If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   76% of college professors are not tenured and are not paid a livable wage. In other words, they're pretty much where their students will be after they graduate   (inplainsight.nbcnews.com) divider line 77
    More: Fail, high schools, teach in, indirect costs, PhDs, students, salary, athletic scholarship  
•       •       •

1927 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Apr 2013 at 8:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 08:37:44 AM
Kind of makes you wonder where all the tuition money goes, doesn't it?
 
2013-04-11 08:39:25 AM
Well, I hope pursuing that  PhD in Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving was worth it.
 
2013-04-11 08:54:58 AM

stuhayes2010: Well, I hope pursuing that  PhD in Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving was worth it.


Cute, but there are gonna be some people in here arguing that somehow this is right, and that 76% of professors ARE failed liberal arts losers.

How they make that math work is beyond me.
 
2013-04-11 08:55:08 AM
This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.
 
2013-04-11 09:03:32 AM

LasersHurt: stuhayes2010: Well, I hope pursuing that  PhD in Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving was worth it.

Cute, but there are gonna be some people in here arguing that somehow this is right, and that 76% of professors ARE failed liberal arts losers.

How they make that math work is beyond me.


18th Century Agrarian Business Principles? Academia is a horrible model, pretty close to a pyramid scheme.  I can't believe people line up for it.
 
2013-04-11 09:04:54 AM
Why have one full time employee when two part time contract employees with no benefits will be far less expensive?
 
2013-04-11 09:06:24 AM

adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.


Actually this is a public university problem, not a for-profit or private university problem.  Public universities are being faced with major budget cuts, and have been for over a decade in the case of the California public college systems(to the tune of billions of dollars in cuts, hundreds of millions a year in many years since the dotcom bust).  For-profit universities have poor reputations and thus need to pay more for otherwise equal faculty.
 
2013-04-11 09:06:30 AM
I belive it.  Some of them taught programming like they were trying to break a crack addiction with a sledgehammer and three Barbie dolls.
 
2013-04-11 09:07:47 AM
"Why should we pay for a decent tenured teaching faculty when we can just continue to abuse our sessionals?  We could hire 3 full-time professors to teach 8 courses, or we could dump them all on the part-timer.  Besides, the Chancellor's $400,000 salary has to come from somewhere."

It pisses me off that the corporate fark-the-worers mentality has penetrated academia.  I blame all those night-school MBA degree holders.

/crosses fingers that one of the three full-time ongoing jobs I've applied for pans out
//gotta be at the lab in 26 minutes to actually finish this goddamn degree
 
2013-04-11 09:12:07 AM

adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.


Not particularly.  As someone with a PhD in a STEM discipline, I've paid attention to faculty job openings and almost all I see is "adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, ...".  I like teaching, but I've decided I'd rather just work in a lab.
 
2013-04-11 09:13:34 AM

Kibbler: Kind of makes you wonder where all the tuition money goes, doesn't it?


College education shouldn't cost more than $10,000 for a degree, but they spend most of the money on high tech dorms, expensive cafeterias, and all sorts of campus improvements to entice students to go there.  It's been a war of spending between colleges and it's being funded by cheap government loans that students take out.
 
2013-04-11 09:13:54 AM
Person interviewed in TFA has a masters in poetry. I'm not sure how much closer to failed liberal arts loser you can get.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:24 AM

RaceBoatDriver: 18th Century Agrarian Business Principles? Academia is a horrible model, pretty close to a pyramid scheme.  I can't believe people line up for it.


In some ways I can. At least I could for the last 2 decades when it really exploded. NOW we see the obvious issues inherent in our educational systems from the ground up, and we're getting a better handle on understand it all the time. If I had a kid now, I would not be sure it would go to school and college like I did. I might even suspect that it wouldn't.

Hindsight is 20/20. I can't really fault people, even now, who want all of their kids to go to college. But it's becoming abundantly clear that that's not always the best and most straightforward idea.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:40 AM

Farnn: Kibbler: Kind of makes you wonder where all the tuition money goes, doesn't it?

College education shouldn't cost more than $10,000 for a degree, but they spend most of the money on high tech dorms, expensive cafeterias, and all sorts of campus improvements to entice students to go there.  It's been a war of spending between colleges and it's being funded by cheap government loans that students take out.


THIS.
 
