3 ms·

This conference realignment is obviously a bad outcome. The leaders of the universities and American academia are delivering very poor results: education is too

This conference realignment is obviously a bad outcome. The leaders of the universities and American academia are delivering very poor results: education is too expensive, academic freedom is limited by outsiders, and now this. What good do the conference realignments do for anyone? Who is happy or better off? The Big 10, in particular, used to be both an athletic association and an academic one, sharing resources between their members, (almost) all AAU members (leading research universities). This year they had the chance to add Stanford and Cal to the academic association, and share their resources. And they turned them down, because the Bay Area college football market isn't big enough. The story I read said Fox Sports, the Big 10's main broadcast partner, made the decision. They had the chance to add Stanford and Cal to their academic association, and said no - if you restrict yourself to universities which compete in major college sports, you will never get a better opportunity. For generations, college football avoided this absurdity. Long ago, maybe eight years ago, there was a crazy notion of people working together, cooperating for a greater good. Why do that? Because it was good, and because they could accomplish more by working together than by acting in anarchy. People now embrace law-of-the-jungle anarchy like it's a rebellious trend, instead of just well-established idiocy. The NCAA members could work together to make it better; they could arrange conferences so that they work for everyone, without students flying across the country; but what was the norm for generations is now so obviously absurd that people roll their eyes at me.

shermantanktop 3y ago
What was the norm for generations was and has always been laughable. College football has been a cancer for academia, at first fed by the deep pockets of alumni who were the real audience. The business side grew up and realized that tv rights were an even bigger prize, but along the way somehow failed to recognize that they were greasing the wheels of their money machine with the distant hopes of a pro career held by academically underqualified students with athletic gifts, most of whom either fail to get a diploma, succeed in getting long term injuries, or both. The university priorities get turned upside down and season-winning coaches win the compensation lottery too. It’s disgusting and always has been. Gooooo fighting whatevers!
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I agree about the long-term problems (and I'm very happy the students are finally getting paid, and they should get normal market salaries), but it's still much worse now. It's too easy to say, 'everything in the world in imperfect, and therefore all the same'.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    Fair enough. I don't care about college football, and I see it from a distance. That might give me a less accurate perspective, or a more accurate one, depending. But large-scale situations result from norms, incentives and behaviors. Looks like the incentives are about the same, while the behaviors are now worse and are causing norms to drift. We can shame people into better behavior in the short term, but the incentives are still there.
ehnto 3y ago
As a thought, faith has been lost in institutions, and society in general, and rightly so in many respects. But I think instead of feeling agency to fix the issues, people feel they have to either capitulate, break the system or work outside it entirely. I feel we forget, or don't teach, the fact that we built all of this, and for the purpose of our own benefit. Society and institutions have become antagonists in people's minds, rather than the enabler and provider that it is supposed to be.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > faith has been lost in institutions, and society in general, and rightly so in many respects. But I think instead of feeling agency to fix the issues, people feel they have to either capitulate, break the system or work outside it entirely. Yes, but it's bizarre to feel so hopeless. In this example, it worked (and we worked) far better for decades until a few years ago.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Broadly speaking, it is illegal to fix things. If there is a problem that could be fixed with industrial processes, it is a common requirement that any attempt cause no pollution and be perfectly safe. If there is a problem in the medical system any attempt at a solution must be proven to be safe and effective. If there is a social problem, any scandal will have the government move in to license and regulate it. Something like 2 or 3 accidents ended the entire nuclear industry through safety regulation even though we then sailed into an energy crisis that has so far been much worse than a dozen nuclear disasters. It is obvious why the system is tending in this direction, but the problem is that society is trying to achieve impossible goals. So it isn't succeeding and it has disarmed people of the agency to make improvements. My catchphrase is "everything China does to get ahead is illegal in the west". And that isn't a knock against Chinese methods. They have noticeably bettered their society in a way that the Anglosphere has not.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Yet we have been doing it successfully for generations. And then people started making up theories to explain what clearly isn't true - that we somehow can't do anything. You're just not doing anything (if you actually believe this stuff). We know exactly what to do; let's get going. > They have noticeably bettered their society in a way that the Anglosphere has not. In what way is it better to live in China? The economy there grew faster for awhile, which is the norm for successfully developing economies, but wealth and standard of living aren't at the level of the West. Why are so many in China moving to the Anglosphere these days? (I'm not wishing anything but the best for people in China, who should have freedom, self-determination, and continue to grow in prosperity.)
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Though it probably didn't factor into the Big Ten's decision to not invite Cal and Stanford, at some point their academic research cartel would end up attracting the attention of someone in government or politics that doesn't believe such a cartel serves the purpose of their research funders, primarily the US government. If Vanderbilt loses out on a grant that goes to a less appropriate research group at Nebraska simply because Vanderbilt is in the SEC while Nebraska is in the Big Ten, does that best serve the taxpayers funding the research? With Cal and Stanford in the cartel, the weight of those connections would be very heavy and hard to ignore.

