5 ms·

The current Obama proposal has problems, the suggested metrics (six-year graduation rate, tuition cost and employment after graduation) are problematic and too

The current Obama proposal has problems, the suggested metrics (six-year graduation rate, tuition cost and employment after graduation) are problematic and too easily gamed. Salaries are the biggest expense at a university, you can easily cut those by shifting to more adjuncts. With the shape the academic labour market is in, that is easily done. Quality of instruction drops, but the students don't mind, they are there for credentials, not for an education. What does suffer is the idea of a university. Graduation rate is really problematic. You can fix that by watering down standards, again the students don't mind, it's more A's for everyone, they are there for credentials, but what you would really like to do is to admit more students and weed those out that can't hack it in their first year, before they are welded to the wrong career track. As for employment after graduation, look no further than third-tier law schools with their legal clinics that employ their graduates. Such places need to be shut down today.

Retric 12y ago
Instructors are not really that large of a budget item at collages. Administrative overhead has continued to grow due to a wide range of factors including such things as the new demand for IT at all schools.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Administrative overhead is growing, but you can't cut there - you need functional infrastructure. So you cut where you can, and that is at the teaching end. By the way, part of the growing infrastructure is because universities are trying to attract non-traditional students, such as first-generation students, minorities and non-Western students. You can drop a middle-class US guy into a US university, and he will do just fine. But a minority student may need tutoring (because his high school plainly sucked), someone from China will need help with cultural adjustment, and a first-generation student may not even know how to study (his family is of no help). All this is motivated by the need for more bodies paying tuition.
  - ericd 12y ago
    Are you sure that admin overhead couldn't be cut? Does the president really need to make 7 figures?
    - HarryHirsch 12y ago
      University presidents are fundraisers and marketeers. I suspect the talent pool is small, there are not that many people with good connections to donors and proven ability to attract outside money. And the need for external funds is rising. Here is a particularly lurid example, but the idea is the same everywhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/a-quick-descent-for-cecilia-chang-dean-at-st-johns.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/a-quick-descent-f...
      - Bahamut 12y ago
        Wow...reading that story and seeing that picture, I think I might have gambled on the same table as her on blackjack once about 6-7 years ago, either in Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods (I forget). That is chilling.
  - wtbob 12y ago
    > Administrative overhead is growing, but you can't cut there - you need functional infrastructure. A college needs gardeners, programmers, network admins and secretaries; does it need Vice Presidents of Student Diversity and football coaches?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Football coaches pay for themselves. As for vice presidents of student diversity, I think they get a bad rap. As college expands to include more than just the children of the rich, you need additional support infrastructure for students: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-gr...
      - 12y ago
yummyfajitas 12y ago
The obvious solution here is to separate education from credentialing. Have the government create uniform credentialing standards and allow anyone to attempt to achieve them for a small fee - e.g., $250 to take the exam for "US Govt. English B.A.". Quality of instruction drops... How do you know this? What does suffer is the idea of a university. Why should anyone (besides people looking to become non-adjunct professors) care?
- caseysoftware 12y ago
  There are already accreditation groups such as ABET that review and score programs - http://www.abet.org/about-abet/ http://www.abet.org/about-abet/ There's absolutely no reason to get the government into a system that already works.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    The government is already involved in determining which groups are allowed to accredit colleges. Those accreditation groups tend to require things that prevent a college from simply selling the credential without the education. The fact that the system already "works" does not mean it cannot be improved. Also, if you want to argue that credentials and education should NOT be separated, should we merge them in cases where they are currently separated? E.g., should stock brokers be required to go to Series 7 school before taking the Series 7 exam? If not, why not?
  - madengr 12y ago
    I agree. Although ABET does not score, you are either accredited or not.
loser777 12y ago
I'm not sure hiring more adjuncts would hurt the quality of (undergraduate) teaching. In my own experience adjuncts were far more dedicated to teaching than tenured professors who focus on their research without caring how low their teaching ratings sink.
- trop 12y ago
  This may be superficially true, but the long-term health of the institution and the educational system are not served. Hiring underpaid adjuncts as teaching labor may allow for some good classes--either through the adjuncts' idealism or their hunger to keep their job--but it's only a sort of local maximum. Those good adjuncts came up through a system which valued teaching & knowledge. It's not clear the succeeding adjunct-taught generations will maintain this faith in their fields. See the case study of Schlitz in the 70s (e.g. http://www.beerbusinessunplugged.com/?p=130 http://www.beerbusinessunplugged.com/?p=130 for a short version): desperate businesspeople go for short term gains by cannibalizing their traditional ways of making things.
barry-cotter 12y ago
>Salaries are the biggest expense at a university, you can easily cut those by shifting to more adjuncts. With the shape the academic labour market is in, that is easily done. Quality of instruction drops, but the students don't mind, they are there for credentials, not for an education. (Emphasis not in original) Citation needed. I can see why academics would like me to believe that but whether it's true or not is an empirical question, not one that's immediately obvious on its face.

