Tag: education

Academic tenure is one of the many factors that increasingly make American academia an intellectual joke and reduces the value of academic credentials. Fortunately, it is one of the more easily fixed ones. Just do the obvious and financially responsible thing and get rid of it.

If you were the C.E.O. of a company and the board of directors said: “We want this to be the best company of its kind in the world. Hire the best people you can find and pay them whatever is required.” Would you offer anybody a contract with these terms: lifetime employment, no possibility of dismissal, regardless of performance? If you did, your company would fail and you would be looking for a new job. Why should academia be any different from every other profession?

To those who say that the abolition of tenure will make faculty reluctant to be demanding with students or express controversial views, I respond that in almost 40 years of teaching, I have not known a single person who has been more willing to speak out after tenure than before. In fact, nothing represses the free expression of ideas more than the long and usually fruitless quest for tenure.

One of the main reasons that academics are so hopelessly dull these days is that they are heavily incentivized to pay homage to the present orthodoxy and risk joblessness and career-ending ostracism if they do not kowtow to the status quo. For example, it is utterly absurd that economics professors remain stubbornly and willfully ignorant of Austrian economic theory in favor of their outdated and inaccurate monetarist and Neo-Keynesian models that have left four generations of economics students bewildered at the way in which real world economic events refuse to conform to their educations.

It’s not exactly a secret that tenure does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do with regards to academic freedom. While it does protect the professoriat from interference on the part of those who pay their salaries, it actually subjects the individual academic to greater pressure from the academics who control the golden tenure grants.

There are two reasonable arguments for tenure. First is that it protects academic freedom, shielding professors with unpopular views from retribution. Supposedly, this increases intellectual diversity, promoting universities as a marketplace of ideas. Secondly, tenure is a fringe benefit that makes academia more attractive to the best scholars, in so doing reducing the salaries needed to lure them.

While tenure has undoubtedly protected some good people from losing their jobs, it actually may on balance reduce intellectual diversity. Many ideologically driven tenured professors use their job security to aggressively thwart efforts to increase alternative viewpoints being taught. Hence conservatives often feel that they are frozen out of good academic jobs simply because the tenured faculty dominating departments simply do not want alternative perspectives given academic prominence…. The fact is that tenured faculty members often use their power to stifle innovation and change.

It would appear that the value of a college degree is actually about one-third of its previously estimated value. And that’s without factoring either opportunity cost or 4.5 years of lost wages into the value equation.

If there’s one truism that goes virtually unchallenged these days, it’s that a college degree has great value. Beyond the great books, beyond the critical reasoning skills, and beyond the experience itself, there’s another way that a college degree has value: Over the course of a working life, college graduates earn more than high school graduates. Over the past decade, research estimates have pegged that figure at $900,00, $1.2 million, and $1.6 million.

But new research suggests that the monetary value of a college degree may be vastly overblown. According to a study conducted by PayScale for Bloomberg Businessweek, the value of a college degree may be a lot closer to $400,000 over 30 years and varies wildly from school to school. According to the PayScale study, the number of schools that actually make good on the estimates of the earlier research is vanishingly small. There are only 17 schools in the study whose graduates can expect to recoup the cost of their education and out-earn a high school graduate by $1.2 million….

One-third of what was previously estimated… that sounds familiar somehow… ah, perhaps this is why.

Like most things, it comes down to supply and demand. Full-time college enrollment has increased 44 percent since I graduated in 1990. The US population has increased 20 percent, thus rendering a generic college degree approximately 24 percent less valuable while the cost has risen 63 percent in constant dollars. Even if you assume that you graduate successfully, your education dollar is worth about 28 percent of one spent in 1990.

Let’s face it. Scientific studies are largely superflous when you’ve got a superintelligence handy.

It’s hard to summon up any sympathy for unemployed and underemployed lawyers given that it was obvious that there were far too many of the worse-than-useless, anti-productive bastards back when I graduated from college:

Look past the occasional vulgarity and disgusting pictures. Don’t dismiss the posters as whiners. To a person they accept responsibility for their poor decisions. But they make a strong case that something is deeply wrong with law schools.

Their complaint is that non-elite law schools are selling a fraudulent bill of goods. Law schools advertise deceptively high rates of employment and misleading income figures. Many graduates can’t get jobs. Many graduates end up as temp attorneys working for $15 to $20 dollars an hour on two week gigs, with no benefits. The luckier graduates land jobs in government or small firms for maybe $45,000, with limited prospects for improvement. A handful of lottery winners score big firm jobs.

And for the opportunity to enter a saturated legal market with long odds against them, the tens of thousands newly minted lawyers who graduate each year from non-elite schools will have paid around $150,000 in tuition and living expenses, and given up three years of income.

