Why Not Manage Universities, Mr. President? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why Not Manage Universities, Mr. President?

TOMAHAWK9521

04-11-2009, 14:58

Shortly into reading this article I realized that this is probably the most sensitive subject that the ruling party has probably been avoiding to debate at all costs. It would be suicidal for anyone on the left to even contemplate the chances that a public debate should be brought to the floor concerning the ungodly costs for college. Such an open discussion, might, and that is with the utmost positive thinking, threaten their precious breeding grounds of future moonbats. I know we have discussed the level of infiltration and damage the liberal agenda has wreaked upon our education system and the young minds being molded within, but considering how many decades the left has been working at it, I personally believe it would take a concerted effort of generations on our part to undo the damage to our education system. Those of us who suffered the trials of collegiate atmospheres, which includes, students, parents and the minority of conservative faculty, are all too familiar with the liberal zealotry that plagues our centers of "higher education"-and I use that term loosely. I imagine those sages in the fields of academia and education such as nmap, Sigaba and many others, could elaborate even more on this subject.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Not Manage Universities, Mr. President?

By Paul Kengor

I hear it again and again, even from some pro-business conservatives: Hey, I have no sympathy for AIG and the automakers and the banks. When you take government money, you can expect the government to tell you what to do. Besides, some of these companies are wasteful, charge too much, and their salaries are too high.

Well, if that's so, then why doesn't the government intervene to run our universities, which consume huge amounts of government money? Why don't President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress dictate marching orders to university presidents? Why not fire the bad ones? Why aren't Barney Frank and Chris Dodd calling in provosts to explain themselves?

Think about it: Few things in our society are as costly as college education. From the moment parents look into their newborn's eyes, they begin saving for college -- the single greatest expense in their child's life. Entire life savings are dumped into college educations. Even then, that's not enough; student loans, with interest, are necessary.

My master's degree alone cost me so much -- after my parents poured everything into undergraduate educations for my brother, sister, and me -- that it took 10 years at almost $1,000 per month to pay it off. Homes in California are bargains compared to our nation's colleges. The cost of a degree is obscene.

And what about the product -- assuming the product graduates? Economically speaking, few graduates will achieve the hourly salary of their professors. Educationally speaking, these degreed citizens perform miserably in basic civic and economic literacy. (Check out the recent survey by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.)

And yet, consider the salaries of those running these universities, particularly those accepting the most government funding. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 59 public-university presidents received salaries exceeding $500,000 in 2007-8, up from 43 the previous year -- a healthy salary jack while many parents grappled with job losses.

Over at Barack Obama's and Bill Ayers' alma mater, Columbia University, President Lee C. Bollinger made $1,411,894 last year. John Sexton at NYU collected $1,324,874. Northwestern's Henry S. Bienen scraped by with $1,742,560. And Amy Gutmann of Penn raked in $1,088,786 -- a staggering 40% raise from the previous year, enough to make a Big Oil CEO green with envy.

And what about the Keynesian advising President Obama to deficit-spend our tax dollars to "prime the pump" during the recession? When Lawrence Summers recently left Harvard, he received a $2-million severance. That was on top of his annual salary of $714,005, not to mention his wife's salary (as a literature professor) of $179,056. Did I mention that Harvard provided the couple with a home?

Here's a question for Senator Chuck Schumer's staff: Have you compared the wage of these folks to the custodians who clean their offices? How about professors in Feminist Studies at Cal-Berkeley or at Columbia Teachers College vs. the stiffs who prepare their food in the cafeteria? The typical tenured professor spends under 10 hours per week in the classroom, and gets at least five full months of paid vacation. No one, from the little library lady to a GM fat-cat, enjoys those perks.

Talk about "Two Americas." If you boys on Capitol Hill want to fan the flames of class warfare, this is a tinderbox.

And yet, after all that, after taking tens of thousands of dollars per year from debt-ridden students and parents, on top of boatloads of government money, these colleges are screaming that they are broke. How can this be? Who's responsible? Why isn't Congress demanding hearings?

