7 ms·

This is such a ridiculous post. Thanks for the laugh. Academia in the US has been productized and the need for academic talent abstracted away. Students don't

This is such a ridiculous post. Thanks for the laugh. Academia in the US has been productized and the need for academic talent abstracted away. Students don't attend a given school because of specific star professors. They attend because of the things that admin does. Maintain the brand and messaging- a management and marketing exercise, not intellectual. Set up competitive housing, food, entertainment, job search and other amenities- also administrative, not intellectual. Operate the real estate and digital portfolios- also management. etc. For the lucky, manage the endowment. I say this as a parent with 2, soon 3, college age kids. Universities in the US are hotels that provide a particular flavor of entertainment to their attendees. Particularly in undergrad. Yes, students learn some subject domain material while there, usually, because that's what humans do in every situation they're in. But curricula are a dime a dozen. The open curriculum movements from the early 2000s, like open source, benefit those academics who are able to produce new material, harm those who cannot (but who may be good at teaching) but mostly they make it easy to commodify the actual academic talent in any given university. And student success? Not an academic issue. It's an administrative concern. Good thing, too. There is no action academics can take to "take back" their university. To think that something like that even makes sense is to live in fantasyland. It is neither how the university machine works (any more, if ever it did) nor is it what the payers in the market value. No students would attend a university run by academics, rather than run by managers. Without competitive amenities and messaging, the venture would be a failure. Any that succeeded would do so because of the academics took over ran the place like managers. Apologies for the strong language. There is no cynicism here. Just humor at the disconnect. Though expensive I find the university offerings in the US appropriate for my kids. As human beings first they need all of the things the administrative state provides. The actual intellectual/academic parts of the journey- even given the fact that they are all academically strong, 1500 SATs, etc- are relatively minor and incidental. Cheers. Hope this helps.

