of course, if you're a psychopath or morally blind, you as an individual do not pay this psychological cost, and benefit from the increased wages and conditions deriving from the relative shortage of labor.
There's a reason they call it the dismal science... :p
re: "As a DoD employee... [I think] you are incredibly wrong."
DoD is almost certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Some Silicon Valley companies will pay for your master's degree, but usually you still have to work full time for the company in addition to your course work.
I've heard of some companies like Pixar actively training their employees for several months and paying them to learn (rather than expecting them to keep working full time in addition to training) but that seems unusual.
DoD is almost certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Some Silicon Valley companies will pay for your master's degree, but usually you still have to work full time for the company in addition to your course work.
I've heard of some companies like Pixar actively training their employees for several months and paying them to learn (rather than expecting them to keep working full time in addition to training) but that seems unusual.
> Some Silicon Valley companies will pay for your master's degree, but usually you still have to work full time for the company in addition to your course work.
Why is this a bad thing - I'm genuinely curious? I completed a masters and a PhD the same way. Of course, the downside is that since I already had a job I wasn't going to deal with the funding rat-race that comes with academia and stayed in industry.
Edit: The biggest upside - career growth, no student loans, regular paycheck, health insurance, etc, etc.
Why is this a bad thing - I'm genuinely curious? I completed a masters and a PhD the same way. Of course, the downside is that since I already had a job I wasn't going to deal with the funding rat-race that comes with academia and stayed in industry.
Edit: The biggest upside - career growth, no student loans, regular paycheck, health insurance, etc, etc.
> Why is this a bad thing - I'm genuinely curious?
First of all I admire you for finishing a Master's and PhD while working.
I personally think about going back to school all the time (I didn't finish undergrad) but am pretty confident that if I do I would want to go full time.
My reason is just that working full time is exhausting and I can't imagine being able to give 100% to my studies if I'm also constantly fatigued from work.
I certainly still am able to learn new things after working, but compared to when I was focused on school completely I learn at a much slower pace. There's a lot of cognitive overhead in having to context switch, at least for me personally.
First of all I admire you for finishing a Master's and PhD while working.
I personally think about going back to school all the time (I didn't finish undergrad) but am pretty confident that if I do I would want to go full time.
My reason is just that working full time is exhausting and I can't imagine being able to give 100% to my studies if I'm also constantly fatigued from work.
I certainly still am able to learn new things after working, but compared to when I was focused on school completely I learn at a much slower pace. There's a lot of cognitive overhead in having to context switch, at least for me personally.
[deleted]
A PhD isn't training to do a job other than research. If it is, it isn't a PhD. Some specific PhD topics have utility in industry, but that isn't guaranteed, and even if a topic does, the people studying that topic won't automatically know how to apply their work to anything a commercial employer would be interested in.
TL;DR: Until commercial employers start to rely on grants, a PhD isn't job training.
TL;DR: Until commercial employers start to rely on grants, a PhD isn't job training.
>A PhD isn't training to do a job other than research.
That's simply wrong.
>A doctorate (from Latin docere, "to teach") or doctor's degree (from Latin doctor, "teacher") or doctoral degree, is an academic degree awarded by universities, derived from the ancient formalism licentia docendi ("licence to teach") In most countries, it is a research degree that qualifies the holder to teach at university level in the degree's field, or to work in a specific profession.
We've recently formalized it to "doing research", but for most of history it has not been limited to, or even primarily for, research.
That's simply wrong.
>A doctorate (from Latin docere, "to teach") or doctor's degree (from Latin doctor, "teacher") or doctoral degree, is an academic degree awarded by universities, derived from the ancient formalism licentia docendi ("licence to teach") In most countries, it is a research degree that qualifies the holder to teach at university level in the degree's field, or to work in a specific profession.
We've recently formalized it to "doing research", but for most of history it has not been limited to, or even primarily for, research.
