Rolling higher education into the shitbin thread

i know in economics there's a central clearing house style job market where every candidate and dept coordinate in one city one weekend and get it over with

some of my housemates from college were discussing this on fb. one is now an econ/applied math professor and the others were bio and pure math people, and the others were envious at the efficiency of the economics faculty job system.

there are slots to do undergrad adjuncting in remedial math, but seems to be precious little else

Just don't think this is really true. To take a good but not top-10 department, University of Illinois, here's their recent job placement info:

http://www.math.illinois.edu/GraduateProgram/doctoral-graduates.html

Lots of these people are going to industry jobs in finance or data science, and lots are going to academic postdocs (which are not adjunct instructorships.) Now you could say maybe the postdoctoral system in math just means these folks are all dumped from the academy three years after Ph.D. instead of right after?

Just googling some of those grads from 2012, who would have been on the TT market this year or last, I see Avsec has a second postdoc at Texas A&M, Butterfield is tenure-track at U Victoria, Choi I can't find, Cummins is TT at West Point, Dixit is TT at IIT-Gandhinagar, Hu is TT at Georgia Southern...

So I just don't think it makes sense to say it's a pipe dream for math Ph.D.s that they're going to get a non-adjunct faculty job; a large proportion still do.

Times Higher Education is launching a new ranking system in September, having decided that the current systems for ranking US schools is 'not fit for purpose'.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/us-college-ranking-launched-by-times-higher-education

Is anyone at NAFSA this week? I'd intended to go this year but it got nixed. Seeing that David Brooks is giving the plenary speech might mean i dodged a bullet.

https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/737541019797848066

with leaders like this the future is bright

dear god

Queens has a good anthropology department, iirc. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone wants to study it there. It looks like a gloss on market forces at work. Not unrelated:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/tuition-fees-force-students-pick-degrees-salary-prospects

That goes double (or treble) for lucrative international students.

a few theoretical premises / hypotheticals, if i may ~

1. class inequality in the US has been dramatic for some time and continues to slide toward neo-feudalism

2. as in all other prestige professions, those born into privilege are the most "marketable" and thus over-represented in academia

3. to reflect 'the world as it is', why not dispense with the marxist pretenses of our humanities departments altogether, and award college admission and professorships at birth? AP classes and SAT tests would then only be taken by the "smart" comfortable / active / rich kids, to determine where they end up at school (although sooner or later, we might want to consider fine-tuning that, too, to accord with increasing feudalism)

4. the collective sigh of relief among the children of say, the bottom 66%, realizing they're not allowed to take AP classes or SATs like their "smart" comfortable counterparts, could very well release the engines of personal industry, and get this country moving again. first, they might get off their lazy butts and start working earlier. second, instead of taking out student loans upon high school graduation, the bottom two-thirds could take out small business loans. in any event, the money the government would save no longer subsidizing the advanced educations of people not born into comfortable circumstances could then be applied to further tax cuts on the job creators, which can only benefit the less industrious classes who'd be jobhunting at younger and younger ages, a virtuous circle

5. in the short term, this would mean shutting down a ton of schools, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. another drawback would be the shrinking of the NCAA, but perhaps it's time to have basketball and football minor leagues, anyways? the college music scene would likewise shrink, but hey, the obscurer the audience the better!

xxxpost
I wonder how much the econ job market system contributes to their culture of assholishness. They gossip and backstab to rival the cast of Mean Girls: http://www.econjobrumors.com/

But that doesn't mean it's not somehow "efficient"...

What could sociology, anthropology, and history possibly have to do with the analysis of society?

i love EJMR but i think the ass-holishness on display there is just typical conservative message board trolls and doesn't reflect irl. the fact that the polisci and sociology equivalents are just as toxic kinda proves that. all the econ grad students i know are nice people who are disturbed by the stuff written there anonymously by peers

the hundred or so people i know IRL who are university faculty (most adjunct) and what they've mentioned in person or in facebook posts on the subject. Almost all are arts and humanities ppl.

So the majority of them are MFA's or MM's (or whatever the official U.S. Music Master's degree is called now) who pursued jobs in higher education partially in order to advance their careers as composers, artists, writers, etc.