pdonis 4y ago
> No students would attend a university run by academics, rather than run by managers. I'm not sure what you're basing this claim on, since AFAIK there aren't any universities run by academics. But the reason for that has nothing to do with free competition in university education, and everything to do with government putting its thumb on the scale, both in the way it funds research and in the way it makes various forms of financial aid available so universities face zero cost pressure.
- jonahbenton 4y ago
  With respect, I know the student loan regime in the US is a hobbyhorse for some but saying "unis face zero cost pressure" is simply not reflective of the dynamics. State and federal direct funding of unis in general fell off a cliff starting in the 1970s. Direct costs to students started to rise as a result. Students not being able to afford direct costs led to the government creation of the credit money regime- student loans. It wasn't govt putting some thumb on some scale- it was because direct dollars became scarce and credit dollars in all areas are cheap- and in most cases actually beneficial, because public interest credit dollars reflect actual public benefits. Schools still have to compete for students, and tangible non-academic features always win the day. So there are constant cost and investment pressures on schools to produce a better product in tangible non-academic terms. Spending money actually brings in more students. So tuition goes up AND development outreach goes up, and wealthy donors get names on buildings etc. And because the actual academics- the individuals teaching- do not in practice make any difference whatsoever (eg US News rankings depend on student SATs, not staff PhDs), they are increasingly devalued in the equation. My point about a uni run by academics is that were purely academic elements prioritized above all else- dorms, food, support, athletics, whatever- the school would simply not have a competitive offering. This doesn't have anything to do with student loans being available. The same competition dynamics- which really do impose capital/expense pressures- they exist and are independent of the level of consumption funding. Of course, Harvard is in an n of maybe 5 group, the freedom it has to manage its accounting is nearly unique and not reflective of the broader swath of thousands of US unis. In fact what is happening now is a huge consolidation and closure of enormous numbers of small colleges that cannot invest enough with a small base to compete with larger ones. A business story, like any other. It's not because they have too many administrators. It's because they cannot afford to have more. Hope that makes sense.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > State and federal direct funding of unis Is a big part of government putting its thumb on the scale. The only way to have truly free competition in university education is for universities to have to fund themselves entirely from payments for services rendered. Tuition is such a payment. But most State and federal direct funding is not. > Students not being able to afford direct costs led to the government creation of the credit money regime In other words, the government switched the way it was putting its thumb on the scale. > Schools still have to compete for students, and tangible non-academic features always win the day. Why? In a true competitive environment, I can't see why this would be the case, since the reason the students are there is academics, so competition would be expected to be on the basis of academics.
anigbrowl 4y ago
No apology needed, it's an interesting alternative perspective. I agree that a lot of students (& their parents) pick colleges for the brand and networking advantages which the administrators seek to maximize. I also agree that a bunch of professors and deans would do a mediocre job of running a university by themselves, since a lot of the work involved is quite boring. I certainly don't see any sort of post-administrative utopia waiting to emerge. But having said that, if academic professionals are in the constant state of economic and psychological anxiety that they describe (and I think a lot of them genuinely are, and not solely due to some lack of worldly wisdom or autistic confusion), they do have some capacity to shape their situation.
throwaway74829 4y ago
A provocative and astute diatribe. My question for you: why humor this absurdity? I'm of mind that the whole thing should be thrown out.
beezle 4y ago
"Universities in the US are hotels that provide a particular flavor of entertainment to their attendees. Particularly in undergrad." Then why bother with having any academics at all? If all it is to you (and your kids) is a nice hotel, I'm sure you can actually find better accommodations and amenities for far cheaper. And children can 'network' with others also staying at the "good" hotel. "The actual intellectual/academic parts of the journey- even given the fact that they are all academically strong, 1500 SATs, etc- are relatively minor and incidental." And that is very much a reason for why such a situation has come to pass today - parents valuing branding far more, if not exclusively, over academics.
- lmm 4y ago
  > I'm sure you can actually find better accommodations and amenities for far cheaper. And children can 'network' with others also staying at the "good" hotel. I think a lot of the value of being a top, exclusive university comes from being a top, exclusive university. I went to one of the best universities in the world, and I learnt a hell of a lot - but a lot of that came from the students I was surrounded with, to the point that if you took away the university and just had that academically-top student population mingle in a conference center for 3 years, I'm not sure the results would be much different. But how would you get everyone to agree on which conference center?
guntherhermann 4y ago
Leading with "this is such a ridiculous post. thanks for the laugh" is not needed. The rest of your content is good, but insults are beneath us! All you are doing by leading with a caustic statement is putting some people - who you otherwise might be able to convince - off reading the rest of your content. The others who read because of the opening salvo didn't need convincing anyway.
ShredKazoo 4y ago
>No students would attend a university run by academics, rather than run by managers. Without competitive amenities and messaging, the venture would be a failure. Any that succeeded would do so because of the academics took over ran the place like managers. Apparently the University of Austin is planning to eliminate amenities: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/another-university-of-austin-update.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/an... So I guess we'll see if you're right
matthewdgreen 4y ago
I’m sorry to hear you say this. Clearly you didn’t experience the difference it makes to have truly phenomenal teachers, particularly in advanced topics. The excellent CS professors I had as an undergrad are entirely responsible for my success, not the administration or the dorms. I do agree with you that for many applications of academia (getting a good office job using a credential) the “product” itself can be watered down into something mediocre.
- jaspax 4y ago
  I don't think the person you're replying to denies the importance of teachers. Rather, it's that students don't know about the quality of teaching before they get to the school and generally have little way of finding out even if they wanted to, and so other factors actually determine their decisions.
  - jonahbenton 4y ago
    Thank you, yes, this exactly. Even broad measures and reviews of "teaching quality" one can consult beforehand are at best statistical and simply not predictive for the experience of any given kid.
- jonahbenton 4y ago
  Thanks for engaging- agree with your point about the link between the individual's perception of their own success and important academic/intellectual/mentoring relationships (as opposed to administrative). I did have that personally in some cases (and not in others) but am a consultant now who very much recognizes the importance of relationships. I have also done as much as I can to explicitly and implicitly train/encourage that sort of relationship thinking in my kids. Neverthless! I would say: a) one cannot solve for relationships as a basis for picking a specific university. They don't happen overnight, and have to be allowed to develop. And the instincts one has as to which university will be most encouraging of relationships for one's own kid- are only that. They are not reliably predictive. b) Feelings of safety for the student are super important to getting to a place where relationships can develop c) Admins in unis have much much more impact on feelings of safety than faculty. They are in effect the reason people choose a specific uni, and provide their tuition dollars. Whether kids develop relationships with faculty as a result is a downstream effect and to first approximation irrelevant to the business model d) There is an overabundance of excellent, relationship oriented faculty. They are everywhere- from community colleges up to the Stanfords and Harvards. In fact many are out there who cannot get jobs! There are also tons of assholes of course. No university has come anywhere close to solving the "no assholes" problem as it exists in the diverse and disparate minds present in their student bodies, because there are assholes in their student bodies as well! e) The most successful outcome for any given student in any given uni environment- the one you describe- is not deterministic, and complex enough to be difficult to model and guide. University management and administration exists to deliberately provide the safety and comfort contexts for those outcomes to emerge. The importance of any given faculty member in contributing to those outcomes in general is in the noise. f) This productization is not necessarily bad- in fact it is likely the case that uni experience across the whole cohort is broadly more positive than it was decades ago. Is it (much) more expensive? Sure. Could it yet be further cost optimized? Of course. Does it maybe emphasize the mean and reduce higher end outcomes at the margin? Maybe. Even if so, to my eyes, fwiw, that's more democratic. There will always be superstars. They should not be the only success cases. Cheers, thanks again.
plaguepilled 4y ago
To be honest, this is an upsetting mentality. Any reason for your extremely low opinion of academics?