[deleted]
Maybe it's time for a "Secession of Scholars". The university as an institution was founded by students and scholars alike -- as a mutual interest group -- to study and advance the fields of law, theology and medicine. If the scholars and students of a field go a radical step towards forming "mutual interest groups" without overbearing bureaucracy and credentialism, a lot of these institutions could redefine themself again.
This is probably easier said than done and only accomplishable in the Humanities, as they don't really need multi-billion dolar equipment to do research. This would also be a very elitist form of organization, since ... yes professors, researchers and assistents must eat, have health/social insurance and have time to conduct independent research. And the students must have enough free time to actually study.
But how much worse can working conditions get? We as a society can value knowledge for the sake of knowledge (and not to have "Prof. Dr. phil. habil." attached to a name).
This is probably easier said than done and only accomplishable in the Humanities, as they don't really need multi-billion dolar equipment to do research. This would also be a very elitist form of organization, since ... yes professors, researchers and assistents must eat, have health/social insurance and have time to conduct independent research. And the students must have enough free time to actually study.
But how much worse can working conditions get? We as a society can value knowledge for the sake of knowledge (and not to have "Prof. Dr. phil. habil." attached to a name).
I dropped out of my PhD as soon as I felt it was clear I wasn't on trajectory to land in a tenure track role. It was a stressful and confusing time in my life and not an easy decision, but one based on a clear-eyed view of the economic realities ahead. I don't understand why people soldier on for literal decades in a job when there is no hope of ever gaining reasonable pay, benefits, or recognition. On an hourly-adjusted basis many of these people would be financially better off doing just about anything else.
I simply don't understand what is going to happen to all of the PhD students that I saw when I was in university. I managed to escape the PhD trap and find software engineering but I was extremely lucky. Had I gone to any other school I probably would not be anywhere near as fortunate.
That being said, I worry about the people who go to PhD programs just because that's what they are "supposed to do" or because they just don't know what else to do. Especially the ones who lack social skills or lack "connections". Many of my friends from college fall in to this category.
I don't even want to think about the people in the above category who get a PhD at a "non-target" school.
That being said, I worry about the people who go to PhD programs just because that's what they are "supposed to do" or because they just don't know what else to do. Especially the ones who lack social skills or lack "connections". Many of my friends from college fall in to this category.
I don't even want to think about the people in the above category who get a PhD at a "non-target" school.
Most eventually find a real job or teach high school or (more rarely) marry out of the problem. I was in one and those were the major paths out.
[deleted]
It seemed to me like when I went to grad school that a lot of students were there for the freedom to explore their interests. They then quickly realize that their freedom is subject to a bunch of constraints like the availability of grants or the specific interests of your advisor.
And if you're going to be that constrained may as well get a job and make some money while you're doing this.
Your salary as a PhD student is a joke but you're still an expensive asset as far as your advisor is concerned because of your tuition which pays for stuff like maintaining the campus, allowing you to take classes, your office etc..
However, I feel that most of those resources are useless as far as a student is concerned. You just need to pay for rent and maintain a relatively comfortable lifestyle. So something like $2,000 a month would be more than sufficient for a student and is a tiny cost for an investor looking to have interesting research published either as a paper or open source project.
The only real working relationship in a graduate program is the relationship between faculty and student so maybe it's worth it for some of the wealthier faculty to cut out the middlemen.
And if you're going to be that constrained may as well get a job and make some money while you're doing this.
Your salary as a PhD student is a joke but you're still an expensive asset as far as your advisor is concerned because of your tuition which pays for stuff like maintaining the campus, allowing you to take classes, your office etc..
However, I feel that most of those resources are useless as far as a student is concerned. You just need to pay for rent and maintain a relatively comfortable lifestyle. So something like $2,000 a month would be more than sufficient for a student and is a tiny cost for an investor looking to have interesting research published either as a paper or open source project.
The only real working relationship in a graduate program is the relationship between faculty and student so maybe it's worth it for some of the wealthier faculty to cut out the middlemen.