shermantanktop 3y ago

What was the norm for generations was and has always been laughable. College football has been a cancer for academia, at first fed by the deep pockets of alumni who were the real audience. The business side grew up and realized that tv rights were an even bigger prize, but along the way somehow failed to recognize that they were greasing the wheels of their money machine with the distant hopes of a pro career held by academically underqualified students with athletic gifts, most of whom either fail to get a diploma, succeed in getting long term injuries, or both. The university priorities get turned upside down and season-winning coaches win the compensation lottery too. It’s disgusting and always has been. Gooooo fighting whatevers!

wolverine876 3y ago
I agree about the long-term problems (and I'm very happy the students are finally getting paid, and they should get normal market salaries), but it's still much worse now. It's too easy to say, 'everything in the world in imperfect, and therefore all the same'.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  Fair enough. I don't care about college football, and I see it from a distance. That might give me a less accurate perspective, or a more accurate one, depending. But large-scale situations result from norms, incentives and behaviors. Looks like the incentives are about the same, while the behaviors are now worse and are causing norms to drift. We can shame people into better behavior in the short term, but the incentives are still there.

ehnto 3y ago

As a thought, faith has been lost in institutions, and society in general, and rightly so in many respects. But I think instead of feeling agency to fix the issues, people feel they have to either capitulate, break the system or work outside it entirely. I feel we forget, or don't teach, the fact that we built all of this, and for the purpose of our own benefit. Society and institutions have become antagonists in people's minds, rather than the enabler and provider that it is supposed to be.

wolverine876 3y ago
> faith has been lost in institutions, and society in general, and rightly so in many respects. But I think instead of feeling agency to fix the issues, people feel they have to either capitulate, break the system or work outside it entirely. Yes, but it's bizarre to feel so hopeless. In this example, it worked (and we worked) far better for decades until a few years ago.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Broadly speaking, it is illegal to fix things. If there is a problem that could be fixed with industrial processes, it is a common requirement that any attempt cause no pollution and be perfectly safe. If there is a problem in the medical system any attempt at a solution must be proven to be safe and effective. If there is a social problem, any scandal will have the government move in to license and regulate it. Something like 2 or 3 accidents ended the entire nuclear industry through safety regulation even though we then sailed into an energy crisis that has so far been much worse than a dozen nuclear disasters. It is obvious why the system is tending in this direction, but the problem is that society is trying to achieve impossible goals. So it isn't succeeding and it has disarmed people of the agency to make improvements. My catchphrase is "everything China does to get ahead is illegal in the west". And that isn't a knock against Chinese methods. They have noticeably bettered their society in a way that the Anglosphere has not.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Yet we have been doing it successfully for generations. And then people started making up theories to explain what clearly isn't true - that we somehow can't do anything. You're just not doing anything (if you actually believe this stuff). We know exactly what to do; let's get going. > They have noticeably bettered their society in a way that the Anglosphere has not. In what way is it better to live in China? The economy there grew faster for awhile, which is the norm for successfully developing economies, but wealth and standard of living aren't at the level of the West. Why are so many in China moving to the Anglosphere these days? (I'm not wishing anything but the best for people in China, who should have freedom, self-determination, and continue to grow in prosperity.)

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Though it probably didn't factor into the Big Ten's decision to not invite Cal and Stanford, at some point their academic research cartel would end up attracting the attention of someone in government or politics that doesn't believe such a cartel serves the purpose of their research funders, primarily the US government. If Vanderbilt loses out on a grant that goes to a less appropriate research group at Nebraska simply because Vanderbilt is in the SEC while Nebraska is in the Big Ten, does that best serve the taxpayers funding the research? With Cal and Stanford in the cartel, the weight of those connections would be very heavy and hard to ignore.