And I ask liberals: What could be as un-progressive as a mom and dad in Iowa, with a combined income under $60,000, sending their daughter to an elite Northeast university -- with their life savings not enough -- to float a bunch of PhDs who've accumulated more cash in 10 years than "mom and dad" in a lifetime?

So, why isn't President Obama reining in our colleges? Why isn't Nancy Pelosi demanding accountability?

Alas, here's the dirty little secret: Liberal Democrats see no reason to investigate universities. Why? Because colleges serve as the popular front for advancing the left's agenda. They are essentially recruiting grounds for Democratic Party voters and activists.

Our universities are the most monolithic institutions in America. There may be more ideological diversity in the Taliban. Here are few figures:

A 2007 study by sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard and Solon Simmons of George Mason University found that liberal faculty outnumber conservatives by 11-1 among social scientists and 13-1 among humanities professors. That's consistent with a long line of surveys, which tend to find self-identified liberals around 80-90% and conservatives around 10%.

It has been that way for decades. I have a folder jammed with studies. One of my favorites is an early 1990s poll that found 88% of "public affairs" faculty identifying themselves as liberal, 12% claiming to be "middle of the road," and, remarkably, 0% opting for the conservative label.

A 2003 survey by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture found these ratios of Democrats to Republicans: Swarthmore: 21-1. Bowdoin College: 23-1. Wellesley College: 23-1. Brown University: 30-1. Amazingly, the study couldn't identify a single Republican at the faculties of Williams, Oberlin, MIT, and Haverford, nor a single Republican administrator at Penn, Carnegie Mellon, or Cornell.

Analyses of Cornell found 166 liberals compared to six conservatives; at UCLA, 141 liberals vs. nine conservatives.

I could go on and on. Remember that academia champions "diversity."

Keep in mind, too, that these figures are fully out-of-sync with the public and parents who hand their children to these professors. For at least two decades now, the number of self-identified conservatives among the overall population has ranged near 40%, whereas self-identified liberals hover around 20%, holding steady even in the last election that elected Barack Obama.

Thus, the liberal Democrats running the federal government have no complaint about our universities. They share the same worldview, and the professors pass the faith to the students.

Indeed, consider the results of the November 2008 election, in which college-aged voters came out in droves -- nearly one in five voters, or about 25 million ballots -- and went for Obama by more than two to one. As I noted in this space before, those voters alone well exceeded Obama's overall vote advantage. It was truly the college crowd that elected Obama.

So, this is perfect for Obama and his fellow Democrats. Why change a thing?

But actually, it's even worse than that. These professors funnel not only students to the Democratic Party. In 2004, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that the top two institutions in the country, in terms of employee per-capita contributions to presidential candidates, were Harvard and the University of California system -- both of which gave 19 times more money to John Kerry than to George W. Bush.

Another 2004 analysis, by Andrew Sullivan, found that of the nearly 800 donations made to the Kerry and Bush campaigns by Ivy League professors, 92% went to Kerry.

I haven't seen an analysis of 2008, but I'm sure it's worse.

TOMAHAWK9521

04-11-2009, 14:59

Maybe I'm being unfair. Perhaps these learned institutions don't get enough money from the life-savings and bank borrowing of students and parents, and really do need a lifeline from Uncle Sam, plus a second lifeline from their states?

Nonsense. I teach at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania, which takes no government money, the result of standing for its principles of faith and freedom before the U.S. Supreme Court. The college is not wasteful; our students graduate in four years with extraordinary placement in jobs and grad schools; our students get aid through a privatized loan program; the college is listed as one of the "best buys" in higher education; it is certainly no bastion of secular liberalism; and its students score exceptionally well in surveys and tests. (Grove City College scored second in the nation in the aforementioned ISI survey.)

Sadly, though, Grove City College is the exception. The rule is what our rulers in Washington desire.

So, don't expect any AIG-like show trials of college presidents, nor President Obama firing the president of Columbia. Don't expect higher taxes on cushy contracts. Don't expect a push to cap salaries or freeze tuition or regulate rising costs.

