Comments on: Just a quick thought about the UC tuition hike

By: Earl

Earl — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:17:59 +0000

Interesting to read this post – yesterday, I came across the following, which is directly related:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/Bauerlein.pdf Foreword Is the publication of more research the same thing as the publication of better, more informative, or more useful research? How should institutions of higher education and public officials think about the balance between scholarship and instruction—and when these tasks are complements and when they are in conflict? Scholarly “productivity” has soared over time, with the number of academic publications increasing 500 percent over the past fifty years. One need not be a fierce critic of colleges or universities to question the utility of much of this additional scholarship. Meanwhile, there is cause for concern that the engagement and performance of undergraduate students has gradually declined—despite steadily increasing investments in higher education. The established hiring and tenure systems encourage young professors and graduate students to zero in on research and devote little attention to the collegiate classroom. Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University and former director of the Office of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts, examines the pressure on humanities professors to “publish publish publish” and explains why the abundance of research offers diminishing returns. He laments the consequences for undergraduate education and student engagement and suggests that students, faculty, and the broader society would be well-served if we revisited this aged and problematic compact. What do these trends mean for the future of higher education and the role of professors in teaching and research? How can we realign the incentives and rethink the traditions to effectively serve both ends? Bauerlein’s recommendations for how to upend the existing framework challenge us to consider how we hire and reward professors, staff our classrooms, serve students, and spend our public funds. I hope that you find this essay as thought-provoking as I have.

By: zabrina

zabrina — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:01:23 +0000

But the California taxpayers have already split up their state’s higher educational system by having the University of California campuses and the California State campuses. Your proposal would just increase the layers, not solve the problem, I fear. I say, raise the tuition (if they refuse to cut spending) and let the marketplace sort it out.

By: » Links to Visit – 11/21/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:44:43 +0000

[...] Bookworm Room – Just a quick thought about the UC tuition hike [...]

By: JKB

JKB — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:09:59 +0000

Yea, universities went a different way. Requiring students studying real subjects to take general education electives designed to force them to take the idiot program courses. Not a bad idea originally when engineers were required to take courses in the classics, etc. However, then the “studies” programs got in the game.
My niece was required to take a course called “Liberal Arts”. Heavy on the liberal, light on the arts. And this was as a southern university in flyover country. Having independent thoughts of her own, she had issues with the so called teacher when her opinions weren’t his. I had to counsel her to either take a bad grade or suppress her opinions and write what the fool wanted to hear and move on. Cut out BS like that and you could save a fortune or spend that money on core subjects of value to society.

By: SADIE

SADIE — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:10:49 +0000

Wonder if these students know what their professors and head coaches are earning. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/news/casalary/uc?Submit=Page&agency=UC&otmax=&o=&term=&sort=workplace&ord=ASC

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:17:20 +0000

A UC system official said in an NPR report this morning that without the fee increase there would be no instructors next term. Apparently, not much has changed in twenty years; the professors still require their high salaries to maintain their Marxist lifestyles.

By: phillips1938

phillips1938 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:11:02 +0000

I think you have a good idea with the two tiered system.
My problem is with a system that rejects meritocracy in its content and in its process. Tenure makes very little sense under any circumstances, but even less in a system where there are no measures of market output or productivity.
Good teachers and bad teachers get the same pay most of the time and often the relationship is perverse, as you point out.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:54:32 +0000

The idea of a two-tiered UC system, whereby one could have a UCB and a UC-BS sitting side by side, intrigues me. Unfortunately , the rot has infested universities so much that any such split would result in some PC idiots on the side of the old-style U. A clean split would be impossible. It would not surprise me if, once split, the PC idiots who got into the old-style U, would then commence a march through the institutions such as began in the 1960s.

By: Oldflyer

Oldflyer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:28:58 +0000

PS I should have observed that $75/semester was about what it was worth–to me; if football and basketball tickets were included. Fortunately, after one year I was able to find a position that paid room and board.

By: Oldflyer

Oldflyer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:26:37 +0000

I read a comment by the Chancellor, or whatever, in which he said there were no other options to raising tuition more than 30%. Really?
I attended a state university about 55 years ago. Other than room and board, we paid $75/semester. That money also bought our football and basketball tickets. The taxpayers paid the rest without being overly burdened. True, the faculty, to my mind, was awful; but then again mine was not a reliable opinion as I had little interest in what they offered anyway. They certainly did not stimulate me. I left after two years to pursue another agenda. My contemporaries, who finished their course of study, have done just fine in the world.
Many years later I attended another institution of higher learning. The faculty was supposedly first rate; I saw little difference overall. But, I had learned how to find the knowledge I sought–and that which interested me. And, of course, I got 4 letters after my name.
Next to government, I consider higher education to be one of the bigger scams going.