4 ms·

> students really do require an experienced guide to navigate through the tangled web of concepts. Consider how much people pay for education and don't get thi

> students really do require an experienced guide to navigate through the tangled web of concepts. Consider how much people pay for education and don't get this, and how much some people are paid to be teachers who do not provide it.

benrbray 6y ago
Oh yeah, I'm with you there. Teaching quality at both my undergrad math program and my graduate compsci program was abysmal, with the exception of a handful of dedicated teachers. Both at well-ranked research institutions, which is the problem. The whole system is crazy. Why on earth do we allow tuition money to be spent on anything else but full-time teaching staff?!
- wolfram74 6y ago
  I'm now interested in a list of transactions ordered by participant dissatisfaction, like, paying for gym memberships and not getting the outcomes they want, therapy or medical attention to mostly be ignored by the provider, ISPs in the US, online shopping to get something wildly different. Is education especially bad compared to these things? or just that it's such a large expenditure we just-world-fallacy ourselves into thinking it ought to work better?
  - spijdar 6y ago
    Is it really a logical fallacy to assume that we should have better outcomes from spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on academia vs e.g. spending thirty dollars on amazon? At least naively, that money could (should?) be going towards paying for staff and a support system/hierarchy to ensure a higher quality. That's at least nominally why accredited, non-profit education is so expensive, because it's nominally supposed to be capable of paying decent salaries to intelligent people dedicated to teaching, compared to say amazon or the gym where the incentives are to cost cut and maximize profit. In reality, I suspect the same applies to colleges, but I don't think it should, in some ideal world.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  > Why on earth do we allow tuition money to be spent on anything else but full-time teaching staff?! Because the culture of innovation that part-time researchers/part-time teacher bring is far more important to society in the long run than the short term gains gotten by full-time teaching staff. Most fields in the world are rapidly changing, and what's taught in them changes every decade or so. Most full time teachers will atrophy because they don't have any real incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. After a decade or so, your full time educational institute will be teaching worse than a research+teaching institute.
  - benrbray 6y ago
    Have you experienced student life at a large public research university recently? The well-documented trends of administrative bloat, publish-or-perish, exploitation of adjuncts and TAs for cheap labor, obsession with luxury campus amenities, etc etc. have all slowly degraded this "idealized" version of academia that many people have in mind (assuming such a thing ever existed in the first place). I run into the same wall talking about this with my parents, who don't really seem to understand just what a racket the whole university system as become. > Most full time teachers will atrophy because they don't have any real incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. Tenured professors also have no incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. An oh boy do I have some stories about lazy professors, both as a student and TA. > Because the culture of innovation that part-time researchers/part-time teacher bring is far more important to society in the long run than the short term gains gotten by full-time teaching staff. Research and education are both important. Both have long-term gains. Research is hard, yes, but many people fail to recognize that teaching is also hard. We should fund both, and use a transparent pricing model. If an 18-year-old takes on tens of thousands of dollars of personal debt, the benefit should be directly to them. The whole "coLLegE lOAnS aRe An InVEstMEnt in YoURselF!!" argument against free university education is naive from the start, but becomes completely absurd when that money isn't even used to directly fund education. Yes, basic research is fundamental to the advancement of human society. So let's fund it publicly, through business or personal taxes on all members of society. Let's also recognize that higher education has massive long-term benefits to society as well, and make high-quality college education cheaper and more accessible by hiring dedicated teaching faculty who consult with research experts to design their curriculums. We can do both. The current system is extremely inefficient at distributing the time and resources of research faculty. We don't need research faculty to regurgitate the same intro linear algebra lecture in-person over and over again every year. The current system also forces research faculty (and graduate student TAs) to teach, who more often than not have no interest whatsoever in teaching. It is also extraordinarily difficult to get a well-paid college teaching job without a research PhD. I would advocate for a system where research faculty are in charge of designing the curriculum and modernizing lecture materials as the times change. Rather than repeating the same lecture hundreds of times, have them make lecture recordings, which can be updated gradually over time. This frees them up to design better assignments and projects, rather than repeating the same lecture over and over. It is well documented that students benefit from small classrooms. Hire qualified full-time teaching staff to lead discussions / labs / projects. Pay them enough that they don't need a second or third job, so they have the time to stay up to date. Personally, I would love love love to teach undergrad-level compsci or math if such an opportunity presented itself. This is the role that TAs normally fill, but it is extraordinarily rare to find a graduate student who has passion and skill for teaching, as well as the luxury of enough time to do it well.