Nope, there will be no demonization of rampant "greed" in this sector of the American workplace. There are only angels running our universities -- liberal angels.

Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at Grove City College.

Skelepede

04-11-2009, 17:38

I personally see college as an investment, and like all investments it costs money, because it is worth something to you. If you choose not to invest in yourself, you will suffer consequences, much like the janitor, and cafeteria staff mentioned in the article. It will not matter if college is free--if people do not learn to invest in themselves by studying, and being taught the proper values at home to be successful. If studying, and proper values are not reinforced at home we will be throwing money into an ether, which is very much the thing we are doing in California at this very moment. I often see older people working at checkouts at grocery stores, and I often wonder, what went wrong? Where was your ambition? I really resent the tone of the article, it seems to ring of an attitude of entitlement--he resents how much he had to pay for Graduate school? He didnt have to go to Graduate School, it was his choice, and he know the cost, and the stakes, and if he's not being compensated properly he should find another job, or another career field to major in. No, wait, proper compensation is also the responsibility of the President.

Pete

04-11-2009, 17:59

... I really resent the tone of the article, it seems to ring of an attitude of entitlement--he resents how much he had to pay for Graduate school? .....

I think the article was a little deeper than just "..he resents how much he had to pay..."

Sometimes a story is written to make you think about other things.

Didn't some company just give $210,000,000 to it's executives without a peep from the Pres or Congress?

Sigaba

04-11-2009, 18:11

nmap

04-11-2009, 18:23

Our universities are the most monolithic institutions in America. There may be more ideological diversity in the Taliban. Here are few figures:

(Chuckle). True.

The problem is, in my opinion, a bit more complex. The government at every level does control the Universities - they do it with budgets, with policy on student loans and grants, and with various legislation. It controls them through grants, such as from the National Institute of Health, the U.S. Department of Education, and so forth.

However, there is another side to this coin. No doubt you recall the frequent discussions of the revolving door between government and lobbying firms. But notice carefully that much of senior officialdom goes through the full course of the academic experience - or, if you prefer, academic indoctrination. Notice how many top officials have doctoral degrees - right up to the POTUS. And Masters degrees have become rather common, as I suspect many members of the U.S. armed forces could attest. Notice, too, how high government officials go into academia rather frequently. The term incestuous comes to mind.

It goes deeper, though. Most of us have heard of a study that shows this or that. Who creates those studies? By and large, someone with a doctoral degree. Because the whole purpose of a doctoral degree is to learn how to do research and write it up in academic style. If one controls what is studied, how it is studied, and how it is written up, then the fundamental intellectual foundation to oppose the conclusions may be lacking. I suppose an academic could do a study on how overpaid college faculty are, but few are willing to break their own rice bowl while committing professional suicide.

The article mentions the number of hours spent teaching and the vacation. The article is correct. In principle, the extra hours are spent doing research - answering questions about the way things work. Answering questions about higher education, too. So...this means that both the expertise to understand the issues, and the opportunity to address the issues, reside in the people who function within the academy. Unless one has a doctorate, one will simply not know how to do a study or write up the conclusions. Perhaps there are a very few exceptions, but keep in mind that the entire purpose of a doctoral dissertation is to find some problem, research it, and write it down. They range in length from 150 to 300 pages and have hundreds (yes, hundreds) of academic references. Getting a student through this process requires at least a year, and probably two - along with a faculty member who works closely with the student through that year. So introducing opposing views is not trivial.

Notice, too, what I mentioned about a senior faculty member working extensively, one-on-one, with a doctoral student. The undergraduate classes, in essence, subsidize graduate classes. At a certain University in San Antonio ( :cool: ), there are undergraduate courses with 250 or more students. But the same place has graduate classes with as few as 10 students - and the professor is paid twice (or far more) what the teacher in the undergraduate course is paid. This suggests that the University structure exists to fuel research and the production of researchers. This research and those researchers then produce the information that guides and controls government - and they work within government at a policy making level. I think a case could be made that the University is very nearly an informal branch of government.