How smart can these overeducated and unemployable people be anyhow if they weren’t capable of taking simple supply and demand into account AFTER four years of college? And if those who insist that education creates societal wealth are correct, then there can’t possibly be a problem here anyhow.

Never forget that law schools, like every other form of school, exist in order to make money for someone. The education and degree are merely the means to an end. Therefore, caveat emptor applies.

I almost started to feel sorry for this guy, until I remembered that his intention was to work as a lawyer and enjoy a well-compensated career by diverting money away from the productive classes of the country. And the most amusing thing in all of this is the failed larval lawyers who fail to see the irony when they hypothesize about those who hold lawyers in contempt will desperately need a lawyer should they find themselves facing an unjust lawsuit….

So in an effort to show you what happens after a law school has robbed a student of $120,000 + and their dream of becoming a practicing attorney, let me show you a day in the life of a Jobless JD. This is what happens after the scam money has been collected and the student leaves without a job in hand:

It starts about 2 AM for me, when I wake up with my heart pounding, wondering what I am going to do. What bill should I pay this month? Electric, gas, rent, all past due. I decide I will pay for gas and electric, go without food, because I still want to lose a few pounds and I have some rice and yogurt left that I can eat this week.

I get up and stare out the window and wonder for the ten millionth time what the hell I was thinking when I decided to go to law school. I play the would have / could have / should have game (If only I wouldn’t have gone to law school, I could have worked and I wouldn’t have debt, I should have thought this out) That usually gets me to 6 AM.

I shower and walk (subway is expensive) to a public library that has computers so I can blog. Mine blew up last year and I can’t afford a new one. Next I go to my $10 an hour part time job (all I’ve been able to get a year out of law school) and I try to be sunny and cheerful and pretend that I’m happy to be there so that I can hold on to it.

That being said, the authors of the Scamblogs are doing noble work indeed by exposing the monstrous scam that is law school. And since they couldn’t figure out the scam ahead of time, it seems unlikely that they ever thought through the way in which law firms make their money. So, in the end, we shouldn’t hold their innocent infatuation with legal extortion against them.

Teachers aren’t just stupid, they’re increasingly dishonest to boot:

Of all the forms of academic cheating, none may be as startling as educators tampering with children’s standardized tests. But investigations in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Virginia and elsewhere this year have pointed to cheating by educators.

Needless to say, this behavior was not only entirely predictable, it was predicted by many on both sides of the test standards issue. Personally, I don’t care either way. As far as I’m concerned, attempting to fine-tune mass public education through technical measures falls well into the lipstick-on-a-pig category.

The only interesting thing is how easily corruptible the great influencers of tomorrow’s leaders have turned out to be. At least the great destroyers of the global economy were playing for personal millions. These petty thieves were willing to sell out their charges for less than $3,000!

It is amazing how people can stubbornly resist reaching the obvious conclusion:

Don’t bother showing up for school. The doors are locked and the lights are off.

Peach County is one of more than 120 school districts across the country where students attend school just four days a week, a cost-saving tactic gaining popularity among cash-strapped districts struggling to make ends meet. The 4,000-student district started shaving a day off its weekly school calendar last year to help fill a $1 million budget shortfall….

The results? Test scores went up.

So did attendance — for both students and teachers. The district is spending one-third of what it once did on substitute teachers, Clark said. And the graduation rate likely will be more than 80 percent for the first time in years, Clark said.

Imagine if they went to zero! Consider this. Children learn to crawl, walk, and speak multiple languages without ever sitting in a classroom or having a formal teacher. Why, then, is it assumed that they absolutely require one in order to learn history, math, or science? Especially when one takes into account the demonstrated ignorance of those who have had the supposed benefit of 12 or more years of mass education.

Ironically, those who constantly preach the value of a college education clearly missed economics 101:

Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.

Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she’s been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments. This is not a long-term solution, because the interest on the loans continues to pile up.

Going 100k into debt in order to obtain a job that pays $22 as a photographer’s assistant is not an intelligent action. The correct answer to the question about attending college is “it depends”. What college, what degree, and what job prospects? Remember, since the median debt for attending private, nonprofit colleges is $22,380, that means that you have to keep in mind the average cost of 5 years without wages, the cost of the degree, and the debt.

The statistics on the monetary advantages of a college degree are misleading because the number of college graduates has risen dramatically as have the number of women obtaining college degrees. The equation has changed, which is why it is necessary to sit down and crunch the numbers before you automatically assume that a college degree from the best university that will accept you makes any sense. I thought it was particularly interesting that the article mentioned the way in which a debt burden that can repel potential life partners… one assumes this is generally aimed at women with degrees.