I dunno, the music sessionals I've known have generally either taught a tonne of courses or done other jobs as well (mostly music lessons or some kind of performance/conducting gig but I know people who have done manual labour). I did quite a bit of temping for a while until I was in a place where I could do well enough with other teaching work. I don't necessarily think there should be a really easy ride to tenure and a six-figure salary or anything but I think the labour situation could fairly be described as exploitative in a number of places. The fact that other people are also facing exploitative conditions does not change this.

i'm not quite sure how to work it so that 'area studies' get to be saved but lately i've been feelin the crazy idea that academics should start pushing back hard against usefulness in schools, anything that's not a traditional academic subject is to be axed, banished to the vocational schools

i guess this would solve nothing tho, since aside from STEM-related fields needed to get the engineers out the door it would mean universities' revenue streams would vanish

I worry that we'd end up with a lot of musicologists who can't play.

The jump in the number of students between 1980 and now, and particularly over the last ten years, has been extraordinary and I'd guess mostly driven by people who were the first in their families to go to college or the children of first generation immigrants. Usefulness isn't just built into the political agenda, it's in the agenda of millions of families where the risk of fronting up college fees needs to be tied to demonstrable increases in conventional employment prospects. Obviously there are questions over how demonstrable those prospects remain but I can't really see much of a way back from here. Business / marketing / finance are also absolutely crucial to the international student demographic, who'll be increasingly important in the the U.S. in the future.

actually i was partly thinking of uselessness as a proxy for (the freedom for) rigorousness and student motivation (perhaps again in the freedom from certain occluding motivations). in my adjuncting adventures i've kicked around to a pretty representative range of the levels of institution in my region, had traditionally/untraditionally good/bad students at all of them, but it seems like the most poisonous combination, pedagogically, has been the ones who are only at college because they (economically) have to be, pursuing a practical major (in that mid range of the ones housed in universities, never traditionally in vocational schools) which has no real or even speculative need for anything like scientific/systematic knowledge, and are fundamentally incurious. it seems as if the traditional disciplines, trying to play the administrative numbers games, just cannot win with those students, thus just cannot win with the administrators.

this is a serious question, but, like, what do marketing majors even study

Every marketing course I've ever seen has been a combination of business fundamentals (intro to business statistics, management theory, finance, business ethics, etc), psych modules and more specific content (retail marketing, digital marketing, etc). As an undergraduate course it does often look like it has been cobbled together but there is also a fairly serious academic discipline behind it that gets fleshed out more at post-grad level and does cross over with the more traditional ideas of applied social science research.

There clearly needs to be viable, respected alternative routes for people who fundamentally don't want to be at university but feel they have no other options though. Whether that is vocational study, apprenticeships or something else, I don't know. Germany is an interesting example of a country that is arguably more 'over credentialed' than even the U.S. but still retains a strong alternative path for less academic students.

it's mean the way vocational schools and the like are under-emphasized in secondary schools. kids who aren't great at school are made to feel like society has no use for them.

even though i agree about incurious marketing students i feel like explicitly railing against 'usefulness' backfires in practice

I dunno, the music sessionals I've known have generally either taught a tonne of courses or done other jobs as well (mostly music lessons or some kind of performance/conducting gig

uh, those are all perfectly respectable. Those aren't at all the types of "wouldn't stoop to x" jobs.

It's a supply and demand problem, as has been mentioned by others in the past dozen posts. Should "we" create more economic opportunities for all the MFAs etc or should there just be less of them? And what hasn't been discussed is education for education's sake. If someone wants a Master's in Music Composition or an MFA in visual art, because it will make them a more emotionally/intellectually fulfilled person, then why shouldn't they? Why should they have to reproduce the means of production by becoming a professor or a professional artist or musician?

This is definitely tied to socioeconomic class, but, this pressure to have a career in what you studied in college feels more pronounced now than when I was in college.

given the cost of college in america, degrees are either 'investments' or luxury goods and if you get a job in your field then you avoid feeling like you bought a luxury good.