Now about policy. Policy, and the making of same, is an entire field in itself. The legislative bill we see today may have behind it decades of work by quiet people using studies produced by other quiet people. Those without considerable study of the whole area of policy will simply not have a clue how to build the necessary coalitions of power - and those without abundant spare time will not be able to invest the hours in working with policy. Where are such folk to be found - except within the academy?

That said, I often speak of economic bubbles. It may be that education is such a bubble. The expanding costs are, as the article suggests, placing college out of the reach of many. What will deflate the bubble? Perhaps hard economic times. But I think the same global wage arbitrage that makes GM uncompetitive will do the same for academia. One can find highly qualified professors in China and India who work for less - and they are fluent in English. Online distance learning may be the catalyst that causes deep change. It is interesting that some 355 reports were considered by Thomas Russell in his paper on "The no significant difference phenomenon". The conclusion of these many studies was that traditional and distance education produced equivalent results in learning. It is interesting to note that quite a number of research reports conclude that the best learning experience requires at least a hybrid approach with some element of classroom contact.

My, isn't that an interesting conclusion? :D

Hope that helps...

Sigaba

04-11-2009, 22:16

nmap--

With respect, I disagree with a couple of points in your post. At the heart of our differing views are differing assessments of the nature of the problem. These differences should not overshadow the fact that you and I are in basic agreement: the American university needs reform.

First, I don't see universities as monolithic institutions. In my view, that statement is akin to saying that all the armed services can be accurately described as "the military."

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, politicians and journalists commentated on ‘the Culture Wars’, a heated debate over value systems. In my estimation, this conflict was an outgrowth of debates that had been underway on college and university campuses since the 1960s. This fight could not have persisted for so long or been marked by such bitterness were it not for a diversity of views within the Ivory Tower.* Indeed, by the 1990s, historians were increasingly concerned that the craft had become overly specialized. "Balkanization" was a term bandied about in many a discussion (inappropriately as far as I'm concerned).

Second, I differ with your interpretation of the role writing a dissertation plays in the training of graduate students. From comparing notes with classmates who sought advanced degrees in English, economics, political science, and urban planning, there's a bit more of a cradle to grave approach in the training of an academic historian. (That is, you often cry like a baby and at times wish you were dead.:D) At some institutions, earning a B.A. in history requires a thesis. Or two, if one is especially masochistic.

In history, the purpose of a dissertation is to advance the profession's understanding of a topic. That is a dissertation in history creates new knowledge. As a history department's reputation is in no small part earned by the achievements of its graduate students, there's a degree of motivation to make sure a dissertation is a credible work. (Readable, well, that's a different story.) For this reason, dissertations must be approved by committees, not just the graduate student's adviser.

To me, the problem of today's university is not a matter of a monolithic world view. What I see is a diverse range of views, methods, and practices that suffers from a lack of professionalism when it comes to teaching.

My preferred approach is to find those individuals, regardless of bias (because everyone has bias of one sort or another--the pendulum will balance itself, eventually), who believe that the role of a teacher is to educate, not indoctrinate, and then show how this approach benefits everyone by producing students who can think independently and critically what ever that student may choose to think. The reward comes in the answers to two key questions that used to matter in ways different than they matter today: "Where did you go to school? What did you study?"

And grade inflation. IMNSHO, something needs to be done about grade inflation before anything else; it, more than any other factor, is what is devaluing the undergraduate experience.

___________________________________________
* In 1985, I witnessed a flare up in the long running rivalry between cultural and physical anthropologists. In front of several hundred graduates, Nancy Scheper-Hughes lost her temper--but not her composure--turned on Vincent Sarich, and in a few crisp sentences, crushed him.:eek: Professional, not exactly; instructive, yes.

Among Americanists (historians specializing in American history) the brawls over the fundamental nature of American slavery, the causes and origins of the Cold War, the decision to use the atomic bomb, and 'the power of culture' debate,' are all cautionary tales that too few have heeded.

nmap

04-12-2009, 11:57

nmap--

With respect, I disagree with a couple of points in your post.

I'm not sure we particularly disagree; perhaps, it's more different perspectives.

