4 ms·

The underlying current I see is the continued degradation of the reputation of universities. I am of the age where more and more aspects of society become laid

The underlying current I see is the continued degradation of the reputation of universities. I am of the age where more and more aspects of society become laid bare, I'm a bit slower than most. So I'm not sure if higher ed was always this nakedly bankrupt due to bad incentives, or if it has genuinely degraded substantially. I tend to think, as with most things, a bit of both. MBAs have invaded the university managerial class for the unquestioned negative effects, and financialization has reached the ivory tower, but these similar "drive to publish/grant" has been referenced by my direct or tangentially related close relatives for decades who worked in higher ed (one long term evolutionary psych tenured, one tenured physicist, two as adjuncts/grad students/researchers that left to be IT people). 5-7 people or so? I meet the minimum sample size for a psych paper! (ducks the incoming rain of shoes from psychologists) But I think there's value even in specious science. At least they are turning over the rocks, even if it's shadowed in bad statistics atop surveys. Each social discipline has a different angle into social studies that I find useful in some manner, a sort of zeitgeist long-run calculus that may drive us forward.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Universities have been absolutely decimated. The MBAs have laid waste them. I got out after 30 years as a professor because it's got to the point that they're just actually not fit places for teaching, learning and research. They're a very canny racket. Do I hate "universities" or badmouth them? Absolutely not. I wish I knew how to repair and rescue these treasured institutions. As for fringe sciences, I always believed that institutions like universities are precisely responsible for protecting humanities and marginal discourse. Fat chance these days :)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > The MBAs have laid waste them. How did the MBAs turn these non-profit institutions, with missions to develop and disseminate knowledge, into seeming profit-seeking organizations? What do they say the point of the revenue is? What is their argument for it?
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    Don't think they need an argument. That's the nature of the beast. It's not about argument or logic or reasons. That's why professors and scientists are helpless against it. I think about Heidegger (of whom I'm a reader), and Chomsky (who infuriates me, but I like). Was Martin Heidegger a Nazi? How could such deep and valuable philosophy come from someone who was aligned with a bunch of genocidal bourgeois thugs? Noam Chomsky told us the answer. Academics and intellectuals are the worst of cowards, says Chomsky. They will always side with power in the end. Heidegger chose self preservation. He wanted to stay in his job and be able to write philosophy, nothing more. Some of the people I was a freshman with are now deans and vice-chancellors. Those I'm still friends with say they wish they could be like me - crazy and authentic but poor. I tell them to their faces that they sold out, but I'd love their salary. They say, it's not worth it. At least we can still laugh together. What happened over the decades between 1990 and now is that, one by one, good people caved in to what they believed was "inevitable". They were browbeaten or manipulated into the rationale of "markets and industry". They put aside the effort of real thought, principles and taking the harder road. They gave up on the students. Each time I walk back into a university it feels a little colder. A bit more Fascist. More fear and loathing. Not sure what I am saying really, other than intelligence is not enough to resist evil.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Hey - you did the right thing, and IMHO no amount of money is worth doing otherwise, and I agree with your assesment of the others. This is no trivial debate of a theoretical principle; I hate to say everything is at stake, but we can't hide from it. You're the first person I've found who has given me an inside view and some explanation. How hearbreaking. But our ideas are better ideas - there is no comparison; theirs are almost childish. Look at the societies built by them and by ignorance. We have the power, we just need to use it. If you don't mind me asking, a related issue weighs heavily: What happened to postmodernism in academia? I know it was politicized in the broader world (by people not knowing what it meant and using postmodern arguments), but I assumed enough in academia would know better. But it doesn't seem that way. Several years ago I ate lunch with a few faculty from various schools and was talking to one whose dissertation had been on an iconic postmodern writer. I mentioned reading one of that writer's books recently; my friend formed an embarassed expression and said quietly to me, 'I don't read that kind of thing anymore'. :o (Nothing of that writer could offend contemporary sensibilities.) It's important to me because, it seems to me, postmodernism provides almost everything needed for these contemporary problems - distrust of power, ultimate distrust of ego and megalomania, the tools, etc. I've made an effort to remove myself from the madness and, using those tools, it all seems straightforward and transparent to me. Yet even postmodernism's strongest proponants seem to have abandoned it; why? They have unilaterially disarmed - and what have they replaced it with? Have we simply laid down our arms, as encouraged by an enemy as they march forward? Edit: I should say that I am reaching just a little in my knowledge of postmodernism, which I never specifically studied (I never read a History of Postmodern Thought, etc.). So hopefully I'm not misapplying it in places.
wolverine876 3y ago
> I am of the age where more and more aspects of society become laid bare, I'm a bit slower than most. So I'm not sure if higher ed was always this nakedly bankrupt due to bad incentives, or if it has genuinely degraded substantially. Maybe it's neither; you're assuming the degradation is not a matter of perception, but some underlying reality. Cui bono - who benefits from that perception? It seems to me, the same people who benefit from destroying every institution that stands in their way - education, all scholarship, government, journalism, etc. In fact, if we apply the tools we learn in higher education, IMHO the situation is clearly a matter of perception. (All human institutions are flawed; a common approach of sophists is just to find the flaws in the institution they want to tear down.)