Otm

what's wrong with luxury goods?

and "cost" is relative.

nothing's wrong with them, but unlike buying a sportscar a lot of people only find that their degrees were luxury goods after they made the purchase

yeah, it's as if they told everyone that a sports car was the ticket to a well paying job and a comfortable lifestyle and then when you got home they were just lol now you can pay this off for the next 20 years except w/ the sports car you resell it but no one will buy yr diploma even from a fancy college

anything that's not a traditional academic subject is to be axed, banished to the vocational schools

Coming back to this for a moment, i do think it's at least plausible that a substantial cohort of students might, in the future, decide that a traditional academic university environment isn't the best place to learn business skills. Given the option of studying a degree-level course at a mid-to-low level college / university with little to no 'brand recognition' or studying a vocationally-orientated degree course with a theoretical path to direct employment at IBM College or the Chevron School of Management, i think a lot of people would probably lean towards the latter.

Sumsung does this reasonably successfully in Germany, Canada and the UK, typically at a lower level and in partnership with traditional colleges, but it has the potential to take a much larger segment of the market. One FTSE 100 company in the UK has launched its own stand-alone degrees rubber stamped by a trad university and aims, in the future, to have degree-awarding powers of its own.

This inevitably means the "corporatisation of higher education" and has been resisted on those grounds, and also poses a potential revenue threat to traditional universities, but it could lead to refocusing of attention.

*Samsung

at regional public schools in the u.s. there is a LOT of talk about partnerships between business—often quite local—and universities/colleges, at i know not what levels of remove in terms of money and influence. naturally businesses prefer to offload their training costs onto the taxpayers as much as possible, and lawmakers love to service business interests in politically and ideologically mutually-beneficial ways, but given how savagely lawmakers have been imposing austerity conditions on public schools i wonder just how long this can carry on before they turn things around and start letting business credential its own people to meet its needs directly, rather than using business needs serve as the standard against which supposed failures to (efficiently) educate are occurring.

London Met, one of the most commercially-focused of the new UK universities, is cutting 400 jobs, getting rid of two campus sites and aiming to reduce student numbers to 10,000.

They currently have a student to staff ratio of about 4 to 1, which seems pretty low.

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/may/31/london-university-scraps-400-jobs-and-two-campuses

Also looking to move some of their courses to blended learning.

“What we’re doing is being on the front foot responding to the policy context,” Raftery said. “We’ve got to be way more digital, have way more blended learning... that is built around complex lives, whether students are working or raising kids. This is the reality of our demographic, they’re working their way through university.”

On a similar theme:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/futurelearn-launches-first-moocs-offering-academic-credits

The courses will be free to take, but to collect the credits students will have to purchase a new form of accreditation called a certificate of achievement for each module, costing between £39 and £59 each. They would then have to complete a final assessment, costing several hundred pounds.

Sir Alan Langlands, Leeds’ vice-chancellor, argued that offering credit online could prove to be a valuable recruitment tool for campus-based courses.

“We are very conscious of the fact that, when we start recruiting next for students for 2018, many of them will have been born after the year 2000,” said Sir Alan. “I think young people are going to take a different attitude: they will want high quality, but they will also want flexibility as learners, and maybe some of them won’t want all this to be restricted by geography.

“Developing this longer-term position on digital learning seems very timely from our point of view.”

"digital learning" can significantly lower operation and commuting costs but it's beneath the dignity of many of the privileged who've succeeded as faculty and their younger cohort at prestigious schools *there, in person* to network, make career connections, "have fun", and evaluate lifetime mating and investment opportunities, so implementation could lag. ultimately though perhaps the underclasses can happily be kept out of the "good" schools altogether, by dangling the convenience of online learning?

something that bugs me about this "there are too many graduates in X" arguments is like... ok, there aren't professorships waiting for everyone, but, its nonetheless actually possible to not treat people that are just instructors and not on tenure track like actual professionals and not just disposable faces, even if there are a fair supply of people potentially willing to adjunct.

and if you pay people properly to do professional development you'll probably get much better instructors over the long haul -- so partly i feel like somehow academia has actually devalued the teaching aspect very drastically even as you have a huge influx of students, and thats weird to me.

teaching is for suckers. successful academics are researchers, first, last, and always

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/want-to-know-why-professors-dont-teach/article1202892/

One FTSE 100 company in the UK has launched its own stand-alone degrees rubber stamped by a trad university and aims, in the future, to have degree-awarding powers of its own.

no link yet to the study on how for-profit universities apparently actually damage the earning potential of people who attend them?