From one view, universities are certainly not monolithic. Disputes certainly exist between scholars, universities, colleges within universities, and even within departments. Such issues as core curriculum, whether there should be one, and what should be included within the core curriculum all result in heated arguments and hurt feelings. That said, the lifeblood of academia is the literature, and the ideas and mindset within the literature tends to flow throughout the system, thus maintaining a certain orthodoxy, with a few exceptions duly noted.

On the subject of the dissertation, it's absolutely true that the stated purpose of the dissertation is to add to the knowledge within the field. And it's also true that the departmental reputation is affected by the quality of the scholarship exhibited a graduate students. And of course, a committee of four faculty members must all be satisfied with the ultimate product. I would note that our school functions under the strong chair model, so perhaps I place more emphasis on the role of the chair than would be appropriate in every instance. In any event, I think we must ask ourselves what comes next. After the doctoral student successfully defends her dissertation, and their small nugget of additional knowledge is added to the total store, what are they to do? If they choose to enter academia, the had better expect to publish. And the papers they produce will, just like the dissertation, seek to provide some small incremental increase in knowledge within the field. So I must contend that although the immediate purpose of the dissertation is as you say, there is also an element of training for future research productivity within the academic system.

Grade inflation is an interesting problem. Perhaps you will permit me a few anecdotes. One of the classes I taught was a large survey course with no academic pretensions. It had hundreds of students, no prerequisites, and the goal was to get the students through with as little angst as possible. I had designed the course so that it had several assignments, all rather simple, a few online quizzes, open book, and with three tries each, and an end of semester project that required three pages of double-spaced writing and three references. Brutal, right? However, lest I be accused of excessive cruelty, I also made a point of telling the students that if they wanted an A but didn't feel like doing the assignments, all they had to do was come to class and participate in our class discussions. I encouraged them to argue with me. So all they had to do was sit in class and occasionally argue. How easy is that?

So one student had failed to turn in several assignments, hadn't bothered to come to class, and didn't want to come to class. She had a B. So she complained to one of my many superiors, who urged me to give her an A. I have enshrined his exact quote into memory. "Oh, just give her an A. She's stacked." Of course, with justification such as that, what else could I do? I gladly gave her an A. And people wonder why I comment: "Once you lose your integrity, the rest is easy!" :cool:

All, but that's not the worst. There was a student who had done so few assignments that he was wrapping up the semester with an average in the 30s. In addition, he did not want to come to class. So I, once again exhibiting a brutal personality, informed him that he would get a C. His helicopter mom ranted and raved, and the same gentleman who noted the important academic attributes of the student I mentioned earlier urged a higher grade. I held my ground; I only upped the grade to a B. :lifter

This becomes even more pathetic when we consider that this is a public state university which is embarked on an effort to be designated as a research one University. We are not talking some backwater private college.

And lest anyone think that this represents merely an individual or department out of control, some years ago another class that I taught experienced about a 20% failure rate, with the vast majority of the 80% who passed receiving A's. I only gave out F's when students literally did nothing at all in the class - and by that I mean, they did not even hand in a piece of paper with their name on it. They simply disappeared. They had averages less than 5%. So, what happened? A highly paid consultant, brought in from Austin, called me and my department chairman in to find a way to reduce the number of failures. Since the course had ceased to be core curriculum some years ago, the consultants concluded that no action was needed. But think about this - how can you get the student to pass when they won't even bother to come to class?

But I do not think we will see an end to grade inflation anytime soon. By and large, there is a mindset that everyone should go to college and everyone should have a degree. There is a distribution of talents, skills, and motivation among people that suggest to me that if we are committed to getting everyone through college successfully, then we must set standards to a very low level. Since we as a society have concluded that a college degree is the necessary minimum credential for most employment, then we can predict that everyone will want a college degree, even if they despise the very concept of scholarship.

We also have to consider that if the end goal is to get a degree, then it is entirely rational to minimize the cost of getting the degree, in terms of both money, time, and effort. Lowered standards makes it possible to reduce the amount of time and effort invested in the credential. In addition, as the costs continue to increase, hence forcing students to work more during their college years, time constraints indicate that students will shift effort from their studies to work.