2013-04-11 09:16:44 AM

Bondith: /crosses fingers that one of the three full-time ongoing jobs I've applied for pans out


Is that one of three jobs that you have a foot in the door already at, or you've only applied to three positions?
 
2013-04-11 09:32:58 AM

Farnn: Kibbler: Kind of makes you wonder where all the tuition money goes, doesn't it?

College education shouldn't cost more than $10,000 for a degree, but they spend most of the money on high tech dorms, expensive cafeterias, and all sorts of campus improvements to entice students to go there.  It's been a war of spending between colleges and it's being funded by cheap government loans that students take out.


There is a very high cost to the Free Market college system.

The "right" to choose where you want to go to college has created a stupid "arms race" for top students while ridiculously available loans fund it along with a few rich folks and shrinking state budgets.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:27 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.

Not particularly.  As someone with a PhD in a STEM discipline, I've paid attention to faculty job openings and almost all I see is "adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, ...".  I like teaching, but I've decided I'd rather just work in a lab.


My favourites are the ones where they're offering $3000 for someone to show up for 8 hours a week for one semester.

"Lessee, should I pack up my entire life and move to another city for four months for a job that will allow me to starve, or should I just stay here and starve?"

Donnchadha: Bondith: /crosses fingers that one of the three full-time ongoing jobs I've applied for pans out

Is that one of three jobs that you have a foot in the door already at, or you've only applied to three positions?


One's at my alma mater where I taught last summer and made a good impression on the faculty.  That school has treated me really well, so I can't complain.

Another's at the college that used to be my alma mater before the university half got assimilated by a more prestigious school and the college half got spun off.  Again, faculty members know me.

The third one is at the aforementioned more pretigious school.  Hopefully a reference letter with the same letterhead counts for something.

/there's a fourth one, but it's a one-year lab instructor position.  Any guesses on which one I hear back from first?
 
2013-04-11 09:36:51 AM

bhcompy: adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.

Actually this is a public university problem, not a for-profit or private university problem.  Public universities are being faced with major budget cuts, and have been for over a decade in the case of the California public college systems(to the tune of billions of dollars in cuts, hundreds of millions a year in many years since the dotcom bust).  For-profit universities have poor reputations and thus need to pay more for otherwise equal faculty.


There's your fallacy.
 
2013-04-11 09:43:21 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.

Not particularly.  As someone with a PhD in a STEM discipline, I've paid attention to faculty job openings and almost all I see is "adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, adjunct, ...".  I like teaching, but I've decided I'd rather just work in a lab.


Yeah, the situation isn't quite as bad here in Canada, particularly in STEM disciplines. I have no idea what the situation is like among Liberal Arts faculty because I have zero interaction with them. I have some irons in the fire for moving in to a position locally, although it likely won't be tenure track but will still be full-time and fairly secure. Be a combination of working in a core facility or with the hospital plus an adjunct position for teaching. As long as I am making more money than I make now (but I am getting paid quite well in my post-doc position) I'll be happy.

Bondith: My favourites are the ones where they're offering $3000 for someone to show up for 8 hours a week for one semester.

"Lessee, should I pack up my entire life and move to another city for four months for a job that will allow me to starve, or should I just stay here and starve?"


I think the assumption is generally that you pick up Adjuncts who will teach multiple courses, but it is still crap pay. Most adjuncts I know here in Canada, who aren't tenured/tenure-track faculty in another department or at another school, have outside jobs. Either a government research lab or in industry, and they pick up a course or two to teach during the year as well.

But yeah, no way would I ever move for that kind of offer.
 
2013-04-11 09:43:38 AM

Bondith: /there's a fourth one, but it's a one-year lab instructor position. Any guesses on which one I hear back from first?


Still, you've only applied to four positions?

I guess I should ask what level you're looking at too -- tenure track for all but that lab instructor? or are they all visiting/adjust/otherwise NTT?
 
2013-04-11 09:44:02 AM
Thing is, the superstar in-demand profs aren't being sought for their teaching skills.  The rockstars are the researchers, the ones who'll publish stacks of papers and bring in funding.  Teaching can go hang as far as the decision makers are concerned.
 
2013-04-11 09:52:59 AM

Donnchadha: Bondith: /there's a fourth one, but it's a one-year lab instructor position. Any guesses on which one I hear back from first?

