Yes, it was a while ago, but I've been in academia with competitor institutions to Harvard and I've seen the same trends and conditions in every single institution. Harvard is not above or beyond the pressures in that sector despite its endowments -- which btw differ greatly between the various schools. The grade inflation to a significa…
Yes, it was a while ago, but I've been in academia with competitor institutions to Harvard and I've seen the same trends and conditions in every single institution. Harvard is not above or beyond the pressures in that sector despite its endowments -- which btw differ greatly between the various schools. The grade inflation to a significant extent is driven by the need for institutions to attract foreign students who pay much higher tuition but in many cases do not have sufficient English skills or skills in critical thinking (if they come from countries where rote learning is emphasized, e.g. India and China). It's a catch-22 because they need the income from those students to survive but they also have to pass them with decent grades to keep them coming.
I think you just proved my point, although I'm not sure foreign students with limited English skills are driving the problem. I, too, have significant personal experience at and with prestigious institutions of higher education deemed to be "highly selective," on both coasts. All seem to have folded to the allure of money (often spent on funding more administrators and fancy buildings, rather than educators). They have allowed themselves to be rolled by the woke mob in admissions and grading policies; therefore, I suspect the students lacking in critical thinking skills are not primarily foreign students. IMHO these institutions are not really caught in a catch-22 unless the decision makers lack moral courage. Do they deserve to survive?
My son was a student at UC Davis in CA a few years ago, and he had a professor and his wife in his department who were totally disgusted with the UC system and how it aggressively went after foreign students (especially China!) for the money they got for out of state tuition...foreign students paid top dollar to attend. Everything was slanted towards getting and accommodating the foreign students because of the money they brought in, while American and more importantly, California students got the leftovers. The ratio of administrators to teachers was abominable. The town also hosted a big Islamic mosque and a Confucious institute. The campus was very dense with Chinese students who of course were spying, without a doubt.
Yes, good questions, good points, and a big topic. Don't get me started on the take-over of higher education by highly-paid administrators, the edifice complex, the chasing after money, and the increasing reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty with no benefits who are dependent on high ratings from students to stay employed. Many of my academic colleagues have retired early because the administrators have no education experience and are making their institutions into corporate degree factories, with pressure to 'dispense' good grades to the consumer (aka student). The question of whether they deserve to survive is, I would agree, a valid one.
That said, there are still many academics (and scientists) who strive to be good educators and care deeply about their research --many of whom have been involved in proving just how bad the covid clot shots are -- so let's not throw Harvard and other 'babies' out with the bathwater. Maybe with a different system of incentives, we can turn the sector around. Happy to hear more thoughts on this.
I agree with virtually everything you say, and I was happy to read that some scientists were able conduct research the outcome of which was not preordained by Big Pharma and the public health bureaucracy. But I have my doubts about whether our existing institutions can be saved, given the extent of the corruption. Is anyone in this community involved with the new University of Austin?
Oh they are beholden to some entity who is paying for the research. Defense, biotech, Dept. of Energy... In hard sciences there is often a curtain drawn between researcher and their client. For example, you are given tasks/experiments to formulate and do them without knowing they purpose. Medical research isn't often (as we know) given such freedoms to pursue truth or undiscovered reality. And I will add scientific researchers at uni's are most often conservative.
That's indeed the nut of it. If you don't understand your job and objectives, grants dry right up. Universities created this mess as we all do when we get addicted to sucking at the tit.
Yes, it was a while ago, but I've been in academia with competitor institutions to Harvard and I've seen the same trends and conditions in every single institution. Harvard is not above or beyond the pressures in that sector despite its endowments -- which btw differ greatly between the various schools. The grade inflation to a significant extent is driven by the need for institutions to attract foreign students who pay much higher tuition but in many cases do not have sufficient English skills or skills in critical thinking (if they come from countries where rote learning is emphasized, e.g. India and China). It's a catch-22 because they need the income from those students to survive but they also have to pass them with decent grades to keep them coming.
I think you just proved my point, although I'm not sure foreign students with limited English skills are driving the problem. I, too, have significant personal experience at and with prestigious institutions of higher education deemed to be "highly selective," on both coasts. All seem to have folded to the allure of money (often spent on funding more administrators and fancy buildings, rather than educators). They have allowed themselves to be rolled by the woke mob in admissions and grading policies; therefore, I suspect the students lacking in critical thinking skills are not primarily foreign students. IMHO these institutions are not really caught in a catch-22 unless the decision makers lack moral courage. Do they deserve to survive?
My son was a student at UC Davis in CA a few years ago, and he had a professor and his wife in his department who were totally disgusted with the UC system and how it aggressively went after foreign students (especially China!) for the money they got for out of state tuition...foreign students paid top dollar to attend. Everything was slanted towards getting and accommodating the foreign students because of the money they brought in, while American and more importantly, California students got the leftovers. The ratio of administrators to teachers was abominable. The town also hosted a big Islamic mosque and a Confucious institute. The campus was very dense with Chinese students who of course were spying, without a doubt.
Yes, good questions, good points, and a big topic. Don't get me started on the take-over of higher education by highly-paid administrators, the edifice complex, the chasing after money, and the increasing reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty with no benefits who are dependent on high ratings from students to stay employed. Many of my academic colleagues have retired early because the administrators have no education experience and are making their institutions into corporate degree factories, with pressure to 'dispense' good grades to the consumer (aka student). The question of whether they deserve to survive is, I would agree, a valid one.
That said, there are still many academics (and scientists) who strive to be good educators and care deeply about their research --many of whom have been involved in proving just how bad the covid clot shots are -- so let's not throw Harvard and other 'babies' out with the bathwater. Maybe with a different system of incentives, we can turn the sector around. Happy to hear more thoughts on this.
I agree with virtually everything you say, and I was happy to read that some scientists were able conduct research the outcome of which was not preordained by Big Pharma and the public health bureaucracy. But I have my doubts about whether our existing institutions can be saved, given the extent of the corruption. Is anyone in this community involved with the new University of Austin?
Oh they are beholden to some entity who is paying for the research. Defense, biotech, Dept. of Energy... In hard sciences there is often a curtain drawn between researcher and their client. For example, you are given tasks/experiments to formulate and do them without knowing they purpose. Medical research isn't often (as we know) given such freedoms to pursue truth or undiscovered reality. And I will add scientific researchers at uni's are most often conservative.
I think the key is who or what funds the research. If certain research isn't funded, it doesn't happen.
That's indeed the nut of it. If you don't understand your job and objectives, grants dry right up. Universities created this mess as we all do when we get addicted to sucking at the tit.
That research isn't going to happen if it isn't the 'right' research.
You thinking about go out there?
Later Jay