After my PhD, I intend to work for a while in a "real job" while saving money so I can eventually "retire" and go independent. Or something like that. The costs for me (theoretical fluid dynamics) is pretty minimal as I don't need expensive equipment or what not, so I think this is doable.
You're right about the constraints. Even when the constraints aren't there, many academics are used to thinking that they are, so they seem blind to possibilities outside of the constraints.
As an example of the latter, consider Scott Aaronson's discussion of a quantum-inspired recommendation algorithm: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880
On that page he wrote "On the Hacker News thread, some commenters are lamenting that such a brilliant mind as Ewin’s would spend its time figuring out how to entice consumers to buy even more products that they don’t need. I confess that that’s an angle that hadn’t even occurred to me".
You're right about the constraints. Even when the constraints aren't there, many academics are used to thinking that they are, so they seem blind to possibilities outside of the constraints.
As an example of the latter, consider Scott Aaronson's discussion of a quantum-inspired recommendation algorithm: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880
On that page he wrote "On the Hacker News thread, some commenters are lamenting that such a brilliant mind as Ewin’s would spend its time figuring out how to entice consumers to buy even more products that they don’t need. I confess that that’s an angle that hadn’t even occurred to me".
[deleted]
The students are paying a lot of money, but the professors are getting screwed. If we see the university as a 2-sided marketplace, then you'd think that as the cost of doing business goes up, the number of merchants willing to keep doing business would go down. This is not the case. And that is why starting a university is such a good business.
I wonder what is the economic issue that is driving this? Are students not paying for quality of education? Perhaps they're shopping based on amenities instead? Or perhaps the supply of professors simply exceeds the demand, and the system is properly stabilizing itself?
It boils down to student loans and the ability for anyone to borrow almost any necessary amount of money to get an education when they are accepted to a highly desired school.
The endless supply of money combined with the demand for students to try to secure their future careers leads to constant price increases with no impact on demand.
The endless supply of money combined with the demand for students to try to secure their future careers leads to constant price increases with no impact on demand.
The number of staff at many universities has drastically increased in the last 10-15 years.
The number of full time, tenure track faculty positions has not. However, there are plenty of adjunct professors that have low wages, poor benefits, and no job security.
Government-insured student loans mean that the university has an incentive to take as much from that as possible. But the job market now often requires some kind of degree, and new students don't really know what they're signing up for by taking on $25k, $50k loans and beyond.
The number of full time, tenure track faculty positions has not. However, there are plenty of adjunct professors that have low wages, poor benefits, and no job security.
Government-insured student loans mean that the university has an incentive to take as much from that as possible. But the job market now often requires some kind of degree, and new students don't really know what they're signing up for by taking on $25k, $50k loans and beyond.
Students are paying for a reputation based qualification. Sure, you get teaching too, but thw quality tends to be hit and miss, whereas you can get consistently good learning resources elsewhere for much cheaper or free.
Evaluating “quality of education” is really hard, especially at age 18. You end up with “random Shanghai/US News rankings” that end up having criteria that are easy to game.
Manager class growing and pursuing profit motive.
It's because demand is inelastic: everybody wants a university education and will pay a usurous price to get it (with government assistance)
As you’ve identified, I think there is an amenities component to the cost growth. As school gets more expensive, students expect more. My alma mater had dorms that would make a roadside hotel on the interstate look like a luxury 4 star hotel. When I get the glossy magazine from the alumni association, the fancy new dorms, Greek housing, and student union are front-and-center.
What I find weird is that dorms have mostly not improved in the one way that would really matter: being private, including the bathroom. Issues with roommates are severely harmful to being able to study. You risk fights, disease, noise (early morning or late night even), and theft.
Everything else is secondary. It would be fine to save space in weird ways, like the shower doubling as the entryway or the sink above the toilet or the bed bunked over the desk. Even the best roommates are disruptive, and most are far worse. Shared bathrooms are a horror show.