Still, you've only applied to four positions?

I guess I should ask what level you're looking at too -- tenure track for all but that lab instructor? or are they all visiting/adjust/otherwise NTT?


Those are the only four that were posted when I checked last week.  It's an ongoing process, obviously.

They're all lecturer positions, with no research responsibilities, which is exactly what I'm looking for.  The two university-level ones have the words tenure track in the job posting.  They also want some input from me on teaching - one job is specifically to design an integrated curriculum between first year Chem, Physics and Math, working with people in the other two faculties.  That looks interesting.  My alma mater wants me to submit a syllabus for a new undergraduate class.  Since I'm designing labs for a new course of my boss' at my current institution this semester, I'm going to borrow what he's got and modify it to make it my own.

Which reminds me, I should check and see if anything new has been posted.
 
2013-04-11 09:58:26 AM

Bondith: Donnchadha: Bondith: /there's a fourth one, but it's a one-year lab instructor position. Any guesses on which one I hear back from first?

Still, you've only applied to four positions?

I guess I should ask what level you're looking at too -- tenure track for all but that lab instructor? or are they all visiting/adjust/otherwise NTT?

Those are the only four that were posted when I checked last week.  It's an ongoing process, obviously.

They're all lecturer positions, with no research responsibilities, which is exactly what I'm looking for.  The two university-level ones have the words tenure track in the job posting.  They also want some input from me on teaching - one job is specifically to design an integrated curriculum between first year Chem, Physics and Math, working with people in the other two faculties.  That looks interesting.  My alma mater wants me to submit a syllabus for a new undergraduate class.  Since I'm designing labs for a new course of my boss' at my current institution this semester, I'm going to borrow what he's got and modify it to make it my own.

Which reminds me, I should check and see if anything new has been posted.


That's a little better... because if those were TT jobs... man, it's April... you're not getting those.

I went through this processes last year, originally aiming for the TT positions, got a few interviews but no offers... then started hitting up the NTT jobs about this time. I ended up getting a lecturer position, but I'm still looking to upgrade, so I've been watching the postings too and I've noted that this year seems less exciting than last year on the NTT front too -- there's a lot of "visiting" or "replacement" jobs posted and not so much on the "long term NTT" front -- but this is still also the wrong time of year. Anybody looking now for jobs in the fall are filling panic positions, not long term jobs.
 
2013-04-11 10:02:19 AM
In my field, molecular biology, the only reason the tenure-track system exists at all anymore is to funnel money from the federal government to the university in the form of "overhead costs" applied to federal grants, often amounting to 50-80% of the grant. The federal government is complicit in this, as they refuse to set a cap on the percent that can be taken as "overhead", which is set at about 10% by most private funding sources.

But yeah, lets keep repeating the fallacy that we need more people to go into STEM careers, because we just don't have enough of them!
 
2013-04-11 10:05:11 AM
There are quite a few sleight-of-hand moves in that article. The biggest one is equating the "poorly-paid, part-time jobs" with the non-tenured full-time positions (which are usually not so poorly-paid).

A helluva lot of them are graduate students - even in the old days, about a third of my teachers were really students working on advanced degrees and teaching one course per semester. Getting $2700 to teach a class is a pretty good deal for someone without a doctorate or any real experience.

They'd teach straight from a professor-chosen textbook, use the official lesson plan, give thee or four multiple-choice quizzes per term, and one "real" multiple-choice final. They'd have "office hours" for about three hours per week (none of the students would ever show up, and the instructor would be working on his or her thesis instead - at least one would have his office hours at a local pizza joint during his lunch hour). Total work per week, on average? About six to seven actual hours. Over the course of a four-month semester, you're looking at about $24 per hour.

A lot more are community college teachers or adjunct faculty teaching "fun" courses - like the woman in the article with that degree in poetry. No, it's not a huge stress on your life to have to show up for a few hours per week to blather about poetry, and with that set of job skills, making over $20/hour for such work is pretty sweet.
 
2013-04-11 10:07:16 AM

stuhayes2010: Well, I hope pursuing that  PhD in Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving was worth it.


Let's get it all settled.

STEM is all that matters. If you aren't STEM you're worthless, and if you are STEM and aren't making 80k or more, you're worthless.

Humanities are also worthless. Nobody needs to know things like how empires rise and fall, or how writers and artists captured events and modes of thought in the past, because not knowing info like that could never, ever, ever come back and haunt a civilization in the present day.

