8 ms·

Trapped in the Ivory Basement (2021)

58 points by luu 3y ago

yashasolutions 3y ago
article from 2021. I suppose it is still relevant but could get some date in the title.
thriftwy 3y ago
That's the flip side of academic freedom. Once you trust a group of people with self-governance, they would invariably use it to enrich the insiders at the expense of outsiders. Just look up how a Greek democratic poleis worked. That's probably a compromise you would willing to make for a many centuries out, internationally ranked universities. But petty colleges should be ran more like service sector. Having said that, it's quite possible that a single mother of two, working in service sector, is simply untenable without extra help coming from the outside.
- aragilar 3y ago
  Except it's not self-governance, the changes have happened when academics have been replaced by administrators. If instead education providers were required to stop abusing the use of casuals (which new rules in AU are starting to introduce), we'd get better outcomes for everyone (students and teachers alike).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
betaby 3y ago
At the same time tuitions are not cheap at all - money burned on administrative and questionable activities.
red_admiral 3y ago
This kind of thing is arguably the real injustice in higher education - or "structural oppression" if you prefer. At least half the other college diversity initiatives are at best smokescreens to hide any discussion of how non-tenured faculty are treated.
josh_fyi 3y ago
Why do these teachers take on such a life? You could say that the long-timers were fooled, they are now in too deep, and can't start a new career, but those deciding whether to do a PhD must know what they are facing, no? This sort of article has been going around for many years.
- sandspar 3y ago
  Academia is one of the very few places where you can do research of your choice. If your theory is like a bug in your brain then you have few other options.
  - jnwatson 3y ago
    One doesn't need a professorship to do research, or go to conferences, or publish papers. There are plenty of folks that do private research on their own time. This is the right choice for the vast majority of folks that have the "bug".
    - ghaff 3y ago
      As someone who was very into photography as an undergrad and observing the reality of the profession for almost all photographers, I basically made the almost certainly wise decision to get a "real" job and do my photography as a hobby.
    - linguae 3y ago
      This is true, but what makes academia attractive is the idea of being paid to do research. One doesn’t have to be in the NBA to play basketball, but there’s a world of difference between playing at the local park versus being on the Golden State Warriors. Of course, the reality of research careers is quite different from the pursuit of research itself. They’re quite competitive, especially in fields that lack a lucrative industry, and there are many restrictions on freedom that many people aren’t aware of until they actually become researchers. I learned these realities the hard way, and I’m in the process of restructuring my life to where I can pursue research as a hobby rather than as a paid profession. Of course, the hardest part about pursuing research as a hobby is making a living outside of it. If a person who wants to be a researcher is aware of this reality, then he or she could prepare by developing some marketable skill, product, or service and use that to make a living while devoting time outside of money-making to research. However, for those deep in research or academia who feel trapped in postdocs, adjunct positions, or other unfulfilling positions but who spent their who careers preparing for an elusive permanent research job without developing other skills, it can be a very painful transition, even if in the long run stubbornness results in an even more painful outcome.
pfdietz 3y ago
I had discussions with my children about this issue before they even went to college. The one that went on to an advanced degree decided she'd rather be an MD than a PhD. It's much more rewarding, and even if you want to do medical research (she didn't) a dual degree is better than just a PhD.
boring-alterego 3y ago
Community colleges do a great job. I went to one before the 4 year university for electrical engineering and gave me a much better foundation than those that went straight to the 4 year uni.
pc_edwin 3y ago
The elephant in the room is the modern collectivist initiative of college/higher education for the common man. I don't how people don't see it, especially the HN crowd.. This article is shows only one of the smaller downstream consequences, it gets much worse. We are talking an entire generation indebted by trillions, entire areas of the economy with staff shortages, "highly credentialed" people working unrelated jobs etc etc Colleges we always meant to a niche entity. Huge inequalities were not just optional downsides, rather they were structurally essential. Most people shouldn't go to college, most phds and professorhips shouldn't exist and most colleges shouldnt.. This is not a luddite take, i think these things actually should 100x but not like the way it is right now. The issue is socialism. Government/non-profit funded high education should only be afforded to a very small subset of the population. The gifted. Everything else should be private and amongst them most should be treated like trades/apprenticeship. These ideas seem radical/ridiculous but most of what we think of high education these days are a consequences of extremely silly post WWII socialist policies. I don't even have a massive problem with government funding either, this can be effective but not socalism, nothing like what we have now. More like military research during the WWWII and the early period of the cold war.
- steve_gh 3y ago
  I don't think what uou are describing is socialism. You are talking about a market economy where organisations take risks in giving people loans for education. Your alternative (restricting the supply of higher education) based on central planning sounds remarkably like the Soviet model.
  - pc_edwin 3y ago
    Thats the thing, there is no risk. No free market entity is going to write off tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on pretty much most 18 year olds. Its almost entirely backed by the government in most western nations aka socialism. In my alternative, we will eliminate government assistance for higher education almost entirely with the exception of highly gifted. Yes this is central planning but it is almost nothing compared to the monstrocity we have today.