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Universities have been absolutely decimated. The MBAs have laid waste them. I got out after 30 years as a professor because it's got to the point that they're just actually not fit places for teaching, learning and research. They're a very canny racket. Do I hate "universities" or badmouth them? Absolutely not. I wish I knew how to repair and rescue these treasured institutions. As for fringe sciences, I always believed that institutions like universities are precisely responsible for protecting humanities and marginal discourse. Fat chance these days :)

wolverine876 3y ago
> The MBAs have laid waste them. How did the MBAs turn these non-profit institutions, with missions to develop and disseminate knowledge, into seeming profit-seeking organizations? What do they say the point of the revenue is? What is their argument for it?
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Don't think they need an argument. That's the nature of the beast. It's not about argument or logic or reasons. That's why professors and scientists are helpless against it. I think about Heidegger (of whom I'm a reader), and Chomsky (who infuriates me, but I like). Was Martin Heidegger a Nazi? How could such deep and valuable philosophy come from someone who was aligned with a bunch of genocidal bourgeois thugs? Noam Chomsky told us the answer. Academics and intellectuals are the worst of cowards, says Chomsky. They will always side with power in the end. Heidegger chose self preservation. He wanted to stay in his job and be able to write philosophy, nothing more. Some of the people I was a freshman with are now deans and vice-chancellors. Those I'm still friends with say they wish they could be like me - crazy and authentic but poor. I tell them to their faces that they sold out, but I'd love their salary. They say, it's not worth it. At least we can still laugh together. What happened over the decades between 1990 and now is that, one by one, good people caved in to what they believed was "inevitable". They were browbeaten or manipulated into the rationale of "markets and industry". They put aside the effort of real thought, principles and taking the harder road. They gave up on the students. Each time I walk back into a university it feels a little colder. A bit more Fascist. More fear and loathing. Not sure what I am saying really, other than intelligence is not enough to resist evil.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Hey - you did the right thing, and IMHO no amount of money is worth doing otherwise, and I agree with your assesment of the others. This is no trivial debate of a theoretical principle; I hate to say everything is at stake, but we can't hide from it. You're the first person I've found who has given me an inside view and some explanation. How hearbreaking. But our ideas are better ideas - there is no comparison; theirs are almost childish. Look at the societies built by them and by ignorance. We have the power, we just need to use it. If you don't mind me asking, a related issue weighs heavily: What happened to postmodernism in academia? I know it was politicized in the broader world (by people not knowing what it meant and using postmodern arguments), but I assumed enough in academia would know better. But it doesn't seem that way. Several years ago I ate lunch with a few faculty from various schools and was talking to one whose dissertation had been on an iconic postmodern writer. I mentioned reading one of that writer's books recently; my friend formed an embarassed expression and said quietly to me, 'I don't read that kind of thing anymore'. :o (Nothing of that writer could offend contemporary sensibilities.) It's important to me because, it seems to me, postmodernism provides almost everything needed for these contemporary problems - distrust of power, ultimate distrust of ego and megalomania, the tools, etc. I've made an effort to remove myself from the madness and, using those tools, it all seems straightforward and transparent to me. Yet even postmodernism's strongest proponants seem to have abandoned it; why? They have unilaterially disarmed - and what have they replaced it with? Have we simply laid down our arms, as encouraged by an enemy as they march forward? Edit: I should say that I am reaching just a little in my knowledge of postmodernism, which I never specifically studied (I never read a History of Postmodern Thought, etc.). So hopefully I'm not misapplying it in places.

wolverine876 3y ago

> I am of the age where more and more aspects of society become laid bare, I'm a bit slower than most. So I'm not sure if higher ed was always this nakedly bankrupt due to bad incentives, or if it has genuinely degraded substantially. Maybe it's neither; you're assuming the degradation is not a matter of perception, but some underlying reality. Cui bono - who benefits from that perception? It seems to me, the same people who benefit from destroying every institution that stands in their way - education, all scholarship, government, journalism, etc. In fact, if we apply the tools we learn in higher education, IMHO the situation is clearly a matter of perception. (All human institutions are flawed; a common approach of sophists is just to find the flaws in the institution they want to tear down.)