And if you're a Women Studies major, why aren't you in the kitchen cooking your engineer a snack? Don't you know that in 2013 it's still a man's world?

There, you can all save your stupid horsesh*t.
 
2013-04-11 10:17:40 AM

verbaltoxin: Let's get it all settled.

STEM is all that matters. If you aren't STEM you're worthless, and if you are STEM and aren't making 80k or more, you're worthless.


I'm not a huge fan of the engineering-worship that takes place here either.  It rankles me that the only person they bothered to actually talk to in TFA was someone trying to teach with a Masters degree in (I assume) poetry.  I know someone in Public Health who says her entire field is basically just an adjunct game at this point.  You could talk to people in basically any field and get similar stories.  But they chose to go with someone who didn't even get a PhD in their liberal arts field to represent the adjunct crisis in academic hiring?

What the shiat is that?
 
2013-04-11 10:21:33 AM

yet_another_wumpus: bhcompy: adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.

Actually this is a public university problem, not a for-profit or private university problem.  Public universities are being faced with major budget cuts, and have been for over a decade in the case of the California public college systems(to the tune of billions of dollars in cuts, hundreds of millions a year in many years since the dotcom bust).  For-profit universities have poor reputations and thus need to pay more for otherwise equal faculty.

There's your fallacy.


Have you ever taken a class at a for-profit institution?  I've taken classes at universities, community colleges, and for-profit institutions.  As towards the quality of instruction in my experience, community college>for-profit>university.
 
2013-04-11 10:21:48 AM

Donnchadha: That's a little better... because if those were TT jobs... man, it's April... you're not getting those.

I went through this processes last year, originally aiming for the TT positions, got a few interviews but no offers... then started hitting up the NTT jobs about this time. I ended up getting a lecturer position, but I'm still looking to upgrade, so I've been watching the postings too and I've noted that this year seems less exciting than last year on the NTT front too -- there's a lot of "visiting" or "replacement" jobs posted and not so much on the "long term NTT" front -- but this is still also the wrong time of year. Anybody looking now for jobs in the fall are filling panic positions, not long term jobs.


I had a summer gig lined up, but the enrollment dropped to six so it evaporated (I thought it was pretty solid, so maybe it sublimated instead).  Then I hit the jobsites, figuring I'd missed everything...and then these four jobs turned up, all at institutions where I had a connection.  I dunno if the stars aligned or my luck is finally changing or the die just came up 20 for once, but I'm not going to quibble.  Most of the start dates are July or later, so I might be in for a lean summer, but I can concentrate on finishing writing.
 
2013-04-11 10:26:05 AM

bhcompy: yet_another_wumpus: bhcompy: adrift1827: This is just a guess, but that's probably because all of the for profit universities that exist solely to grab and keep as much money as possible have no incentive to grant tenure to any professor.  I'd be willing to be that if you eliminated those schools from the study then the numbers would change dramatically.

Actually this is a public university problem, not a for-profit or private university problem.  Public universities are being faced with major budget cuts, and have been for over a decade in the case of the California public college systems(to the tune of billions of dollars in cuts, hundreds of millions a year in many years since the dotcom bust).  For-profit universities have poor reputations and thus need to pay more for otherwise equal faculty.

There's your fallacy.

Have you ever taken a class at a for-profit institution?  I've taken classes at universities, community colleges, and for-profit institutions.  As towards the quality of instruction in my experience, community college>for-profit>university.


University profs would rather be doing research.  I think that's a massive disservice, especially to first years.  In my field, I think a lot of potential chemists get turned off because their first-year prof isn't up to snuff.  Intro courses should be taught by a dedicated instructor whose primary focus is teaching.  (If they're actually good at their job, that's a bonus.)  The upper level courses can be taught by the research faculty, since it's actually their field and not every prof is capable of covering Inorganic Quantum Thermodynamics.

/not just saying that because it would mean a lot more job openings for me
//although that would be a side-benefit
 
2013-04-11 10:27:40 AM

verbaltoxin: stuhayes2010: Well, I hope pursuing that  PhD in Ancient Mesopotamian Basket Weaving was worth it.

Let's get it all settled.

STEM is all that matters. If you aren't STEM you're worthless, and if you are STEM and aren't making 80k or more, you're worthless.

