6 ms·

And that is why professional administrators should be in the middle and not on top of things. To be at the top you must have been in the trenches at least a co

And that is why professional administrators should be in the middle and not on top of things. To be at the top you must have been in the trenches at least a couple of years.

frozenport 10y ago
Perhaps nobody actually needs university glass blowers, and the administration made the correct choice? Many of the components that needed to be hand made in the 1960s, can be found scientific catalogs.
- heisenbit 10y ago
  You are probably right. The bulk can be bought cheaply. The challenge lies in how to get the special cases covered. The capability for the special cases used to be covered by master craftsmen at the top of a pyramid who leveraged the infrastructure and also educational system of a large workshop. The bulk is gone. The local cross subsidy is gone. And now the local capability is dying off. In theory modern CAD etc. can help to design. In theory money saved on the bulk can be used to order in a specialized shop. But it is a difference having a master locally advising mechanically challenged chemistry Ph.D. on the same science team vs.a paid consultant remotely playing for another financial team. And I doubt the saved money will be available for the Ph.D. students.
  - liotier 10y ago
    > In theory modern CAD etc. can help to design Only if you know the limits of the physical manufacturing process - otherwise you are going to design the perfect bizarre piece that your experiment needs, only to find later that glass blowing can't produce it.
- taneq 10y ago
  If nothing you're doing requires custom-built components that you can't buy from a catalog, you're probably not doing very much that's actually new.
  - roel_v 10y ago
    The article mentions that other universities order from outside suppliers, who presumably can also do custom orders. It sounds like an incredulous claim to say that nobody in the universities that are listed in the article as not having their own glassblower any more does anything new at all. An on-site glassblower sounds like (although this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, it's probably specific to chemistry) a perk that is (very) nice to have, but just doesn't fit in today's cost structures. 50 years ago, it was normal for every 'professional' to have a secretary, who would plan meetings, send letters, make coffee etc. Today, how many non-CxO level people have personal secretaries? Having all these support jobs on-site was how it was done but today most places don't even have local IT support (with IT being what replaced most of these support jobs in the first place). The article mentions there are 50-ish ppl a year graduating the one institute in the whole of the US that teaches glass blowing. That means the demand just isn't there. I mean, there is probably 'demand' in the sense that there is plenty of 'demand' for Ferrari's at $10k / piece, but there is no real demand at proper prices. In other words, if people lament the loss of such jobs but don't want to pay what it costs to replace them, is there really 'demand' or just nostalgia?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > An on-site glassblower sounds like (although this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, it's probably specific to chemistry) a perk that is (very) nice to have, but just doesn't fit in today's cost structures. Generally, doing new things doesn't fit in today's cost structures. If you're doing stuff that's actually pushing the frontiers of anything, your cost structures will also look different to everyone else's. But there are lots of benefits to have such specialists in-house, primary being that they a) know your specific needs, and b) might actually be invested in your overall goals - as opposed to third parties that often couldn't care less. > 50 years ago, it was normal for every 'professional' to have a secretary, who would plan meetings, send letters, make coffee etc. Today, how many non-CxO level people have personal secretaries? Having all these support jobs