[HN Gopher] Trapped in the Ivory Basement (2021)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Trapped in the Ivory Basement (2021)
        
       Author : luu
       Score  : 55 points
       Date   : 2024-03-09 19:59 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (thelocal.to)
 (TXT) w3m dump (thelocal.to)
        
       | yashasolutions wrote:
       | article from 2021. I suppose it is still relevant but could get
       | some date in the title.
        
       | thriftwy wrote:
       | That's the flip side of academic freedom. Once you trust a group
       | of people with self-governance, they would invariably use it to
       | enrich the insiders at the expense of outsiders. Just look up how
       | a Greek democratic poleis worked.
       | 
       | That's probably a compromise you would willing to make for a many
       | centuries out, internationally ranked universities. But petty
       | colleges should be ran more like service sector.
       | 
       | Having said that, it's quite possible that a single mother of
       | two, working in service sector, is simply untenable without extra
       | help coming from the outside.
        
       | betaby wrote:
       | At the same time tuitions are not cheap at all - money burned on
       | administrative and questionable activities.
        
       | red_admiral wrote:
       | This kind of thing is arguably the real injustice in higher
       | education - or "structural oppression" if you prefer. At least
       | half the other college diversity initiatives are at best
       | smokescreens to hide any discussion of how non-tenured faculty
       | are treated.
        
       | josh_fyi wrote:
       | Why do these teachers take on such a life? You could say that the
       | long-timers were fooled, they are now in too deep, and can't
       | start a new career, but those deciding whether to do a PhD must
       | know what they are facing, no? This sort of article has been
       | going around for many years.
        
         | sandspar wrote:
         | Academia is one of the very few places where you can do
         | research of your choice. If your theory is like a bug in your
         | brain then you have few other options.
        
           | jnwatson wrote:
           | One doesn't need a professorship to do research, or go to
           | conferences, or publish papers.
           | 
           | There are plenty of folks that do private research on their
           | own time. This is the right choice for the vast majority of
           | folks that have the "bug".
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | As someone who was very into photography as an undergrad
             | and observing the reality of the profession for almost all
             | photographers, I basically made the almost certainly wise
             | decision to get a "real" job and do my photography as a
             | hobby.
        
             | linguae wrote:
             | This is true, but what makes academia attractive is the
             | idea of being _paid_ to do research. One doesn't have to be
             | in the NBA to play basketball, but there's a world of
             | difference between playing at the local park versus being
             | on the Golden State Warriors.
             | 
             | Of course, the reality of research careers is quite
             | different from the pursuit of research itself. They're
             | quite competitive, especially in fields that lack a
             | lucrative industry, and there are many restrictions on
             | freedom that many people aren't aware of until they
             | actually become researchers. I learned these realities the
             | hard way, and I'm in the process of restructuring my life
             | to where I can pursue research as a hobby rather than as a
             | paid profession.
             | 
             | Of course, the hardest part about pursuing research as a
             | hobby is making a living outside of it. If a person who
             | wants to be a researcher is aware of this reality, then he
             | or she could prepare by developing some marketable skill,
             | product, or service and use that to make a living while
             | devoting time outside of money-making to research. However,
             | for those deep in research or academia who feel trapped in
             | postdocs, adjunct positions, or other unfulfilling
             | positions but who spent their who careers preparing for an
             | elusive permanent research job without developing other
             | skills, it can be a very painful transition, even if in the
             | long run stubbornness results in an even more painful
             | outcome.
        
               | badpun wrote:
               | > One doesn't have to be in the NBA to play basketball,
               | but there's a world of difference between playing at the
               | local park versus being on the Golden State Warriors.
               | 
               | Depends on the research field. For example, Einstein did
               | some of his best work without any university affiliation.
        
