Another step in the right direction for higher education would be to increase the liberal arts requirements for science and engineering majors and the science and technology requirements for liberal arts majors. Liberal arts majors should, for example, graduate with an understanding of basic statistics and the scientific method. Engineering and science majors should not have to go to graduate school to learn how to write a complete sentence and a coherent paragraph.
Interesting discussion, but some of your facts are wrong. I disagree that the 'The typical professor publishes a tiny number of articles in their entire career, sometimes as little as one.'
Not in any university I've ever been associated with. You need an average of a paper a year in the Humanities and Social Sciences, continuously, at least until you reach full professor--seven to fourteen years, or more. In the sciences the numbers are much higher. For some humanities a book can replace several articles. And you won't get a raise unless you keep that rate up, even after you make Full.
Most professors I know, and whose CV's I've read, have at least fifty or so by they time they retire.
My experience includes flagship state universities and second level universities in several other states.
Another suggestion: Rethink the four-year residential campus model. Last I looked at the University of Oregon tuition and fee schedules, the cost of living (on campus) was twice the cost of learning (net of financial aid). Reducing the time spent on campus (e.g. to the last two years, with the first two at community colleges and satellite locations) could help to reduce costs substantially — perhaps to the level that states could again afford free or nearly free tuition.
Frankly, the solution for professors is not to pay more of them more, but to pay few of them more. Most colleges do not have sufficient scale or resources to offer credible, attractive majors or education in a number of core areas (like history, or economics, or literature, or anthropology, or biology, or chemistry). Subscale or underresourced colleges should use or pool online resources to reward superstar lecturers (not superstar publishers) and permit graduate student TAs to run discussion sections in local areas, permitting students (as well as TAs) to live and learn at or near home. One-on-one interaction with profs is completely overrated at the undergraduate level, and to the extent people want it, you could have Zoom office hours.
The proposal for how you're going to pay for all this doesn't seem to be very well developed. Soak the rich? Sure, but there are other things we could be paying for with that money apart from higher education. Health care would be one. K-12 would be another. Why exactly should we prioritize the top 3rd of the population with all these newfound riches? It's notable that European countries with far higher taxes have much worse university systems than the US. And this is because they don't pump as much money into them. Like it or not, there is a tradeoff.
I appreciate the solutionizing instead of the more common just criticizing. However, I do see some problems. Screw tenure and change everything to employment contract and at will employment. Why do educators deserve some permanent job security status from butt-in-seat time when this does not exist for any other profession?
I do agree with getting rid of the professor assistants and get the professors back to teaching and teaching them how to be better teachers... and firing those that don't do it well. I also agree that we should cut the administrative staff of these schools SIGNIFICANTLY.
But then how do we get these things done.
I think a better path forward is for the government benefits to schools be based on two metrics, one is the cost of tuition (the lower the cost of tuition, the greater the government assistance) and the other is a measure of graduation rates and student outcomes in their next step in life... but with the final goal being economic self-sufficiency. Keep it simple... what is the percent of graduates to admissions, and what is the income level of graduates 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after graduation. Have some control for income relative to the market for certain careers. For example, if the school cranks out engineers, the income would be higher than say for a liberal arts school.
This isn't a big stretch given what the federal government already spend in programs to create and retain jobs, and how those jobs are counted and measured.
Instead of new rules trying to push a rope to get reforms done, there needs to be incentives for the schools to pull themselves to a better model.
And hell no to tax increases. There is already enough government subsidies going to higher learning. It just needs to be redirected.
Lastly, I would implement a program to replace grade school to high school teachers with college students to be tutors (you could get 4 or more part time tutors for the cost of a teacher), have bigger classes and more online classes especially for common subjects. Why does every school need algebra teachers.... better to record the common lessons with high-end production quality connected to a tech-enabled computer lesson application that tracks as a school-of-one presented by a top-level charismatic and engaging virtual teacher and play it in the classroom with on-site teachers and tutors that help the students get it so they can do their homework and pass the tests. The college students get some cash to help with their college costs, and also get a better education in the subjects they tutor the kids in.
Whether the author is technically correct in writing that "the number of four year institutions, not counting for-profits, has actually gone up" over the past 10-15 years can be argued, depending on what time frame he is using. But either way, it is badly misleading. The numbers of institutions and students are both currently declining. The number of four year public institutions has dropped by 400, or about 13%, since 2013, and enrollment in public four year institutions has been dropping since 2010. Moreover, in most state university systems, the flagship schools - like UMich, or Ohio State - have been steady or growing, while second tier schools are seeing widespread enrollment drops. Private non-profit four year institutions have been steady, but at least anecdotally, that reflects the increase in denominational institutions. Given the demographic trends in the US, it will get worse. Any analysis of the future of higher education needs to recognize, rather than pooh-pooh this reality.