Retric 12y ago

Instructors are not really that large of a budget item at collages. Administrative overhead has continued to grow due to a wide range of factors including such things as the new demand for IT at all schools.

HarryHirsch 12y ago
Administrative overhead is growing, but you can't cut there - you need functional infrastructure. So you cut where you can, and that is at the teaching end. By the way, part of the growing infrastructure is because universities are trying to attract non-traditional students, such as first-generation students, minorities and non-Western students. You can drop a middle-class US guy into a US university, and he will do just fine. But a minority student may need tutoring (because his high school plainly sucked), someone from China will need help with cultural adjustment, and a first-generation student may not even know how to study (his family is of no help). All this is motivated by the need for more bodies paying tuition.
- ericd 12y ago
  Are you sure that admin overhead couldn't be cut? Does the president really need to make 7 figures?
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    University presidents are fundraisers and marketeers. I suspect the talent pool is small, there are not that many people with good connections to donors and proven ability to attract outside money. And the need for external funds is rising. Here is a particularly lurid example, but the idea is the same everywhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/a-quick-descent-for-cecilia-chang-dean-at-st-johns.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/a-quick-descent-f...
    - Bahamut 12y ago
      Wow...reading that story and seeing that picture, I think I might have gambled on the same table as her on blackjack once about 6-7 years ago, either in Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods (I forget). That is chilling.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > Administrative overhead is growing, but you can't cut there - you need functional infrastructure. A college needs gardeners, programmers, network admins and secretaries; does it need Vice Presidents of Student Diversity and football coaches?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Football coaches pay for themselves. As for vice presidents of student diversity, I think they get a bad rap. As college expands to include more than just the children of the rich, you need additional support infrastructure for students: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-gr...
    - 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

The obvious solution here is to separate education from credentialing. Have the government create uniform credentialing standards and allow anyone to attempt to achieve them for a small fee - e.g., $250 to take the exam for "US Govt. English B.A.". Quality of instruction drops... How do you know this? What does suffer is the idea of a university. Why should anyone (besides people looking to become non-adjunct professors) care?

caseysoftware 12y ago
There are already accreditation groups such as ABET that review and score programs - http://www.abet.org/about-abet/ http://www.abet.org/about-abet/ There's absolutely no reason to get the government into a system that already works.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  The government is already involved in determining which groups are allowed to accredit colleges. Those accreditation groups tend to require things that prevent a college from simply selling the credential without the education. The fact that the system already "works" does not mean it cannot be improved. Also, if you want to argue that credentials and education should NOT be separated, should we merge them in cases where they are currently separated? E.g., should stock brokers be required to go to Series 7 school before taking the Series 7 exam? If not, why not?
- madengr 12y ago
  I agree. Although ABET does not score, you are either accredited or not.

loser777 12y ago

I'm not sure hiring more adjuncts would hurt the quality of (undergraduate) teaching. In my own experience adjuncts were far more dedicated to teaching than tenured professors who focus on their research without caring how low their teaching ratings sink.

trop 12y ago
This may be superficially true, but the long-term health of the institution and the educational system are not served. Hiring underpaid adjuncts as teaching labor may allow for some good classes--either through the adjuncts' idealism or their hunger to keep their job--but it's only a sort of local maximum. Those good adjuncts came up through a system which valued teaching & knowledge. It's not clear the succeeding adjunct-taught generations will maintain this faith in their fields. See the case study of Schlitz in the 70s (e.g. http://www.beerbusinessunplugged.com/?p=130 http://www.beerbusinessunplugged.com/?p=130 for a short version): desperate businesspeople go for short term gains by cannibalizing their traditional ways of making things.

barry-cotter 12y ago

>Salaries are the biggest expense at a university, you can easily cut those by shifting to more adjuncts. With the shape the academic labour market is in, that is easily done. Quality of instruction drops, but the students don't mind, they are there for credentials, not for an education. (Emphasis not in original) Citation needed. I can see why academics would like me to believe that but whether it's true or not is an empirical question, not one that's immediately obvious on its face.