Margaret Wente = the worst

xps, Pearson, validated by Royal Holloway.

I kind of want to become a stockbroker.

xp to tomboto

these two links give a (somewhat conflicting) overview of the data about private/for-profite ed and earnings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/11/the-obama-administrations-claim-that-72-percent-of-for-profits-programs-have-graduates-making-less-than-high-school-dropouts/

http://blog.ed.gov/2014/04/fact-too-many-career-training-programs-lead-to-low-wages-high-debt/

xp - plenty of stockbrokers went to my college and got essentially "sports car" degrees, in that what they majored in had nothing to do with the nuts and bolts of being a stockbroker

that's what i am thinking.... i have no love for finance, but i have other (more pro-social) small business ideas that i wouldn't want to pursue until i built up some savings and (lol) knew about business.

so like, not necessarily being a stock broker, but i am increasingly considering trying to find a place in the private sector workforce that is not related to writing or teaching, the things i always thought of as "my things." still researching this stuff -- maybe not so fruitful to discuss on ilx.

you don't learn how to run a small business by becoming a stockbroker. you do so by working for one, though it definitely varies by business type, but a lot of stuff is the same, ... or you just start one and learn by trial and error.

yeah that's a good point. i think i mostly want to just be financially solvent so i can think about taking risks.

i definitely get the sense that us small business ppl are definitely a minority on ilx

but let me tell you, my college education was very valuable in that it taught me how to fill out forms. Like, I'm pretty damn good at filling out forms. Finding the instructions for the forms. Determining which instructions and boxes are relevant and irrelevant ... being good at filling out forms is a really valuable professional skill.

so much of adulthood seems to be filling out forms.

no link yet to the study on how for-profit universities apparently actually damage the earning potential of people who attend them?

Again, it comes back to a massive failure of regulation and i don't think tightening the rules around funding and applying a 'gainful employment' metric that just looks at elevated earning potential comes close to solving it.

For-profit colleges probably do increase earnings potential, simply by virtue of people being able to apply to jobs that require college degrees, but if billions in federal funding is going to be ploughed into for-profit colleges, there has to be a much stronger regulatory framework for checking whether they're actually providing educational value as well. A lot of them are very good but clearly many that could meet the new criteria are still basically a waste of time and money. Stopping the GI bill funding courses with a 13% graduation rate is the easy part, tackling 'quality' in the for-profit and not-for-profit sector is much harder but absolutely essential in the long term if a degree is going to maintain any inherent value.

pro-tip - don't steal code :(

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/report-at-least-two-shot-on-ucla-campus.html

i read that the professor didn't steal code and the shooter was delusional

that money quote says a mouthful and rings pretty true.

it's a good thing that a higher education remains available to those who thirst for it, regardless of the current state of _Institutions of Higher Education_. or at least it will remain available so long as the best books stay around to guide people to a deeper understanding and the world exists for them to observe and contemplate.

no, I would say education and learning are different; the former has to do with a society and its institutional priorities: sure, you can read Dante by yourself! I don't think we need to celebrate that such remains the case....

I would say education and learning are different

Yes. But learning is paramount. This can be easily discerned by imagining a hypothetical choice between education without learning and learning without education.

I don't think we need to celebrate that such remains the case....

It depends. There are numerous avenues that lead to far worse places than today's relatively easy access to self-actuated learning. There are no guarantees we shall not go down those paths, but so long as that access remains it is a constructive counterforce to the loss of learning.

is it weird to think that religious orders are probably a better option for a real humanities education at this point than literally any higher ed institution grift?

institution

MIT is closing three of its four libraries, apparently? https://fnl.mit.edu/may-june-2026/lament-for-the-mit-libraries/

for me the distinction between "learning" and "education" doesn't have to do with institutions as much as it has to do with the rigor of the curriculum and the seriousness of the pupil. institutions can do a great deal to facilitate education, but i still think you'd have to concede that what Marx did at the British Library was essentially a self-directed education. it's a bit different than you or me with the duo lingo. to say nothing of the fact that so many of the great lights of world literature were taught privately by tutors or family members

but maybe this is just semantics

closing libraries is fucking stupid

the cost of running a library has to be marginal at best compared to everything else a major research university does. Figure out how to cook the books a little better, you bean counting ass clowns

learning is the process, education is the result

imo anyway

First, consumerism: once students became clients, education became a satisfaction metric, and the institution learned to fear disappointment more than ignorance.