pdonis 4y ago

> No students would attend a university run by academics, rather than run by managers. I'm not sure what you're basing this claim on, since AFAIK there aren't any universities run by academics. But the reason for that has nothing to do with free competition in university education, and everything to do with government putting its thumb on the scale, both in the way it funds research and in the way it makes various forms of financial aid available so universities face zero cost pressure.

jonahbenton 4y ago
With respect, I know the student loan regime in the US is a hobbyhorse for some but saying "unis face zero cost pressure" is simply not reflective of the dynamics. State and federal direct funding of unis in general fell off a cliff starting in the 1970s. Direct costs to students started to rise as a result. Students not being able to afford direct costs led to the government creation of the credit money regime- student loans. It wasn't govt putting some thumb on some scale- it was because direct dollars became scarce and credit dollars in all areas are cheap- and in most cases actually beneficial, because public interest credit dollars reflect actual public benefits. Schools still have to compete for students, and tangible non-academic features always win the day. So there are constant cost and investment pressures on schools to produce a better product in tangible non-academic terms. Spending money actually brings in more students. So tuition goes up AND development outreach goes up, and wealthy donors get names on buildings etc. And because the actual academics- the individuals teaching- do not in practice make any difference whatsoever (eg US News rankings depend on student SATs, not staff PhDs), they are increasingly devalued in the equation. My point about a uni run by academics is that were purely academic elements prioritized above all else- dorms, food, support, athletics, whatever- the school would simply not have a competitive offering. This doesn't have anything to do with student loans being available. The same competition dynamics- which really do impose capital/expense pressures- they exist and are independent of the level of consumption funding. Of course, Harvard is in an n of maybe 5 group, the freedom it has to manage its accounting is nearly unique and not reflective of the broader swath of thousands of US unis. In fact what is happening now is a huge consolidation and closure of enormous numbers of small colleges that cannot invest enough with a small base to compete with larger ones. A business story, like any other. It's not because they have too many administrators. It's because they cannot afford to have more. Hope that makes sense.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > State and federal direct funding of unis Is a big part of government putting its thumb on the scale. The only way to have truly free competition in university education is for universities to have to fund themselves entirely from payments for services rendered. Tuition is such a payment. But most State and federal direct funding is not. > Students not being able to afford direct costs led to the government creation of the credit money regime In other words, the government switched the way it was putting its thumb on the scale. > Schools still have to compete for students, and tangible non-academic features always win the day. Why? In a true competitive environment, I can't see why this would be the case, since the reason the students are there is academics, so competition would be expected to be on the basis of academics.

anigbrowl 4y ago

No apology needed, it's an interesting alternative perspective. I agree that a lot of students (& their parents) pick colleges for the brand and networking advantages which the administrators seek to maximize. I also agree that a bunch of professors and deans would do a mediocre job of running a university by themselves, since a lot of the work involved is quite boring. I certainly don't see any sort of post-administrative utopia waiting to emerge. But having said that, if academic professionals are in the constant state of economic and psychological anxiety that they describe (and I think a lot of them genuinely are, and not solely due to some lack of worldly wisdom or autistic confusion), they do have some capacity to shape their situation.

throwaway74829 4y ago

A provocative and astute diatribe. My question for you: why humor this absurdity? I'm of mind that the whole thing should be thrown out.