on-site was how it was done but today most places don't even have local IT support (with IT being what replaced most of these support jobs in the first place). I think secretaries were replaced by computers. I don't know of many professors with personal secretaries, but I also haven't heard of anyone outsourcing these kind of duties to a specialized "secretary-consulting" company. As for IT support, the IT infrastructure in universities generally sucks and tends to go downhill - but that's a longer discussion, and I generally would attribute this to infrastructure being something that has easy-to-count costs and harder-to-count benefits, which makes it an obvious target for various beancounters. > That means the demand just isn't there. That's probably true. One university doing novel research does not by itself a market demand make. That's why they should have spent the time and money to have the guy train his replacement on-site.
- jamesash 10y ago
  Chemist here. Glassblowers are essential for certain chemists - like organic chemists - mostly for the purposes of fixing essential (and expensive) glassware like vacuum manifolds that often break during the course of daily use. It's less essential for several other fields that fall under the umbrella of chemistry, like theoretical/computational chemistry. The issue is whether it's in the department's interest to subsidize glassblower use for everyone in the department, or have labs outsource glassblowing to a third party. MIT decided to get rid of its glassblowing shop and machine shop about 10 years ago. We were lucky enough to be in Cambridge where a glassblower would come by the lab every thursday and pick up / return items we needed him to fix / make. Given the constant stream of glassware that is being broken, and the cost of replacement of certain items being >$1000 trust me when I say that university glassblowers are extremely busy people.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  The chemistry of 30 years ago was different - much more work was done rigorously air-free or under high vacuum. Today there's a much greater focus on the life sciences. Indeed, one supplier changed its name from Chemglass to Chemglass-Lifesciences some ten years back. That said, access to a glassblower is an infrastructure problem. When you need to consult with one about design of a piece of equipment there's no alternative, and when the guy is in-house turnaround is faster and friction is lower. The difference is: thirty years ago more people in the chemistry department had use for the glassblower, the cost would be spread wider, the budget item would be easier to justify. Someone mentioned secretaries in this thread. Every faculty member used to employ one for typing, travel arrangements &c. Nowadays everyone types their own manuscripts and books their own travel, so it's difficult to make the case for an assistant. But when a conference comes up and the task to make arrangements for ten speakers falls on one member of faculty you really see why personal assistants are vital infrastructure. Another funny thing: the majority of labglass factories is located in New Jersey because of the pharma cluster in that state. Pharma has moved out, and likely we'll see closings in the decade ahead.
jonas21 10y ago
It's easy to blame things on "professional administrators", but Caltech, like many research universities, is led by accomplished academics who have spent their time in the trenches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Felix_Rosenbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Felix_Rosenbaum https://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/edward-m-stolper https://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/edward-m-stolper (though I doubt if they were very involved in the decision of when to start looking for a new glassblower)
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  Then perhaps the problem is exactly the opposite: academia should be led by professional administrators who specialize in higher education? The same way an accomplished & esteemed software engineer may not make a brilliant CEO.