Humanities are also worthless. Nobody needs to know things like how empires rise and fall, or how writers and artists captured events and modes of thought in the past, because not knowing info like that could never, ever, ever come back and haunt a civilization in the present day.

And if you're a Women Studies major, why aren't you in the kitchen cooking your engineer a snack? Don't you know that in 2013 it's still a man's world?

There, you can all save your stupid horsesh*t.


Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing. It's pretty telling that there are people who view college simply as a way to make more money, not as a place to learn how to think and reason, and to learn and study the things that inspire you. Probably why there are so many unhappy people out there.
 
2013-04-11 10:32:22 AM

Bondith: Intro courses should be taught by a dedicated instructor whose primary focus is teaching. (If they're actually good at their job, that's a bonus.) The upper level courses can be taught by the research faculty, since it's actually their field and not every prof is capable of covering Inorganic Quantum Thermodynamics.


THIS.  There are plenty of profs who don't want to bother with teaching undergraduate courses because they are busy with research, and there are plenty of people who would rather lean more heavily on teaching well than running down grants.  Wouldn't hiring the latter to teach free up the former to bring in grants?  An endless revolving-door of part-timers teaching for scraps isn't going to cut it.
 
2013-04-11 10:42:07 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: verbaltoxin: Let's get it all settled.

STEM is all that matters. If you aren't STEM you're worthless, and if you are STEM and aren't making 80k or more, you're worthless.

I'm not a huge fan of the engineering-worship that takes place here either.  It rankles me that the only person they bothered to actually talk to in TFA was someone trying to teach with a Masters degree in (I assume) poetry.  I know someone in Public Health who says her entire field is basically just an adjunct game at this point.  You could talk to people in basically any field and get similar stories.  But they chose to go with someone who didn't even get a PhD in their liberal arts field to represent the adjunct crisis in academic hiring?

What the shiat is that?


Do you really think it'd be wise for ANYONE in a liberal arts field to put in all the effort of getting a PhD. when even they are falling prey to the part-time path? To invest more years sinking in to this field when tenure-track positions are going extinct?
 
2013-04-11 10:45:53 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Bondith: Intro courses should be taught by a dedicated instructor whose primary focus is teaching. (If they're actually good at their job, that's a bonus.) The upper level courses can be taught by the research faculty, since it's actually their field and not every prof is capable of covering Inorganic Quantum Thermodynamics.

THIS.  There are plenty of profs who don't want to bother with teaching undergraduate courses because they are busy with research, and there are plenty of people who would rather lean more heavily on teaching well than running down grants.  Wouldn't hiring the latter to teach free up the former to bring in grants?  An endless revolving-door of part-timers teaching for scraps isn't going to cut it.


Aye. I actually have discovered, via TAing and tutoring,t hat I *LIKE* teaching physics. And I'm apparently fairly good at it. I'm able to think up multiple ways to explain/analogize certain phenomena (and that's on the fly!), and try to find one the student understands. I realize that you sometimes have to present physics to engineers differently than you do to physicists, and the engineers do not necessarily need (or WANT) as exhaustive proofs as the physics undergrads (just like you have to present math slightly differently to physicists than to mathemeticians. We don't need the five page proof for how the spherical integration constants come up, the little cheaty proof where we pretend it's a cube, so this side is dr, this side is rdtheta, and this side is r sine theta dphi works plenty well!)

But I dunno if I'd be able to make a living without also doing research, and I don't intend to try and teach at, say, the high school level until AFTER I retire.

Ah well, that's still at least a year in the future. AT least I'm finally friggen getting DATA.

/And doing research in a rapidly growing field. YAY NANOPHYSICS
 
2013-04-11 10:56:33 AM
I did it briefly  but yeah, when you get paid in the four figures for a three credit class and then say "oh, you are only allowed to teach three classes"  you tend to look for employment elsewhere
 
2013-04-11 10:58:14 AM

Felgraf: Ah well, that's still at least a year in the future. AT least I'm finally friggen getting DATA.

/And doing research in a rapidly growing field. YAY NANOPHYSICS


Dude, photolysis.  I've been harping at you in every thread. :P

Seriously, though, isn't it nice when something finally goes right?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Bondith: Intro courses should be taught by a dedicated instructor whose primary focus is teaching. (If they're actually good at their job, that's a bonus.) The upper level courses can be taught by the research faculty, since it's actually their field and not every prof is capable of covering Inorganic Quantum Thermodynamics.