Everything else is secondary. It would be fine to save space in weird ways, like the shower doubling as the entryway or the sink above the toilet or the bed bunked over the desk. Even the best roommates are disruptive, and most are far worse. Shared bathrooms are a horror show.
Starting a university is in general not a good business, unless, like Olin, you start with a substantial endowment. There is plenty of perversity in university spending priorities and compensation structure without trying to make the equivalence with a two-sided market, which is only a small part of the picture. Moreover, the problems of universities are different for elite private, public, 2nd tier private, lower-tier private, speciality, and for-profits.
Yes this is bad. So is the lack of stable career jobs in other fields.
This is a rant, but I think our generation deserves the right to rant about our overpriced educations, etc...
The current university model, the subsidies, the regulatory capture, the administrarive state, etc, are all just part of the idea that everything can be regulated and socially engineered by people who are smarter than others. It's just modern day fiefdoms of lords and peons.
It's all a train wreck. Science has stagnated and everyone knows it despite all the mental gymnastics we use to try and deny it. For many Americans, they are the first generation to live with worse job, housing, work/life balance, income security than their parents. We have escalating rates of suicide and depression. We are the first generation of Americans to live under a surveillance state.
To be honest, San Francisco and Seattle both look and feel far, far more dystopian to me than Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. Even more than Hanoi or Kuala Lumpur, despite the fact they still struggle with deeply entrenched corruption, infrastructure and human rights. And yet this problem in America will be met with yet another round of bureaucrats and technocrats coming up with a solution that is more and more of taxing and regulating our lives.
I'd rather they just give everyone basic income/healthcare and let them sort it out on their own.
The current university model, the subsidies, the regulatory capture, the administrarive state, etc, are all just part of the idea that everything can be regulated and socially engineered by people who are smarter than others. It's just modern day fiefdoms of lords and peons.
It's all a train wreck. Science has stagnated and everyone knows it despite all the mental gymnastics we use to try and deny it. For many Americans, they are the first generation to live with worse job, housing, work/life balance, income security than their parents. We have escalating rates of suicide and depression. We are the first generation of Americans to live under a surveillance state.
To be honest, San Francisco and Seattle both look and feel far, far more dystopian to me than Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. Even more than Hanoi or Kuala Lumpur, despite the fact they still struggle with deeply entrenched corruption, infrastructure and human rights. And yet this problem in America will be met with yet another round of bureaucrats and technocrats coming up with a solution that is more and more of taxing and regulating our lives.
I'd rather they just give everyone basic income/healthcare and let them sort it out on their own.
I agree full healthcare for all is something we should have.
I'm also willing to consider something slightly short of basic income: a new "new deal". Anyone that wants to work should be able to work. A job provider of baseline resort. That would also be how minimum wages are set (the market price is set by this job provision via some other process).
However consumer buying power should be part of active market control in the form of regulations that discourage inflation by encouraging the market towards positive equilibrium rather than cyclic loops of inflation and crashes (which arguably we're still suffering from the lack of; there was no actual correction in many areas during the last/current recession).
I'm also willing to consider something slightly short of basic income: a new "new deal". Anyone that wants to work should be able to work. A job provider of baseline resort. That would also be how minimum wages are set (the market price is set by this job provision via some other process).
However consumer buying power should be part of active market control in the form of regulations that discourage inflation by encouraging the market towards positive equilibrium rather than cyclic loops of inflation and crashes (which arguably we're still suffering from the lack of; there was no actual correction in many areas during the last/current recession).
I remember reading a (Golden Age fallacy?) account of the historical university of Nalanda in India, which was an historic Buddhist center of learning. It was not limited to religious and philosophical education, anyone could lecture and anyone could interject. Free board was available for all comers. It grew to become a well known international center of learning, and at least that part is factual. There are parallels in many places (eg. speakers corner in London, Greek and Roman popular history, etc.) but apparently voices and the general public are apparently not scalable. Now we have Youtube.