               | linguae wrote:
               | This is true; one doesn't need a university affiliation
               | to do research in many fields. In Einstein's case, he
               | famously worked as a patent clerk during his day job
               | while working on his research during his spare time.
               | However, there is a difference between pursuing research
               | as a unpaid side activity versus being paid to do
               | research; that is the sentiment I wanted to express with
               | my local park vs. NBA analogy. While arguably pursuing
               | research as a hobby provides a great deal of freedom
               | (e.g., no publishing or "impact" demands from management
               | because there are no managers), the problem is making a
               | living that is sufficient for paying for shelter, food,
               | and other necessities typically requires 40 or more hours
               | per week of work, which relegates research to nights and
               | weekends, which I don't believe is enough time to engage
               | in deep work, though it's not impossible and there are
               | many people who have done this, Einstein included (https:
               | //www.dpma.de/english/our_office/publications/mileston...
               | and https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/the-history-of-the-
               | ipi/einste...). It just requires a job that is not too
               | intellectually demanding. On the flipside, working as a
               | paid researcher means you don't have to worry about
               | trying to carve out free time to do your research.
               | However, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" has
               | become the mantra of research institutions these days;
               | the days of pure curiosity-driven research, whether in
               | academia or in industry (pre-divestiture Bell Labs and
               | Bob Taylor-era Xerox PARC), are long past. These are the
               | tradeoffs of being a researcher these days, and I've come
               | to know this the hard way.
        
           | kjkjadksj wrote:
           | You can't do that either. You are dependent on grant funding
           | which means you can't just research what you want, you need
           | to tailor it to what the grant writer wants. If you want to
           | truly research what you want you need your own huge pile of
           | money.
        
           | araes wrote:
           | Couple issues:
           | 
           | The article itself is basically a direct description of how
           | people are lured into academia with exactly that expectation,
           | and then end up in the gig economy. Not "choosing" much of
           | anything. The market says you're the academic equivalent of a
           | taxi driver.
           | 
           | There are other locations to consider theory if theory's your
           | thing.
           | 
           | Museums: support of archaeology, art analysis, sociology,
           | geography, history. Ex: The British Museum,
           | https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/projects
           | 
           | Aquariums/Zoos: Earth science, plants, genetics, ecology,
           | animal science, zoology, microbiology, nutrition, pathology,
           | physiology, medicine, conservation. Ex: Columbus Zoo and
           | Aquarium, https://www.columbuszoo.org/science
           | 
           | NGOs and Foundations: Earth science, plants, genetics,
           | ecology, astronomy, education, data science,
           | sampling/measurements, foreign affairs, international
           | politics, finance, economics, public outreach. Ex: The
           | Carnegie Foundation and Sub-Foundations: https://en.wikipedia
           | .org/wiki/Carnegie_Corporation_of_New_Yo...
           | 
           | Gov: support of aeronautics, engineering, data science,
           | computer science, forestry, agriculture, architecture, almost
           | every hard science, economics, finance, law, even
           | recreational specilists. [1] Feds have ~3M employees. States
           | have ~5M employees. Local govs have ~14M employees. [2]
           | 
           | A lot of the jobs are workaday jobs, yet there's still a
           | bunch out of ~22M that are somewhat "research". Formerly a
           | contractor at NASA, and even for a contractor (not civil
           | servant), seven publications. Mostly, minor citations, maybe
           | 10-15, yet still, seven publications on research topics.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.usajobs.gov/help/working-in-
           | government/unique-hi...
           | 
           | [1] http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-government-
           | employ...
        