This is true but downstream of credentialism in the workplace. There is no particular reason most non-specialist roles require degrees at the point of entry but having this as a hard requirement makes the consequences of failing catastrophic. Change that, either through an employer culture shift or, more negatively, reducing the perceived value of ‘general HE in the age of AI’ to marginal, and the rest has a chance of reshaping into something more positive.

is it weird to think that religious orders are probably a better option for a real humanities education at this point than literally any higher ed _institution_ grift?

Yes, it is, and it’s deeply insulting to a number of us on here who teach humanities in the university.

liberal arts colleges hanging in there too

Table otm — it is both weird and insulting

It’s a fraught discussion because a significant number of ilxors work in higher ed, and have committed themselves for many years to that profession. While I am not one of them, I agree with LL that is insulting.

Yes, it is, and it’s deeply insulting to a number of us on here who teach humanities in the university.

― a tv star not a dirty computer man (the table is the table), Thursday, May 28, 2026 12:34 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Table otm — it is both weird and insulting

― Piggy Lepton (La Lechera), Thursday, May 28, 2026 3:15 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

you are both very often deeply insulted by people expressing opinions you don't agree with and posting things that rub you the wrong way. i don't like that you direct your own feelings outward and put them on other people with your constant stance of harsh judgment. frankly i don't care that you're insulted. i was inviting discussion. if you don't want to participate in that leave me alone. both of you - your quickness to castigate other people - are a very strong reason in support of my argument tbh. i wouldn't want someone whose education i cared about to be around that kind of bullshit. there's already enough of it in the world.

if you can't handle someone having a negative opinion about your job or your profession, if you're insulted by it, quite frankly you need to get a grip.

Wow

wow!

polite request not to address me on here from here on out. i would really appreciate it.

You are losing it!

You said religious institutions would perform better than traditional universities as schools of the humanities and asked if it was weird.
Yes, that is weird and, I agree, insulting to members of the community. You’re not simply expressing your opinion, you’re doing so groundlessly and needlessly cruelly to people/members of the community you know are doing their best. That doesn’t make me a softie it makes you a meanie. IMO.

ok fair enough. i didn't really clock that this was the "fellow teachers commiserate" before i posted that, and i should have.

"fellow teachers commiserate" thread

I, too, teach in the humanities. It was definitely a weird ask and this escalation is even moreso weird.

I'm curious which religious orders map's talking about here that would surpass even my small directional state university in providing a humanist education. Like, the Jesuits? They run their own schools, so is that it?

Since I made the distinction upthread, I'll cite a source

https://thi.ucsc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Arendt-Crisis_In_Education-1954.pdf

TLDR version is: I meant education in the sense of policy, institutions: one might seek to destroy public education in a particular nation for political reasons, and such destruction might, hypothetically of course, have effects not easily remedied through individual learning

so.. i understand now. i really wasn't trying to be cruel to or denigrate anyone. i know both you and table are good at your jobs and impact students' lives for the better all the time. that applies to all of the teachers here.

i should have phrased what i said differently. part of it is that it feels like a loony thing to say. it was way too general, too pointed. i'm no fan of the horrible environments of abuse that can be found in many religious organizations. i've seen it first hand. i made the post because i keep seeing quotes from the new pope and really agreeing with them.

idk. it just feels like capitalism has turned higher ed into a nightmare. i don't think there's anything inherently wrong with some kind of religious group doing education instead. i get that 95% of them are horribly reactionary in unjustifiable ways, but there have got to be some out there that are a little more enlightened, no? seeing all the garbage in higher ed - and yes having some firsthand experience with it having worked in an academic library - i am left wondering if it's really a worse option to be in a religious organization for education purposes, if the organization has it right, or right enough, for the most part. maybe that's more a fantasy in my head and doesn't actually exist.

anyway, i see how what i was posted was actually pointed, since this thread is largely about teachers supporting each other, and i'm sorry. i do still think ya'll could stand to ease up on the judgment. ok i'm probably going to take an ilx break today. genuinely hope you guys have a good day.