Amusingly, recently corrupt bureaucrats have attempted to re-instantiate Nalanda. Despite gathering a huge amount of dirty money and land they've only put through a handful of postgrad students, and already have weathered multiple substantive allegations of corruption, sexual harassment, etc.
Perhaps people are the problem.
Amusingly, recently corrupt bureaucrats have attempted to re-instantiate Nalanda. Despite gathering a huge amount of dirty money and land they've only put through a handful of postgrad students, and already have weathered multiple substantive allegations of corruption, sexual harassment, etc.
Perhaps people are the problem.
Nalanda, (and Vikramashila, Odantapura etc.) were Buddhist vihars (monasteries) which have been retconned into “universities” in modern times. Mind you the Western university grew out of Catholic Church institutions so it is not completely far-fetched but there is a lot of wishful thinking involved.
Far from letting anyone lecture, an important office in those places was the dvarapala (“gatekeeper”) This was a senior scholar whose job was to examine applicants and only those who passed his tests were allowed inside.
Far from letting anyone lecture, an important office in those places was the dvarapala (“gatekeeper”) This was a senior scholar whose job was to examine applicants and only those who passed his tests were allowed inside.
The number of earned doctorates in 2017, according to the NSF, was 54,664 (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/). Approximately 50% of those graduates expect/want to teach at the higher education level. The number of doctoral graduates who want to teach far exceeds the number of positions, and colleges and universities are (logically) taking advantage of that fact.
Whether a college or university is for-profit or non-profit, finance is always a core value. If they can hire part-time adjunct faculty "as needed," with no expenses for benefits, the accountants see no reason to hire full-time faculty.
Additionally, by using primarily part-time faculty, colleges and universities can select those individuals who best fit student demographics and accreditation requirements, while also making adjustments as needed.
I am an associate/adjunct faculty member who was full-time. The demands on my time and participation in non-paid activities is still high. Many adjuncts work at several universities while maintaining a full-time job elsewhere. There can be no loyalty in such a situation, so everything breaks down to dollars and cents. Where I teach, adjunct faculty are paid per class, and the rate has not changed in a decade.
Highly qualified faculty who tire of getting 2-3 classes a year, while being required to attend quarterly "faculty" meetings, dealing with administration email proclamations on a regular basis, are finally saying "enough is enough" and quitting. However, the universities really do not seem to care as more and more universities opt for the part-time adjunct model.
This articles states this issue is a "ticking time bomb," but I do not see that. Financial factors are the driving force and accountants are making the major decisions, but they can quickly adjust as needed as there as an excessive number of faculty who would jump at teaching "just a little more."
"Studies have shown that the cost reductions associated with reliance on contingent faculty members do not translate to greater savings or tuition decreases, but that instead more money is spent elsewhere: on recruitment, admissions, athletics, nonacademic student programming, and so on. In other words, the hollowing out of the professoriate is not a viable strategy for making the university cheaper, better, or more nimble; it’s devastating the core functions of the university itself"
This sums up the core of the problem. Some here will argue it is a labor oversupply issue, but I would argue it is a problem inherent to American capitalism itself. Our universities have transitioned into a mindset of "running like a business" and thus have adopted the common enterprise mentality of constantly seeking cost reductions. These cost reductions come at the expense of quality. I say this having spent many years working in University administration. It is exactly as the author notes, the cost savings merely get spent elsewhere in nonproductive ways, usually on more expensive administration. You see this in for-profit enterprises as well as they mature the pay inequality skews as executives take more of the profits.
"What’s the way forward? Treating nearly 75 percent of the professoriate as disposable, ancillary to the mission of higher education, has become the norm."
This is the way though of our current system, we treat employees as disposable cogs in the machine. We outsource to companies who pay bargain basement wages and produce low quality work destroying small businesses. We do this in the name of efficiency, but we neglect quality.
I propose no solutions of my own, but agree with the author that some healthy debate is needed on this issue.