           | linguae wrote:
           | Even in academia the freedom of inquiry is circumscribed by
           | performance expectations by peers and administrators,
           | especially pre-tenure. While tenure-track professors do not
           | have managers telling them what to research and how to go
           | about doing it like many industry researchers do, they are
           | often expected to publish regularly (preferably in top
           | venues, and at top universities this is required), do
           | "impactful" work (where "impact" is often measured by
           | citation counts, awards, examples of adoption by industry,
           | etc.), and raise money for the university by acquiring
           | grants. Grant agencies such as the National Science
           | Foundation have their own requirements that have a way of
           | circumscribing a professor's research direction, and they are
           | very competitive to earn.
           | 
           | So, it is more accurate to say that academia gives professors
           | the freedom to run their own research organization, but if
           | that professor wants a good shot at getting tenure and
           | staying in the good graces of the university, the professor
           | needs to be mindful of the expectations that the university
           | has placed and the requirements of funding agencies. Even if
           | a professor is mindful of these things, research is
           | inherently risky, and a professor runs the risk of not
           | getting tenure due to research results and grant-earning
           | efforts not meeting expectations.
           | 
           | This is distinct from the idea that a professor can do
           | whatever research he or she wants. Theoretically this is true
           | in the sense that there will be no manager watching over the
           | professor's shoulder, but if the professor isn't meeting the
           | university's performance expectations for publications and
           | grants, the professor won't make tenure, and even post-tenure
           | the university could find ways to make life difficult for the
           | "unproductive" professor.
           | 
           | I've thought long and hard about this, and I personally
           | believe that a professor actually has more freedom in
           | predominantly teaching environments. At teaching-oriented
           | universities, the publication and grant-earning requirements
           | are typically lower than that of research universities. At
           | all-undergraduate colleges, sometimes there are no
           | expectations for research. Of course, reduced research
           | requirements mean increased teaching requirements, which
           | could be challenging for researchers who don't have an
           | interest or talent for teaching. But for those who love
           | teaching and who want reduced or even non-existent "publish
           | or perish" pressure, then a teaching-oriented institution is
           | a great alternative. Even if one's research is restricted to
           | winter and summer breaks due to the workload of teaching,
           | this certainly beats trying to do research as a hobby on
           | nights and weekends while juggling a 9-5 job and only getting
           | 2-4 weeks PTO per year.
        
         | Cheer2171 wrote:
         | I entered grad school at 22, thinking I would become a CS prof.
         | I loved CS research I did as an undergrad in a prof's lab. That
         | prof was my role model for my still not fully formed brain. I
         | wasn't told all these things by him or the program, but I did
         | my research and found stats about how so few PhDs become profs.
         | Side note: all the profs are those who made it, so their advice
         | about how to make it is like taking financial advice from
         | lottery winners.
         | 
         | I read lots of these kinds of "grad school isn't worth it"
         | confessionals. But many were about humanities PhDs, not STEM.
         | And I thought I was special, above average, even maybe a
         | genius. And I was special, but apparently not special enough. I
         | dropped out to work in tech and have a better salary and life
         | than my few ex classmates in my program who did make it in
         | academia.
         | 
         | But one of my housemates was a humanities PhD who also started
         | at 22, and was smarter and a harder worker than any of us STEM
         | PhD students. We all thought that if any of us deserved to make
         | it in academia, it was him. But the humanities are shrinking in
         | the academy. What the article describes is his current life. An
         | PhD from an R1 university who can only find a patchwork of
         | adjunct positions at different 2 year community colleges. He
         | can't go work in tech, who is going to pay a historian six
         | figures or even a living wage? He got some work doing freelance
         | writing and editing, mostly helping college applicants with
         | their essays, but ChatGPT is destroying the freelance writing
         | market.
         | 
         | We all made these decisions at age 22, after spending 4 very
         | formative years in college. I made the same stupid decision he
         | did and mine worked out, but the intellectual bug that bit me
         | just so happened to be infinitely more valuable to industry
         | than the one that bit him.
        
           | ryandrake wrote:
           | > Side note: all the profs are those who made it, so their
           | advice about how to make it is like taking financial advice
           | from lottery winners.
           | 
           | Or taking business advice from successful entrepreneurs.
           | Everyone is looking for the magical advice--The Formula. But
           | there is none. You can execute perfectly and still lose. You
           | can also bumble through without trying and succeed. You can
           | grow up in the wrong country. You can have the right parents.
           | So much is out of our control. We almost always underestimate
           | the outsized role luck and chance play in our endeavors.
        