beezle 4y ago

"Universities in the US are hotels that provide a particular flavor of entertainment to their attendees. Particularly in undergrad." Then why bother with having any academics at all? If all it is to you (and your kids) is a nice hotel, I'm sure you can actually find better accommodations and amenities for far cheaper. And children can 'network' with others also staying at the "good" hotel. "The actual intellectual/academic parts of the journey- even given the fact that they are all academically strong, 1500 SATs, etc- are relatively minor and incidental." And that is very much a reason for why such a situation has come to pass today - parents valuing branding far more, if not exclusively, over academics.

lmm 4y ago
> I'm sure you can actually find better accommodations and amenities for far cheaper. And children can 'network' with others also staying at the "good" hotel. I think a lot of the value of being a top, exclusive university comes from being a top, exclusive university. I went to one of the best universities in the world, and I learnt a hell of a lot - but a lot of that came from the students I was surrounded with, to the point that if you took away the university and just had that academically-top student population mingle in a conference center for 3 years, I'm not sure the results would be much different. But how would you get everyone to agree on which conference center?

guntherhermann 4y ago

Leading with "this is such a ridiculous post. thanks for the laugh" is not needed. The rest of your content is good, but insults are beneath us! All you are doing by leading with a caustic statement is putting some people - who you otherwise might be able to convince - off reading the rest of your content. The others who read because of the opening salvo didn't need convincing anyway.

ShredKazoo 4y ago

>No students would attend a university run by academics, rather than run by managers. Without competitive amenities and messaging, the venture would be a failure. Any that succeeded would do so because of the academics took over ran the place like managers. Apparently the University of Austin is planning to eliminate amenities: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/another-university-of-austin-update.html https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/11/an... So I guess we'll see if you're right

matthewdgreen 4y ago

I’m sorry to hear you say this. Clearly you didn’t experience the difference it makes to have truly phenomenal teachers, particularly in advanced topics. The excellent CS professors I had as an undergrad are entirely responsible for my success, not the administration or the dorms. I do agree with you that for many applications of academia (getting a good office job using a credential) the “product” itself can be watered down into something mediocre.

jaspax 4y ago
I don't think the person you're replying to denies the importance of teachers. Rather, it's that students don't know about the quality of teaching before they get to the school and generally have little way of finding out even if they wanted to, and so other factors actually determine their decisions.
- jonahbenton 4y ago
  Thank you, yes, this exactly. Even broad measures and reviews of "teaching quality" one can consult beforehand are at best statistical and simply not predictive for the experience of any given kid.
jonahbenton 4y ago
Thanks for engaging- agree with your point about the link between the individual's perception of their own success and important academic/intellectual/mentoring relationships (as opposed to administrative). I did have that personally in some cases (and not in others) but am a consultant now who very much recognizes the importance of relationships. I have also done as much as I can to explicitly and implicitly train/encourage that sort of relationship thinking in my kids. Neverthless! I would say: a) one cannot solve for relationships as a basis for picking a specific university. They don't happen overnight, and have to be allowed to develop. And the instincts one has as to which university will be most encouraging of relationships for one's own kid- are only that. They are not reliably predictive. b) Feelings of safety for the student are super important to getting to a place where relationships can develop c) Admins in unis have much much more impact on feelings of safety than faculty. They are in effect the reason people choose a specific uni, and provide their tuition dollars. Whether kids develop relationships with faculty as a result is a downstream effect and to first approximation irrelevant to the business model d) There is an overabundance of excellent, relationship oriented faculty. They are everywhere- from community colleges up to the Stanfords and Harvards. In fact many are out there who cannot get jobs! There are also tons of assholes of course. No university has come anywhere close to solving the "no assholes" problem as it exists in the diverse and disparate minds present in their student bodies, because there are assholes in their student bodies as well! e) The most successful outcome for any given student in any given uni environment- the one you describe- is not deterministic, and complex enough to be difficult to model and guide. University management and administration exists to deliberately provide the safety and comfort contexts for those outcomes to emerge. The importance of any given faculty member in contributing to those outcomes in general is in the noise. f) This productization is not necessarily bad- in fact it is likely the case that uni experience across the whole cohort is broadly more positive than it was decades ago. Is it (much) more expensive? Sure. Could it yet be further cost optimized? Of course. Does it maybe emphasize the mean and reduce higher end outcomes at the margin? Maybe. Even if so, to my eyes, fwiw, that's more democratic. There will always be superstars. They should not be the only success cases. Cheers, thanks again.

plaguepilled 4y ago

To be honest, this is an upsetting mentality. Any reason for your extremely low opinion of academics?