This sums up the core of the problem. Some here will argue it is a labor oversupply issue, but I would argue it is a problem inherent to American capitalism itself. Our universities have transitioned into a mindset of "running like a business" and thus have adopted the common enterprise mentality of constantly seeking cost reductions. These cost reductions come at the expense of quality. I say this having spent many years working in University administration. It is exactly as the author notes, the cost savings merely get spent elsewhere in nonproductive ways, usually on more expensive administration. You see this in for-profit enterprises as well as they mature the pay inequality skews as executives take more of the profits.
"What’s the way forward? Treating nearly 75 percent of the professoriate as disposable, ancillary to the mission of higher education, has become the norm."
This is the way though of our current system, we treat employees as disposable cogs in the machine. We outsource to companies who pay bargain basement wages and produce low quality work destroying small businesses. We do this in the name of efficiency, but we neglect quality.
I propose no solutions of my own, but agree with the author that some healthy debate is needed on this issue.
I don't see how the status quo of adjunct professors can meaningfully change so long as a lot of other status quos stay intacts. We're shoving objectively stupid people through higher ed courses which are not designed to teach kids skills that could finance the cost of said education. There is a NEED for schools to shovel out low-cost low-quality brick and mortar education to meet the demand for degrees that can allow you to have an actual careers. Universites have long stopped being primarily about education or teaching you practical skills and they're now primarily about certification. Thus adjunct professors.
So long as the brick and mortar university remains a sacred cow I cannot see the needle moving more than slightly. The current education system is so batshit yet so entrenched into society it will take decades to resolve the issues. You can't just moralize about how adjunct professors DESERVE more and expect the situation to resolve itself when universities deliver less value every year. Its literally not possible to take the status quo, replace the adjunct professors with full paid ones and have the system be fiscally viable. University provides too little value for the students or greater society to tolerate such costs.
Adjunct professors are a symptom of a greater sickness.
So long as the brick and mortar university remains a sacred cow I cannot see the needle moving more than slightly. The current education system is so batshit yet so entrenched into society it will take decades to resolve the issues. You can't just moralize about how adjunct professors DESERVE more and expect the situation to resolve itself when universities deliver less value every year. Its literally not possible to take the status quo, replace the adjunct professors with full paid ones and have the system be fiscally viable. University provides too little value for the students or greater society to tolerate such costs.
Adjunct professors are a symptom of a greater sickness.
This is a great article. Let me add one more idea. This is that the accreditation organizations get in the act and demand that universities decrease the proportion of adjuncts.
I'm in a position where at one time in history it would have been a Grand Good Idea to go off and do a Phd in Computer Science. (When I was a student, I remember a bunch of guys who were at my age / stage that did.)
In that past age of the world long gone... I could have advanced the state of a science in dire need of advancement, I could have done really interesting cool stuff, I could have landed a lectureship and maybe a professorship. I could have written a book or two. I could have even received industry funding to do all this.
These days? Do a Phd in Comp Sc? You're joking.
I'd be in debt up to my ears, no guarantee of a better job at the end, endless academic horseshit in between, and your expected gain from the book is less than from cleaning toilets.
Then we wonder why the state of Computer Science as a Science is what it is.
In that past age of the world long gone... I could have advanced the state of a science in dire need of advancement, I could have done really interesting cool stuff, I could have landed a lectureship and maybe a professorship. I could have written a book or two. I could have even received industry funding to do all this.
These days? Do a Phd in Comp Sc? You're joking.
I'd be in debt up to my ears, no guarantee of a better job at the end, endless academic horseshit in between, and your expected gain from the book is less than from cleaning toilets.
Then we wonder why the state of Computer Science as a Science is what it is.
PhDs in CS don't accumulate debt, as they're paid to do it (I bought a house while doing my PhD), are in huge demand and have no trouble getting relevant industry jobs. I don't see what you're seeing at all.
Which corner of the world are you're in?
Admittedly I'm not exactly in the center of the known world.
Admittedly I'm not exactly in the center of the known world.