           | post- wrote:
           | > He can't go work in tech, who is going to pay a historian
           | six figures or even a living wage?
           | 
           | I appreciate the thinking that went into the parent post, but
           | I want to challenge this statement, which is emblematic of
           | the kind of reasoning that paints training in the humanities
           | as frivolous and out of touch with the demands of the market,
           | as if the market is the sole arbiter of reality.
           | 
           | I recently earned a PhD in a humanities field, and I'm
           | currently gainfully employed as a research software engineer
           | at a major university. I'm making less than I did when I was
           | in tech just out of college, but more than many of my
           | humanities colleagues in various positions between the PhD
           | and the tenure track.
           | 
           | My point is not to brag about being able to get into tech
           | with a humanities background, but to say that I don't think
           | I'm anything special. When I was first applying for tech jobs
           | out of college, I drew on my training in literature and human
           | languages to guide my learning and application of CS
           | fundamentals. I admit that I caught a lucky break with
           | companies willing to take a chance on someone with a non-
           | traditional background, and I'm grateful to have these skills
           | to draw on if a traditional academic career doesn't work out
           | for me. But I think my story is repeatable.
           | 
           | But back to the original point: rather than denigrating the
           | value of a history PhD, it's important to question the market
           | forces that have created this kind of precariousness for
           | people who possess not only important knowledge about the
           | past but, more importantly, the training and skills to use
           | that knowledge to interpret the present.
           | 
           | The assumption that jobs are available to people because of
           | what they _know_ is based on faulty logic that comes from the
           | MBA-ification of everything -- the obsession with
           | "deliverables."
           | 
           | Really, what PhD training in any discipline brings is both a
           | deep pool of knowledge _and_ the training to synthesize and
           | use those  "facts" in novel ways.
           | 
           | > ChatGPT is destroying the freelance writing market
           | 
           | Relatedly, this statement only makes sense if one assumes
           | that we have given up on teaching everyday people -- non-
           | specialists -- the importance of the medium for a message's
           | delivery, dissemination, and broader understanding. "ChatGPT
           | is destroying the freelance writing market" because we have
           | collectively failed to reinforce the value of human
           | perspectives on an issue.
           | 
           | Allowing "The Market" to dictate reality has led to schisms
           | in shared truth like climate change denialism. We need
           | interpreters of history, literature, drama, etc. in order to
           | get back to any hope of getting back to broad agreement about
           | what the world is.
           | 
           | Will we ever get everyone to agree? Of course not, but market
           | forces can't repair these divisions.
           | 
           | As the old Upton Sinclair quote goes, "It is difficult to get
           | a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his
           | not understanding it."
        
             | FredPret wrote:
             | The market doesn't dictate reality - it is part of reality.
             | 
             | If a skill isn't needed, there won't be a demand for it,
             | and it won't pay well, no matter how many years of learning
             | and personal growth are required to acquire the skill.
             | 
             | The big bad market refusing to pay historians a good wage
             | is just society's built-in mechanism for trying to guide
             | people into doing things that are most needed.
             | 
             | A lot of the humanities were historically aimed at rich
             | kids who don't need to engage with the labour market; we
             | really shouldn't be encouraging middle-class kids to take
             | on a mountain of student debt when they should be focusing
             | on maximizing their earnings.
        
               | currymj wrote:
               | the problem is that having a healthy community of
               | scholars doing good historical research using
               | sophisticated methods, produces a lot of positive
               | externalities. most people never engage with it but
               | having such people around does limit historical bullshit.
               | this has been good for society. but it's now falling
               | apart.
        