Another step in the right direction for higher education would be to increase the liberal arts requirements for science and engineering majors and the science and technology requirements for liberal arts majors. Liberal arts majors should, for example, graduate with an understanding of basic statistics and the scientific method. Engineering and science majors should not have to go to graduate school to learn how to write a complete sentence and a coherent paragraph.
Interesting discussion, but some of your facts are wrong. I disagree that the 'The typical professor publishes a tiny number of articles in their entire career, sometimes as little as one.'
Not in any university I've ever been associated with. You need an average of a paper a year in the Humanities and Social Sciences, continuously, at least until you reach full professor--seven to fourteen years, or more. In the sciences the numbers are much higher. For some humanities a book can replace several articles. And you won't get a raise unless you keep that rate up, even after you make Full.
Most professors I know, and whose CV's I've read, have at least fifty or so by they time they retire.
My experience includes flagship state universities and second level universities in several other states.
Another suggestion: Rethink the four-year residential campus model. Last I looked at the University of Oregon tuition and fee schedules, the cost of living (on campus) was twice the cost of learning (net of financial aid). Reducing the time spent on campus (e.g. to the last two years, with the first two at community colleges and satellite locations) could help to reduce costs substantially — perhaps to the level that states could again afford free or nearly free tuition.
Frankly, the solution for professors is not to pay more of them more, but to pay few of them more. Most colleges do not have sufficient scale or resources to offer credible, attractive majors or education in a number of core areas (like history, or economics, or literature, or anthropology, or biology, or chemistry). Subscale or underresourced colleges should use or pool online resources to reward superstar lecturers (not superstar publishers) and permit graduate student TAs to run discussion sections in local areas, permitting students (as well as TAs) to live and learn at or near home. One-on-one interaction with profs is completely overrated at the undergraduate level, and to the extent people want it, you could have Zoom office hours.
The proposal for how you're going to pay for all this doesn't seem to be very well developed. Soak the rich? Sure, but there are other things we could be paying for with that money apart from higher education. Health care would be one. K-12 would be another. Why exactly should we prioritize the top 3rd of the population with all these newfound riches? It's notable that European countries with far higher taxes have much worse university systems than the US. And this is because they don't pump as much money into them. Like it or not, there is a tradeoff.
I appreciate the solutionizing instead of the more common just criticizing. However, I do see some problems. Screw tenure and change everything to employment contract and at will employment. Why do educators deserve some permanent job security status from butt-in-seat time when this does not exist for any other profession?
I do agree with getting rid of the professor assistants and get the professors back to teaching and teaching them how to be better teachers... and firing those that don't do it well. I also agree that we should cut the administrative staff of these schools SIGNIFICANTLY.
But then how do we get these things done.
I think a better path forward is for the government benefits to schools be based on two metrics, one is the cost of tuition (the lower the cost of tuition, the greater the government assistance) and the other is a measure of graduation rates and student outcomes in their next step in life... but with the final goal being economic self-sufficiency. Keep it simple... what is the percent of graduates to admissions, and what is the income level of graduates 1, 2, 3 and 4 years after graduation. Have some control for income relative to the market for certain careers. For example, if the school cranks out engineers, the income would be higher than say for a liberal arts school.
This isn't a big stretch given what the federal government already spend in programs to create and retain jobs, and how those jobs are counted and measured.
Instead of new rules trying to push a rope to get reforms done, there needs to be incentives for the schools to pull themselves to a better model.
And hell no to tax increases. There is already enough government subsidies going to higher learning. It just needs to be redirected.
Lastly, I would implement a program to replace grade school to high school teachers with college students to be tutors (you could get 4 or more part time tutors for the cost of a teacher), have bigger classes and more online classes especially for common subjects. Why does every school need algebra teachers.... better to record the common lessons with high-end production quality connected to a tech-enabled computer lesson application that tracks as a school-of-one presented by a top-level charismatic and engaging virtual teacher and play it in the classroom with on-site teachers and tutors that help the students get it so they can do their homework and pass the tests. The college students get some cash to help with their college costs, and also get a better education in the subjects they tutor the kids in.
Whether the author is technically correct in writing that "the number of four year institutions, not counting for-profits, has actually gone up" over the past 10-15 years can be argued, depending on what time frame he is using. But either way, it is badly misleading. The numbers of institutions and students are both currently declining. The number of four year public institutions has dropped by 400, or about 13%, since 2013, and enrollment in public four year institutions has been dropping since 2010. Moreover, in most state university systems, the flagship schools - like UMich, or Ohio State - have been steady or growing, while second tier schools are seeing widespread enrollment drops. Private non-profit four year institutions have been steady, but at least anecdotally, that reflects the increase in denominational institutions. Given the demographic trends in the US, it will get worse. Any analysis of the future of higher education needs to recognize, rather than pooh-pooh this reality.