THIS.  There are plenty of profs who don't want to bother with teaching undergraduate courses because they are busy with research, and there are plenty of people who would rather lean more heavily on teaching well than running down grants.  Wouldn't hiring the latter to teach free up the former to bring in grants?  An endless revolving-door of part-timers teaching for scraps isn't going to cut it.


I've been going over my student evaluations from last summer so I can summarise the good points for my applications ("Applicant must demonstrate proof of teaching excellence, blah blah blah").  I must have made quite an impression.  I've never seen so many positive comments from the Snark Generation.

/recurring topics are my jokes and my T-shirts
//someone said my 8:30 class was actually worth getting up for.  That comment I treasure
 
2013-04-11 11:30:07 AM
It's pretty hard to quantify the value of intellectual property, and the minds that contain it. Depending who you ask, knowledge is either priceless and the sky's the limit, or worth nothing because it's not tangible.

Maybe the point is moot. Stop putting a monetary value on it at all. But then we'd have a lot of starving professors.

I guess it comes down to the values of our society - how much do we as a society value knowledge and ideas? Do we want to progress and develop ideas we never knew we didn't know, or become stale in the belief that we know enough?
 
2013-04-11 11:41:20 AM

torusXL: It's pretty hard to quantify the value of intellectual property, and the minds that contain it. Depending who you ask, knowledge is either priceless and the sky's the limit, or worth nothing because it's not tangible.

Maybe the point is moot. Stop putting a monetary value on it at all. But then we'd have a lot of starving professors.

I guess it comes down to the values of our society - how much do we as a society value knowledge and ideas? Do we want to progress and develop ideas we never knew we didn't know, or become stale in the belief that we know enough?


Our problem is we have a society that buys into the notion that everything should be run like a business. Education might be the greatest counter-example to that philosophy.
 
2013-04-11 11:43:13 AM

UNC_Samurai: Our problem is we have a society that buys into the notion that everything should be run like a business. Education might be the greatest counter-example to that philosophy.


Shut up! That's too much progress! Maybe we should pay you around $12k/year and see how long you can stick it out while blabbing your nonsense!
 
2013-04-11 11:51:27 AM

Felgraf: just like you have to present math slightly differently to physicists than to mathemeticians. We don't need the five page proof for how the spherical integration constants come up, the little cheaty proof where we pretend it's a cube, so this side is dr, this side is rdtheta, and this side is r sine theta dphi works plenty well!


That's the problem with physicists. They like to pretend they do math, but they don't do math. They don't even care about the ideas, they just want the answers. Bunch savages, nothing but engineers who can dress themselves, really.
 
2013-04-11 12:01:28 PM

torusXL:

I guess it comes down to the values of our society

Yes, yes it does. And the values are the one below:

Farnn: Kibbler: Kind of makes you wonder where all the tuition money goes, doesn't it?

College education shouldn't cost more than $10,000 for a degree, but they spend most of the money on high tech dorms, expensive cafeterias, and all sorts of campus improvements to entice students to go there.  It's been a war of spending between colleges and it's being funded by cheap government loans that students take out.


So much this. The fundamental problem is that 80% of what goes on at a university these days is not education. It is social services of some type.
 
2013-04-11 12:13:59 PM

sxacho: Why have one full time employee when two part time contract employees with no benefits will be far less expensive?


Why bother with a professor when a TA with no English skills looking to defect from {insert country here} is willing to do the job basically for slave wages.
 
2013-04-11 12:16:25 PM
I spent $1,800 a year on tuition at UW-Madison back in 1987.  Corrected for inflation that's about $3,600 now.  Current tuition is slightly over $10,000.  Why the FARK is it 2.7 times what it should be?  Is it really for new-building mortgages, or is there more to it?

My kids are probably going to start off at the local community college for the first two years, and then transfer for the "legitimate" degree they can list on resumes.

The system is farked up and pissing me off.
 
2013-04-11 12:16:48 PM

Strolpol: Do you really think it'd be wise for ANYONE in a liberal arts field to put in all the effort of getting a PhD. when even they are falling prey to the part-time path? To invest more years sinking in to this field when tenure-track positions are going extinct?