               | FredPret wrote:
               | I agree it's a positive, but each one of us has to sell
               | our value-add to the rest of society. This is actually a
               | wonderful constraint to have because it keeps each of us
               | in touch with the rest of humanity
        
               | hobs wrote:
               | Except for all the people that are born rich, they don't
               | have to do anything.
        
               | badpun wrote:
               | Is it really falling apart? The US universities hire
               | many, probably thousans or even tens of thosands, of
               | excellent history professors. What's the problem with it?
        
               | nonrandomstring wrote:
               | Your explanation is an exemplar of constrained thinking.
               | Thinking inside the box, or having limited horizons [0].
               | 
               | You start off correctly; markets are "part of reality".
               | That rightly implies some other "rest of reality", does
               | it not?
               | 
               | You then define all value only within the limited logic
               | of markets. And wish to a universalise it as "society's
               | built-in mechanism".
               | 
               | Mathematics is a "humanity". Reading some, you'll gain
               | understanding of Godel, Whitehead and Russell who would
               | alert you to the logic that a system can't deal with
               | what's outside itself.
               | 
               | Markets are a system. A very simplified one.
               | 
               | Humanities are precisely that project that transcends
               | simple models like markets. Humanities attempt to cover a
               | _bigger, meta-reality_. It has nothing to do with  "rich
               | kids". Some of the greatest philosophers, writers and
               | scientists (what we call 'STEM' now was once "natural
               | philosophy") were dirt poor.
               | 
               | To be more frank, to think _only_ about markets and
               | "maximising earnings" is stubborn, insular and self-
               | limiting. It's a great way to stay cloistered and never
               | contribute anything of value to the world.
               | 
               | Sure we have professional economists. But not everyone
               | should reduce them-self to the level of economics.
               | 
               | [0] EDIT: these are not words meant to insult or belittle
               | - they are to mean exactly what they mean on face value.
               | There is no 'shame' in thinking with limited horizons, or
               | seeing in an involuted way if you've been exposed to
               | nothing else but are open minded to imagine there is more
               | to the world.
        
               | badpun wrote:
               | > You then define all value only within the limited logic
               | of markets.
               | 
               | Not all value, just monetary one. There's plenty of
               | valueable activities that do not pay much or even a dime.
               | However, the discussion revolved about making a living,
               | not what's valueable in the abstract. And, regarding
               | making a living, it's true that plenty more people want
               | to be paid as historians that other people have a need
               | for.
        
               | nonrandomstring wrote:
               | I respectfully acknowledge that you aren't the parent to
               | whom I was responding and that you're jumping in with
               | your own contribution.
               | 
               | But I do not think the "discussion revolved about making
               | a living" Indeed, it's something of an irritating HN
               | trope/style to try steering the narrative by telling
               | other people what the "discussion is _actually_ all about
               | "
               | 
               | As I see it the main theme here was the low social status
               | of academic work in general.
               | 
               | I realise, and sympathise, that a lot of HN posters are
               | deeply anxious about "making a living".
               | 
               | My disagreement with the parent is the claim that "the
               | market" is:                 "" just society's built-in
               | mechanism for trying to guide people into          doing
               | things that are most needed. ""
               | 
               | Markets are awful at determining what is "needed".
               | They're great at figuring out how to satisfy people's
               | superficial desires and great at making money. Look
               | around you. Millions of people doing pointless make-work
               | jobs in advertising and "the financial industry".
               | Meanwhile, we keep failing to solve the most elementary
               | challenges of a sustainable, healthy environment, which
               | is surely a fundamental _need_.
               | 
               | For me, this where Neo-liberalism falls flat. Markets
               | cannot tell society anything about what is needed.
               | Society must tell markets what is needed... however we
               | achieve that. And so to see things only from within the
               | frame of "market think" is to remain blind to most of
               | reality.
        