58 points by luu 3y ago

article from 2021. I suppose it is still relevant but could get some date in the title.

That's the flip side of academic freedom. Once you trust a group of people with self-governance, they would invariably use it to enrich the insiders at the expense of outsiders. Just look up how a Greek democratic poleis worked. That's probably a compromise you would willing to make for a many centuries out, internationally ranked universities. But petty colleges should be ran more like service sector. Having said that, it's quite possible that a single mother of two, working in service sector, is simply untenable without extra help coming from the outside.

aragilar 3y ago
Except it's not self-governance, the changes have happened when academics have been replaced by administrators. If instead education providers were required to stop abusing the use of casuals (which new rules in AU are starting to introduce), we'd get better outcomes for everyone (students and teachers alike).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

betaby 3y ago

At the same time tuitions are not cheap at all - money burned on administrative and questionable activities.

red_admiral 3y ago

This kind of thing is arguably the real injustice in higher education - or "structural oppression" if you prefer. At least half the other college diversity initiatives are at best smokescreens to hide any discussion of how non-tenured faculty are treated.

josh_fyi 3y ago

Why do these teachers take on such a life? You could say that the long-timers were fooled, they are now in too deep, and can't start a new career, but those deciding whether to do a PhD must know what they are facing, no? This sort of article has been going around for many years.

sandspar 3y ago
Academia is one of the very few places where you can do research of your choice. If your theory is like a bug in your brain then you have few other options.
- jnwatson 3y ago
  One doesn't need a professorship to do research, or go to conferences, or publish papers. There are plenty of folks that do private research on their own time. This is the right choice for the vast majority of folks that have the "bug".
  - ghaff 3y ago
    As someone who was very into photography as an undergrad and observing the reality of the profession for almost all photographers, I basically made the almost certainly wise decision to get a "real" job and do my photography as a hobby.
  - linguae 3y ago
    This is true, but what makes academia attractive is the idea of being paid to do research. One doesn’t have to be in the NBA to play basketball, but there’s a world of difference between playing at the local park versus being on the Golden State Warriors. Of course, the reality of research careers is quite different from the pursuit of research itself. They’re quite competitive, especially in fields that lack a lucrative industry, and there are many restrictions on freedom that many people aren’t aware of until they actually become researchers. I learned these realities the hard way, and I’m in the process of restructuring my life to where I can pursue research as a hobby rather than as a paid profession. Of course, the hardest part about pursuing research as a hobby is making a living outside of it. If a person who wants to be a researcher is aware of this reality, then he or she could prepare by developing some marketable skill, product, or service and use that to make a living while devoting time outside of money-making to research. However, for those deep in research or academia who feel trapped in postdocs, adjunct positions, or other unfulfilling positions but who spent their who careers preparing for an elusive permanent research job without developing other skills, it can be a very painful transition, even if in the long run stubbornness results in an even more painful outcome.

pfdietz 3y ago

I had discussions with my children about this issue before they even went to college. The one that went on to an advanced degree decided she'd rather be an MD than a PhD. It's much more rewarding, and even if you want to do medical research (she didn't) a dual degree is better than just a PhD.

boring-alterego 3y ago

Community colleges do a great job. I went to one before the 4 year university for electrical engineering and gave me a much better foundation than those that went straight to the 4 year uni.

pc_edwin 3y ago

The elephant in the room is the modern collectivist initiative of college/higher education for the common man. I don't how people don't see it, especially the HN crowd.. This article is shows only one of the smaller downstream consequences, it gets much worse. We are talking an entire generation indebted by trillions, entire areas of the economy with staff shortages, "highly credentialed" people working unrelated jobs etc etc Colleges we always meant to a niche entity. Huge inequalities were not just optional downsides, rather they were structurally essential. Most people shouldn't go to college, most phds and professorhips shouldn't exist and most colleges shouldnt.. This is not a luddite take, i think these things actually should 100x but not like the way it is right now. The issue is socialism. Government/non-profit funded high education should only be afforded to a very small subset of the population. The gifted. Everything else should be private and amongst them most should be treated like trades/apprenticeship. These ideas seem radical/ridiculous but most of what we think of high education these days are a consequences of extremely silly post WWII socialist policies. I don't even have a massive problem with government funding either, this can be effective but not socalism, nothing like what we have now. More like military research during the WWWII and the early period of the cold war.

steve_gh 3y ago
I don't think what uou are describing is socialism. You are talking about a market economy where organisations take risks in giving people loans for education. Your alternative (restricting the supply of higher education) based on central planning sounds remarkably like the Soviet model.
- pc_edwin 3y ago
  Thats the thing, there is no risk. No free market entity is going to write off tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on pretty much most 18 year olds. Its almost entirely backed by the government in most western nations aka socialism. In my alternative, we will eliminate government assistance for higher education almost entirely with the exception of highly gifted. Yes this is central planning but it is almost nothing compared to the monstrocity we have today.