As if the foregoing were not enough, we have to keep in mind that the colleges and universities are creatures of politics. High standards will tend to exclude some portion of the population; however, in the case of public institutions, the political realities are such that mindless inclusion trumps rigor every time. With private institutions, the realities of costs and budgets, along with the not necessarily monolithic ( ;) ) mindset of academia, urges inclusion. Furthermore, any institution that uses exceptionally high standards places itself at a potential competitive disadvantage to other institutions with less demanding standards.

In essence, if one wants high standards, then one must focus college education on those with the background, ability, and motivation to produce excellent scholarship. I simply do not detect any such trend today. Rather, there seems to be a tendency to define standards downward more each year.

Richard

04-13-2009, 17:34

I'm certainly no academic and must say that my university experiences have - with the exception of a few of the entrenched bureaucratic Herrn Professorn Doktorn at Friedrich Wilhelms Universitat - been positive. On the other hand, and for this discussion, I think the following comments from Victor Davis Hanson might offer more insight into the issues and be of more interest to everyone.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

What I Have Seen - Wisdom from a higher-ed career
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, 25 Oct 2005

The lament about our failed schools and universities is by now familiar. From the left, the complaint is that they are underfunded, even ignored by a shortsighted and heartless public. The pay of teachers and professors supposedly remains poor in comparison with similarly educated private-sector professionals. Schools are asked to educate troubled youth and thereby rectify societal ills, all the while seeking a broad equality of result among departing graduates; universities must also accept students who in the past were simply not college material.

Conservatives answer that the schools and universities have adopted a therapeutic curriculum in pursuit of political objectives. Teachers and professors — through powerful unions, archaic tenure protocols, and easy legal redress — are largely unaccountable, and the incompetent among them are immune from removal. While the cost of administration has grown, the quality of education — as measured by either test scores or the ability of students to meet traditional course requirements — has declined over the last four decades. The problem is not too little money, but rather how much money is misspent.

I recently retired from a 20-year career in the California State University system — the world’s largest public university, with over 400,000 students. The Fresno campus where I taught was roughly representative of the system’s other 22 campuses, which dot the state from San Diego in the south to Humboldt and Chico up north — a good cross section, in other words, of public education in the nation’s bellwether state. Looking back, I think CSU is symptomatic of how vast is the problem of higher education in America — and how unlikely it is to be resolved anytime soon.

(cont'd) http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson102505.html

Richard

04-14-2009, 05:41

This suggests that the University structure exists to fuel research and the production of researchers. This research and those researchers then produce the information that guides and controls government - and they work within government at a policy making level. I think a case could be made that the University is very nearly an informal branch of government.

This paragraph made me pause to think a bit of my own experiences in the West European Studies MA program at IU in preparation for embassy/NATO/theater-level assignments, my conversations among peers and superiors who had studied everything from History at William and Mary to International Relations at Georgetown to Electrical Engineering at Berkeley to Metallurgy at MIT to English Literature at Auburn to Business Administration at Harvard, and the affect of such graduate schooling programs on both the military and the universities themselves.

I'll just make two short points here.

One is that the degree programs and associated theses/dissertations are directed for the needs of the DOD - the government as NMAP mentioned. My own experiences entailed a list of theses topics from our program manager which had been developed from the DOD's research needs. I don't remember what they were, but I recall that I was not very interested in the topics proposed and developed one of my own - Great Britain's Uncodified Constitution: Threateining or Threatened? (dealing with the impact of an uncodified constitution amongst a developing codified Euro-federalist structure) - which had to be summarized (an 8 page proposal outlining the theme, chapter summaries, initial bibliography) and submitted to the DOD for approval. Mine was; I knew others whose weren't.

And two is that I'm not sure anyone realizes either the extent of such programs within our universities or the full effect of such programs on the participants, the universities (faculty, student bodies), the sponsoring organizations (military branches, DOD, US Govt), and our nation.

But it is something to think about - in a nation-building stimulus package sort of way.

Richard's $.02 :munchin