benrbray 6y ago

Oh yeah, I'm with you there. Teaching quality at both my undergrad math program and my graduate compsci program was abysmal, with the exception of a handful of dedicated teachers. Both at well-ranked research institutions, which is the problem. The whole system is crazy. Why on earth do we allow tuition money to be spent on anything else but full-time teaching staff?!

wolfram74 6y ago
I'm now interested in a list of transactions ordered by participant dissatisfaction, like, paying for gym memberships and not getting the outcomes they want, therapy or medical attention to mostly be ignored by the provider, ISPs in the US, online shopping to get something wildly different. Is education especially bad compared to these things? or just that it's such a large expenditure we just-world-fallacy ourselves into thinking it ought to work better?
- spijdar 6y ago
  Is it really a logical fallacy to assume that we should have better outcomes from spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on academia vs e.g. spending thirty dollars on amazon? At least naively, that money could (should?) be going towards paying for staff and a support system/hierarchy to ensure a higher quality. That's at least nominally why accredited, non-profit education is so expensive, because it's nominally supposed to be capable of paying decent salaries to intelligent people dedicated to teaching, compared to say amazon or the gym where the incentives are to cost cut and maximize profit. In reality, I suspect the same applies to colleges, but I don't think it should, in some ideal world.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
> Why on earth do we allow tuition money to be spent on anything else but full-time teaching staff?! Because the culture of innovation that part-time researchers/part-time teacher bring is far more important to society in the long run than the short term gains gotten by full-time teaching staff. Most fields in the world are rapidly changing, and what's taught in them changes every decade or so. Most full time teachers will atrophy because they don't have any real incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. After a decade or so, your full time educational institute will be teaching worse than a research+teaching institute.
- benrbray 6y ago
  Have you experienced student life at a large public research university recently? The well-documented trends of administrative bloat, publish-or-perish, exploitation of adjuncts and TAs for cheap labor, obsession with luxury campus amenities, etc etc. have all slowly degraded this "idealized" version of academia that many people have in mind (assuming such a thing ever existed in the first place). I run into the same wall talking about this with my parents, who don't really seem to understand just what a racket the whole university system as become. > Most full time teachers will atrophy because they don't have any real incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. Tenured professors also have no incentive to keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. An oh boy do I have some stories about lazy professors, both as a student and TA. > Because the culture of innovation that part-time researchers/part-time teacher bring is far more important to society in the long run than the short term gains gotten by full-time teaching staff. Research and education are both important. Both have long-term gains. Research is hard, yes, but many people fail to recognize that teaching is also hard. We should fund both, and use a transparent pricing model. If an 18-year-old takes on tens of thousands of dollars of personal debt, the benefit should be directly to them. The whole "coLLegE lOAnS aRe An InVEstMEnt in YoURselF!!" argument against free university education is naive from the start, but becomes completely absurd when that money isn't even used to directly fund education. Yes, basic research is fundamental to the advancement of human society. So let's fund it publicly, through business or personal taxes on all members of society. Let's also recognize that higher education has massive long-term benefits to society as well, and make high-quality college education cheaper and more accessible by hiring dedicated teaching faculty who consult with research experts to design their curriculums. We can do both. The current system is extremely inefficient at distributing the time and resources of research faculty. We don't need research faculty to regurgitate the same intro linear algebra lecture in-person over and over again every year. The current system also forces research faculty (and graduate student TAs) to teach, who more often than not have no interest whatsoever in teaching. It is also extraordinarily difficult to get a well-paid college teaching job without a research PhD. I would advocate for a system where research faculty are in charge of designing the curriculum and modernizing lecture materials as the times change. Rather than repeating the same lecture hundreds of times, have them make lecture recordings, which can be updated gradually over time. This frees them up to design better assignments and projects, rather than repeating the same lecture over and over. It is well documented that students benefit from small classrooms. Hire qualified full-time teaching staff to lead discussions / labs / projects. Pay them enough that they don't need a second or third job, so they have the time to stay up to date. Personally, I would love love love to teach undergrad-level compsci or math if such an opportunity presented itself. This is the role that TAs normally fill, but it is extraordinarily rare to find a graduate student who has passion and skill for teaching, as well as the luxury of enough time to do it well.