And that is why professional administrators should be in the middle and not on top of things. To be at the top you must have been in the trenches at least a couple of years.

frozenport 10y ago

Perhaps nobody actually needs university glass blowers, and the administration made the correct choice? Many of the components that needed to be hand made in the 1960s, can be found scientific catalogs.

heisenbit 10y ago
You are probably right. The bulk can be bought cheaply. The challenge lies in how to get the special cases covered. The capability for the special cases used to be covered by master craftsmen at the top of a pyramid who leveraged the infrastructure and also educational system of a large workshop. The bulk is gone. The local cross subsidy is gone. And now the local capability is dying off. In theory modern CAD etc. can help to design. In theory money saved on the bulk can be used to order in a specialized shop. But it is a difference having a master locally advising mechanically challenged chemistry Ph.D. on the same science team vs.a paid consultant remotely playing for another financial team. And I doubt the saved money will be available for the Ph.D. students.
- liotier 10y ago
  > In theory modern CAD etc. can help to design Only if you know the limits of the physical manufacturing process - otherwise you are going to design the perfect bizarre piece that your experiment needs, only to find later that glass blowing can't produce it.
taneq 10y ago
If nothing you're doing requires custom-built components that you can't buy from a catalog, you're probably not doing very much that's actually new.
- roel_v 10y ago
  The article mentions that other universities order from outside suppliers, who presumably can also do custom orders. It sounds like an incredulous claim to say that nobody in the universities that are listed in the article as not having their own glassblower any more does anything new at all. An on-site glassblower sounds like (although this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, it's probably specific to chemistry) a perk that is (very) nice to have, but just doesn't fit in today's cost structures. 50 years ago, it was normal for every 'professional' to have a secretary, who would plan meetings, send letters, make coffee etc. Today, how many non-CxO level people have personal secretaries? Having all these support jobs on-site was how it was done but today most places don't even have local IT support (with IT being what replaced most of these support jobs in the first place). The article mentions there are 50-ish ppl a year graduating the one institute in the whole of the US that teaches glass blowing. That means the demand just isn't there. I mean, there is probably 'demand' in the sense that there is plenty of 'demand' for Ferrari's at $10k / piece, but there is no real demand at proper prices. In other words, if people lament the loss of such jobs but don't want to pay what it costs to replace them, is there really 'demand' or just nostalgia?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > An on-site glassblower sounds like (although this is the first time I've heard of such a thing, it's probably specific to chemistry) a perk that is (very) nice to have, but just doesn't fit in today's cost structures. Generally, doing new things doesn't fit in today's cost structures. If you're doing stuff that's actually pushing the frontiers of anything, your cost structures will also look different to everyone else's. But there are lots of benefits to have such specialists in-house, primary being that they a) know your specific needs, and b) might actually be invested in your overall goals - as opposed to third parties that often couldn't care less. > 50 years ago, it was normal for every 'professional' to have a secretary, who would plan meetings, send letters, make coffee etc. Today, how many non-CxO level people have personal secretaries? Having all these support jobs on-site was how it was done but today most places don't even have local IT support (with IT being what replaced most of these support jobs in the first place). I think secretaries were replaced by computers. I don't know of many professors with personal secretaries, but I also haven't heard of anyone outsourcing these kind of duties to a specialized "secretary-consulting" company. As for IT support, the IT infrastructure in universities generally sucks and tends to go downhill - but that's a longer discussion, and I generally would attribute this to infrastructure being something that has easy-to-count costs and harder-to-count benefits, which makes it an obvious target for various beancounters. > That means the demand just isn't there. That's probably true. One university doing novel research does not by itself a market demand make. That's why they should have spent the time and money to have the guy train his replacement on-site.
jamesash 10y ago
Chemist here. Glassblowers are essential for certain chemists - like organic chemists - mostly for the purposes of fixing essential (and expensive) glassware like vacuum manifolds that often break during the course of daily use. It's less essential for several other fields that fall under the umbrella of chemistry, like theoretical/computational chemistry. The issue is whether it's in the department's interest to subsidize glassblower use for everyone in the department, or have labs outsource glassblowing to a third party. MIT decided to get rid of its glassblowing shop and machine shop about 10 years ago. We were lucky enough to be in Cambridge where a glassblower would come by the lab every thursday and pick up / return items we needed him to fix / make. Given the constant stream of glassware that is being broken, and the cost of replacement of certain items being >$1000 trust me when I say that university glassblowers are extremely busy people.
HarryHirsch 10y ago
The chemistry of 30 years ago was different - much more work was done rigorously air-free or under high vacuum. Today there's a much greater focus on the life sciences. Indeed, one supplier changed its name from Chemglass to Chemglass-Lifesciences some ten years back. That said, access to a glassblower is an infrastructure problem. When you need to consult with one about design of a piece of equipment there's no alternative, and when the guy is in-house turnaround is faster and friction is lower. The difference is: thirty years ago more people in the chemistry department had use for the glassblower, the cost would be spread wider, the budget item would be easier to justify. Someone mentioned secretaries in this thread. Every faculty member used to employ one for typing, travel arrangements &c. Nowadays everyone types their own manuscripts and books their own travel, so it's difficult to make the case for an assistant. But when a conference comes up and the task to make arrangements for ten speakers falls on one member of faculty you really see why personal assistants are vital infrastructure. Another funny thing: the majority of labglass factories is located in New Jersey because of the pharma cluster in that state. Pharma has moved out, and likely we'll see closings in the decade ahead.

jonas21 10y ago

It's easy to blame things on "professional administrators", but Caltech, like many research universities, is led by accomplished academics who have spent their time in the trenches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Felix_Rosenbaum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Felix_Rosenbaum https://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/edward-m-stolper https://www.gps.caltech.edu/content/edward-m-stolper (though I doubt if they were very involved in the decision of when to start looking for a new glassblower)

Domenic_S 10y ago
Then perhaps the problem is exactly the opposite: academia should be led by professional administrators who specialize in higher education? The same way an accomplished & esteemed software engineer may not make a brilliant CEO.