This is how PhDs work and the opportunities they have at least in Europe, Australia, Japan, North America.
Just had a look at the available scholarships at the local uni and most would barely cover the fees and as for buying a house, hah, not even if the fees were free.
Technical PhDs are funded positions via grants, you most likely cannot just search for available scholarships. Very few technical PhDs are on scholarships, as they're usually more complex than just being funded by your advisor. The typical large research school stipend is 28-35k a year post tax paid as salary (ie tuition is already covered, etc.).
[deleted]
The state of computer science is actually very advanced if you assume the purpose of science is to get people to click on ads.
The incentive structures around US education look perverse and horrible.
Consider the amount of money locked up in the major American institutions [0]. It just seems improbable that the money is going to be well managed in a system where literally sitting around all day talking about philosophy is an accepted, hopefully encouraged, activity. In that environment the words 'well managed' lose all meaning, the only metric is results a generation or two after the fact.
Then there are the people who go into the system; people who reasonably were born into a wealthy family, went through a good educational institute, learned at a good university then spent a great deal of effort pushing thorough to a professorship. There are going to be many individuals who are completely buffered from having real-world experience in an environment where safety is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the population of a university campus is going to have a large portion of clever but underdeveloped and inexperienced students floating around in it.
So there is an environment where the administration has every incentive to become corrupted by money and the faculty have no guide-rails to prevent the formation of really disconnected world views. It is a testimony to the raw drive and intelligence of the people involved that it all hangs together at all.
There are more Americans being processed through environment [1]. Talking about the conditions of the professorship is an important facet, but it is not wise to isolate that from its place in the greater system - the direction is that most people are going to be university educated and the overall system probably doesn't have the sort of governance structure that can cope with this slow influx.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai...
Consider the amount of money locked up in the major American institutions [0]. It just seems improbable that the money is going to be well managed in a system where literally sitting around all day talking about philosophy is an accepted, hopefully encouraged, activity. In that environment the words 'well managed' lose all meaning, the only metric is results a generation or two after the fact.
Then there are the people who go into the system; people who reasonably were born into a wealthy family, went through a good educational institute, learned at a good university then spent a great deal of effort pushing thorough to a professorship. There are going to be many individuals who are completely buffered from having real-world experience in an environment where safety is not guaranteed. Furthermore, the population of a university campus is going to have a large portion of clever but underdeveloped and inexperienced students floating around in it.
So there is an environment where the administration has every incentive to become corrupted by money and the faculty have no guide-rails to prevent the formation of really disconnected world views. It is a testimony to the raw drive and intelligence of the people involved that it all hangs together at all.
There are more Americans being processed through environment [1]. Talking about the conditions of the professorship is an important facet, but it is not wise to isolate that from its place in the greater system - the direction is that most people are going to be university educated and the overall system probably doesn't have the sort of governance structure that can cope with this slow influx.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai...
I legit think that trade schools for programmers are a good idea.
There are thousands of them in India.
Sorry, blame state governments the past 2-3 decades. They've mostly been doing budget cuts and things similar to prop 13. College is viewed as discretionary, vs. cutting k-12 when there's not enough state money to go around, so it's taken much of the hit. That means less tenured faculty. You can vote your preference in your state elections next time.
I wonder to what extent MOOCs have contributed to this crisis. It used to be that to get advanced training of any kind - credentialed or not - you had to go to university, and this helped a lot of subpar universities survive. Now for advanced training it is becoming easier and easier to go online and those programs benefit from scale (you can have classes of 10K people, etc.)
That to me would put a crunch on middle or lower tier institutions, which rely heavily on teaching and which don't offer a degree worth much more than an online credential. In that scenario, you would expect these schools to go for the short term "survival" scenario vs. the long term "thrive" scenario, and in fact, that is what we see - lower tier schools with big sports budgets, fancy gyms, nice cafeterias, etc., staffed entirely by adjunct faculty.