I think if you're looking to teach at the collegiate level, you should probably go for a PhD.  Complaining about job prospects as a professor when you only have a Masters degree undercuts the point of the article, doesn't it?
 
2013-04-11 12:21:33 PM
Awful lot of smart posts in this thread.  (Quite a few dumb ones, too.)  The biggest reason I think this happens is because the labor market allows it.

It's no secret that there are far more PhD holders running around than there are jobs to support them.  This drives down salaries.  Whether the colleges and universities should pay more for full-time professors is irrelevant; the facility improvements and expanding administrations at these schools make tightening budgets a foregone conclusion.  Given that so many of the fields granting PhDs have little application beyond teaching, and most holders have an intense desire to not just stay involved in the field but also to make use of the degree they spent so much time and energy on, it's no surprise that people will put up with, and even compete for, such low salaries.

It sucks.  It's not exclusive to any particular field, STEM, liberal arts, or otherwise.  And it's going to get worse as the economy continues to putter along, since people are escaping to grad school in lieu of unemployment.
 
2013-04-11 12:28:34 PM

fickenchucker: I spent $1,800 a year on tuition at UW-Madison back in 1987.  Corrected for inflation that's about $3,600 now.  Current tuition is slightly over $10,000.  Why the FARK is it 2.7 times what it should be?  Is it really for new-building mortgages, or is there more to it?


i49.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-11 12:30:27 PM

fickenchucker: I spent $1,800 a year on tuition at UW-Madison back in 1987.  Corrected for inflation that's about $3,600 now.  Current tuition is slightly over $10,000.  Why the FARK is it 2.7 times what it should be?  Is it really for new-building mortgages, or is there more to it?

My kids are probably going to start off at the local community college for the first two years, and then transfer for the "legitimate" degree they can list on resumes.

The system is farked up and pissing me off.


Your tuition at the time had a greater portion subsidized by your tax dollars.  My college  receives 21% of its funding from the state.  The rest is federal money, private grants, patents, tuition etc.  Now, I'm not going to suggest that Chancellors and Vice Chancellors, and Associate Vice chancellors and their 200k salaries and lifetime benefits aren't a ripoff, or that the athletics program regularly runs a deficit and has to get subsidized.  Also don't be fooled when lottery money goes to school budgets, when that just means the state will contribute that much less money.  The system is farked up.  But those are just the priorities set forth by politicians and constituents.  People don't care about education.  They care about building prisons, football stadiums etc.
 
2013-04-11 12:41:51 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: fickenchucker: I spent $1,800 a year on tuition at UW-Madison back in 1987.  Corrected for inflation that's about $3,600 now.  Current tuition is slightly over $10,000.  Why the FARK is it 2.7 times what it should be?  Is it really for new-building mortgages, or is there more to it?

[i49.tinypic.com image 639x477]


ihatebuttsex: fickenchucker: I spent $1,800 a year on tuition at UW-Madison back in 1987.  Corrected for inflation that's about $3,600 now.  Current tuition is slightly over $10,000.  Why the FARK is it 2.7 times what it should be?  Is it really for new-building mortgages, or is there more to it?

My kids are probably going to start off at the local community college for the first two years, and then transfer for the "legitimate" degree they can list on resumes.

The system is farked up and pissing me off.

Your tuition at the time had a greater portion subsidized by your tax dollars.  My college  receives 21% of its funding from the state.  The rest is federal money, private grants, patents, tuition etc.  Now, I'm not going to suggest that Chancellors and Vice Chancellors, and Associate Vice chancellors and their 200k salaries and lifetime benefits aren't a ripoff, or that the athletics program regularly runs a deficit and has to get subsidized.  Also don't be fooled when lottery money goes to school budgets, when that just means the state will contribute that much less money.  The system is farked up.  But those are just the priorities set forth by politicians and constituents.  People don't care about education.  They care about building prisons, football stadiums etc.


shiat.  And thanks.  At least it makes some sort of sense now.

/Community college it is, fin the beginning.
//From what I have been told by Human Resources people I know, for most jobs it doesn't matter where you start.
 
2013-04-11 01:34:19 PM
Well surely people with their qualifications should have no problems finding a top flight in either the food service or house cleaning industries.
 
2013-04-11 01:54:43 PM
The education bubble is going to make the housing bubble look like small potatoes.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report