Colleges and universities are like little countries, rarely answer to anyone and focused on their own insular practices.
It can be different than systems designed for the few instead of the many
However, even if you have two systems accountable to each other, once they realize that there's no third party that's holding the gestalt accountable, they're free to play tit-for-tat and essentially become a single entity.
It's kind of why "internal affairs" doesn't really work in police departments. They are part of the same system. If internal affairs clears the police, the police won't mess with internal affairs.
And I'm not saying there are easy solutions to implement. Because even if you have an entire web of systems configured in such a way that cooperation among some would be detrimental to the others so they would have incentives to keep each other in check, it would only take a sustained imbalance of power in order for the cooperators to neutralize the others so that they could create their own fiefdom.
But anywhere you do have a system that is only accountable to itself, you have a system that is likely rotting from the inside.
Insularity is both the strength and weakness of academia. Unfortunately, I feel we are sliding toward the worst of both worlds: an administrative "ruling class" that is insulated from consequences, but also allowed to constrain and control the educators/researchers.
There is some real case for institutionalization and being out of touch with the real world.
Add to that where those who can’t do but talk instead moving up in management to stand over the academics who are capable and immensely talented.
Bureaucracies anywhere they exist tend to lean this way, in their own special way. Whether it’s enterprise, healthcare, government, education..
Harvard et al also launder reputations, incubate reactionary movements, serve as a finishing school for the rich and powerful, stoke credentialing (eg grade inflation), and accelerate social inequity. For starters.
instead, I see a lot of demigods that rule their domain, curating complete autonomy as long as they stay within the confines they finessed
Let’s strike a committee to study it until it’s forgotten.
Edit: thanks lo_zamoyski. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFd4FdbJxs
I don't understand how did you get the impression that I was trying to be funny? It's a fairly serious description of the reality we live in.
It's actually how I often think of conspiracy. Not a bunch of men sitting in a room plotting together but a bunch of independent actors with convergent incentives. Also my litmus test for real bona fide conspiracy (Watergate or Contra Affair) vs crackpottery is if it can be boiled down to "wizards did it." It's always interesting that conspiracies work out to essentially making one feel safe in a world of all powerful but evil men rather than the discomfort of a chaotic world. Flat Earth stands out a bit because I still don't know who gains from it...
> I don't understand how did you get the impression that I was trying to be funny?
I didn't. I said Carlin was funny and that I was not. I honestly wasn't even aware you were referencing Carlin (at a direct level at least, since I did make the connection). It just reminded me of his statement (which now I understand as your intent. The subtle nod reference).
The litmus test is not about convergence, it is "wizards did it." Convergence is just a common kind of thing that crackpot conspiracies develop around. It's more rational when you understand convergence because crackpot conspiracy often is re-framed as a misinterpretation of the data.
Qualifiers are also important.
Hmm. Rather the comforting thought is in the mind of the so-called conspirators. Systemic theories about things like the Media (see mentioned Manufacturing Consent) get rejected as “conspiracies” because people (like in the Media) interpret it as saying that they, with full knowledge and intentionality are doing these things. Rather than that they are pawns in a larger system.
They are flattering themselves.
think your controversial head of state is being controlled by their buddies from university that run some private equity funds
well so would the other head of state if they won the election! different buddies
its more like if you dont also have a plan for outsized influence, then thats the biggest outlier and inefficient way of navigating the system we have
Imo, it's a good thing: regular ppl will be more suspicious about power overall and not make as many bad safety/convenience trades.
The right to read was literally only locked up a few hundred years ago.
there are absolutely kickbacks for people in control of those endowments choosing specific investment options with their many billions of dollars
They are solely focused on revenue. Teacher pay rarely raised, but that new upgrade for the stadium at a cool $120m, seems like a great idea.
FFS, her dept went past the paper budget for one semester, about 5 years ago. The resolution? Do without paper until the next semester.
That's what students insane tuition prices bought them. Apathy over education.
Awards and recognition for leaders. Where ethics rules are loose, fancy trips and steak dinners, etc.
There's an oversupply of most PhDs, so there's no need to raise their pay. And that's for professors. Grad students that teach are practically free.
Which PhDs are in undersupply?
She's still a full-time faculty member, has written/designed 3 courses for them, that are taught by herself and others to this day, and gets kudos every semester from students she's taught.
The college system is slightly less uncaring than the government. The big difference is the college system drains 20 years of your future income with insane pricing and if you get shit on due to THEIR changes, that's just your happy ass.
They are thorough in crushing dreams.
The best part about all of it? She got to PAY for the semesters that the school itself trashed.
Nothing, so they really didn't give 2 shits about it.
THATS universities, today.
Legal action is used even by unions to enforce their rights and contracts. If you don't have a union, legal action is the only strength a cog in the machine has. Use it, or get run over.
I'm not just writing out of my butt, I've successfully done this once. It is risky, but is it realistically any worse than what happened in this situation? It's not as if there's only one university awarding PhDs. And if you're swapping professors left and right, it's not as if staying at the university is really benefiting your original research goals.
When is there not a glut of administrators in any industry?
UCLA recently got hammered on this, after people shared a bunch of job posting for teaching posts for grad students with the disclaimer: "Note: this is an uncompensated position".
This doesn't have anything to do with universities specifically. There's always money for endeavors that have positive ROI. You can tell what a person, group, business or institution actually values by the things they spend money on that are true losses.
If it was laid out, that their education would suffer, because the resources that might be put towards it are now put into Sports Team, I suspect they would balk more.
The problem is many schools are now status symbols similar to an iPhone. People go to them precisely because other people cannot afford them. There are many schools that can provide a similar undergraduate experience - William and Mary for example - but simply do not have the cachet. The alumni, the students, professors and administration all want the prestige. It doesn't have to be that way if people would stop buying into the BS.
They already had reasons for people to attend without adding another 50k seats to a stadium that already had more than that.
This is a form of corruption that is present whenever anyone manages an investment fund, and not only specific to school endowments. This is why investment managers are licensed, and taking this kind of bribe could result in criminal penalties.