Like most things, it comes down to supply and demand. Because full-time college enrollment has increased 44 percent since I graduated in 1990. The US population has increased 20 percent, thus rendering a generic college degree approximately 24 percent less valuable while the cost has risen 63 percent in constant dollars. Even if you assume that you graduate successfully, your education dollar is worth about 28 percent of one spent in 1990. And since only 53% of college undergraduates manage to graduate in six years – a statistic recently increased from the five-year measure in order to keep it above 50% – the chances are nearly one in two that you’re literally buying nothing, not even a piece of paper.

Basically, if you have to borrow money or if you are at all prone to not finishing what you start, you shouldn’t even think about going to college. And if you do go, get a degree in something meaningful, not outdated liberal arts degrees in English, Art History, or Business. You’ll learn more about business running a fast food franchise for a summer than you will in six years of college. Throw in a little reading of Peter Drucker, Sun Tzu, Malcolm Gladwell, Dilbert, and whoever the business author du jour happens to be and you’ll know more management-speak too.

Eventually the obvious percolates through to the mainstream:

The notion that a four-year degree is essential for real success is being challenged by a growing number of economists, policy analysts and academics. They say more Americans should consider other options such as technical training or two-year schools, which have been embraced in Europe for decades.

As evidence, experts cite rising student debt, stagnant graduation rates and a struggling job market flooded with overqualified degree-holders. They pose a fundamental question: Do too many students go to college?

In short, as I have been saying for years, yes. Education is a fine thing. Knowledge is wonderful. Most people aren’t actually interested in either. But what amused me most was this quote: “‘It’s sad to know she’s going to miss that mind-opening effect of an undergraduate degree,” Popkes said. “To discover new ideas, to become more worldly.'”

I don’t know how to break this gently to Mrs. Popkes. But there is nothing terribly mind-opening about learning how to do keg stands, provide adequate blow jobs, or do the walk of shame after getting banged silly by a drunken 20 year-old. And it is most certainly not worth an investment that is measured in tens of thousands of dollars. Frankly, her daughter could obtain all that vital knowledge for free in a single night at the right suburban house party.

I was asked to provide my opinion about this situation.  And my opinion is that Marquette absolutely did the correct thing.

On Thursday, university officials announced that they withdrew an offer to Seattle University professor Jodi O’Brien to serve as the dean of Marquette’s College of Arts and Sciences. The university said in a statement that O’Brien “was not the person who could best fill this very important position”and that the school had made “oversights” in their search process. According to the Associated Press, O’Brien’s scholastic writings include sociological studies that detail lesbian sexual activity.
The professor expressed her disappointment to the AP in a recent email.

“At this time the only comment I can offer is to confirm that I was offered the position of Dean and I accepted it, but there was an intercession by the President before my appointment was announced officially,” O’Brien wrote. “I’m very disappointed. The College of A&S at Marquette is strong and vibrant and I was looking forward to working with the students and faculty there.”

Several faculty members and students protested the decision, claiming that O’brien’s sexual orientation was the reason the university decided to rescind the offer.

First, the university’s reason for rescinding its job offer to the woman is totally irrelevant.  The Constitutionally protected right to free association means that the university is free to employ or not employ anyone, for any reason.  While it’s true that this right has been massively and persistently violated for decades under the dishonest facade of “civil rights”, discrimination is, in fact, still practiced at every American university.  The only difference between the past and present is the targets of that discrimination.

Second, academia would not be in the dire straits in which it finds itself now, a ludicrous and increasingly irrelevant joke to the genuine intellectuals of the world, if more of the Christians who founded most of the world’s great universities had not fallen for the lie “academic freedom”.  “Academic freedom” is a transparent fraud; it is the university version of the dictator’s democratic mantra: one man, one vote, one time.

These results from a recent Pew Survey are precisely why I am so often amused when atheists point to the lower percentage of religious belief among the young compared to the elderly as a sign of anything but the inexperience and ignorance of youth.  While it is true that a few of the idiot teens of today will be the influential decision makers of tomorrow, they are as unlikely to retain their political, religious, and philosophical attitudes as they are to retain their hairstyles and drinking habits.

There is, after all, something that will happen to these 18-29 cretins.  It is called experience of the real world.  The opinions of maleducated ignoramuses who have been purposefully sheltered from not only real economics, real decision making, real independence, and real work, but from the benefit of the experience of the best minds in human history as well, are no more relevant than the opinions of the millions of hamsters kept as pets in America’s households.

Of course the 18-29 crowd is pro-progressive and uncertain about whether socialism is to be preferred to capitalism.  They’ve been indoctrinated by anti-capitalist progressives for between 12 and 18 years without ever being forced to knowingly confront the consequences of progressive politics and socialist economics.  But their opinion about capitalism is no more significant than their opinion about gravity or the universal principle of entropy; as Greece is learning, you can vote for all the progressive politics you want but eventually the market forces you deny will swamp you in the end.

It’s not just the youth who are fools, though.  The general dichotomy between the dislike for militias and the support for state and civil rights underlines what everyone here already knows.  Most people are idiots.