Overall, the selective pressure against these lower tier universities might not be a bad thing. As those die out (which I believe they will), it could result in a good set of schools all which provide a strong, general education, and an equal, respected set of online institutions which can provide credentials for those who do not want the more traditional path.
That to me would put a crunch on middle or lower tier institutions, which rely heavily on teaching and which don't offer a degree worth much more than an online credential. In that scenario, you would expect these schools to go for the short term "survival" scenario vs. the long term "thrive" scenario, and in fact, that is what we see - lower tier schools with big sports budgets, fancy gyms, nice cafeterias, etc., staffed entirely by adjunct faculty.
Overall, the selective pressure against these lower tier universities might not be a bad thing. As those die out (which I believe they will), it could result in a good set of schools all which provide a strong, general education, and an equal, respected set of online institutions which can provide credentials for those who do not want the more traditional path.
> advanced training of any kind - credentialed or not - you had to go to university
not true. from music, to plumbing, to software, to fiction writing...
meanwhile the training MOOCs provide is hardly equivalent to a bachelor's degree in CV-terms let alone curriculum.
Meanwhile, for example, a Data Science in Python nanodegree may very well be better prep for an industry job than a statistics bachelor's, but the two were never going to be equivalent.
not true. from music, to plumbing, to software, to fiction writing...
meanwhile the training MOOCs provide is hardly equivalent to a bachelor's degree in CV-terms let alone curriculum.
Meanwhile, for example, a Data Science in Python nanodegree may very well be better prep for an industry job than a statistics bachelor's, but the two were never going to be equivalent.
>> Meanwhile, for example, a Data Science in Python nanodegree may very well be better prep for an industry job
That is the root of the problem isn't it? IMO No institution should train you for a job in the industry except the industry. Also, higher education (post-college) should not discredit themself to be an apprentices-program for any industry -- it is not what they can accomplish anyhow since the requirements change faster than the institutions can adapt. A university has lost all of its meaning if they do not work to further the field itself, but for the ever-changing demands of the economy.
That is the root of the problem isn't it? IMO No institution should train you for a job in the industry except the industry. Also, higher education (post-college) should not discredit themself to be an apprentices-program for any industry -- it is not what they can accomplish anyhow since the requirements change faster than the institutions can adapt. A university has lost all of its meaning if they do not work to further the field itself, but for the ever-changing demands of the economy.
Not at all. The discovery problem is too hard. College degrees from elite schools only work because they’re elite and people can remember a small number of “good” schools relatively consistently.
If I want to hire someone, how can I tell the good schools / MOOCs from the bad? Will I be able to continue doing that reliably over time? Will it be any better a signal as to who is a good candidate than the current system?
As they are, most for-profit MOOCs seem to have pivoted to being corporate training / collaboration platforms...
If I want to hire someone, how can I tell the good schools / MOOCs from the bad? Will I be able to continue doing that reliably over time? Will it be any better a signal as to who is a good candidate than the current system?
As they are, most for-profit MOOCs seem to have pivoted to being corporate training / collaboration platforms...
>> If I want to hire someone, how can I tell the good schools / MOOCs from the bad?
You probably shouldn't. If you want to hire someone, test their skillset on a small-ish 1-week Project with realistic goals and expectations. Optionally with integration in a team, since soft-skills are not really teachable but usually very important to solve problems on a certain level.
You probably shouldn't. If you want to hire someone, test their skillset on a small-ish 1-week Project with realistic goals and expectations. Optionally with integration in a team, since soft-skills are not really teachable but usually very important to solve problems on a certain level.
> 83 year old French teacher being underpaid as an adjunct...
Strange
Strange
Given a massive oversupply of replacement workers ready to go at a moment's notice, unionization seems unlikely to change anything.
Probably Ph.D. graduates should consider teaching at a university as a sort of popular avocation like music, art, sports, or video games. Maybe you can make some money at it if you are particularly skilled and lucky, but you will almost certainly need a real day job in order to pay the bills.