             | life-and-quiet wrote:
             | Appreciate this post, and will add my voice to it. Current
             | senior manager in technology whose only academic
             | credentials are undergrad and grad degrees in history and
             | (non-quantitative minor) economics.
             | 
             | I do think my career stalled a bit as a result of studying
             | these things, but that's a consequence of the same market
             | thinking you're challenging. The people who hired me are
             | happy they gave me the chance, and presumably like OP said,
             | we aren't that special and there are tons of other talented
             | people who can do this work being ignored because of an
             | excess concern for credentialism.
        
             | cka wrote:
             | I'm a math PhD, was a tenured professor and then
             | transitioned to industry. We've got two humanities PhDs
             | that work as QA testers on our team. They're both
             | fantastic, especially in thinking about either big picture
             | questions or nuanced takes that others missed out on.
        
               | WalterSear wrote:
               | Considering the length of the road they took to become QA
               | testers, they had better be. This is more evidence that
               | humanities studies are a substantial stumbling block, in
               | terms of career growth.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | There were a number of careers that undergraduate me was
           | somewhat enamored of. But undergraduate me, surprisingly, was
           | also aware that the odds of my attaining them at the levels I
           | would find satisfying and at least reasonably lucrative were
           | vanishingly small. So I should just stick with a job from my
           | good engineering school.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | >ChatGPT is destroying the freelance writing market.
           | 
           | As someone very close to this area, I seriously question
           | this. Yes, there are very low-rent content mills with
           | material being cranked out by people who are being paid
           | pennies per word. But serious freelance writing being
           | commissioned by many corporations (where the pay is more in
           | line with $1/word) are not going to be replaced by ChatGPT
           | anytime soon. The writers may use ChatGPT as an assistant and
           | perhaps rates will decline further over time but this
           | basically falls in the same category as we won't need
           | programmers any longer.
           | 
           | Maybe? But now you're in the category of AI will take all the
           | jobs.
        
             | mitthrowaway2 wrote:
             | I'm also close to this area, and executives see the writing
             | on the wall.
             | 
             | ChatGPT doesn't even need to be nearly as good as the
             | writers it replaces for those writers to lose their jobs.
             | It just has to be good enough that the people who write the
             | cheques can't tell the difference, and such people don't
             | all have a good eye for quality writing.
        
           | throwawaymaths wrote:
           | This kind of talk was bubbling around STEM phds, too at top
           | institutions in the 2005-2015 era, so even if you're in your
           | early 40s, you should have at least been able to make an
           | informed decision.
        
         | setgree wrote:
         | Status and autonomy. Even an adjunct professor still gets
         | addressed with a honorific. You rarely have anyone yell at you
         | or look over your shoulder as you work. And, as a friend who
         | has a TT job at a Canadian University recently observed, it is
         | generally the adjuncts who most adopt the professorial look:
         | sweaters, jackets with elbow patches, horn-rimmed glasses.
         | 
         | So long as these things are enticing to enough people, supply
         | will outstrip demand and wages will fall.
        
           | mycologos wrote:
           | I think this is an underrated point in these discussions.
           | There are three components to every job: how much value other
           | people get out of you doing it, how much value you get out of
           | doing it, and how many other people want to do it. Whether
           | it's game development or adjunct prof'ing, employers know
           | when the job their offering has benefits beyond pure salary,
           | and they adjust that salary accordingly. The humanities grad
           | students I knew weren't stupid. They could see the statistics
           | in front of them. But staying the university world for a bit
           | longer, and seeing other people do the same, tempted them
           | down that path, and continues to tempt a surprising number of
           | them.
        
         | jseliger wrote:
         | "This sort of article has been going around for many years."
         | Exactly, this article could've been written any time in the
         | last couple decades.
         | 
         | In 2016 I put up "Universities treat adjuncts like they do
         | because they can" in response to one of them.
         | https://jakeseliger.com/2016/02/25/universities-treat-
         | adjunc.... Supply and demand.
        
         | red_admiral wrote:
         | Many reasons, but here's one from the same site:
         | https://thelocal.to/one-year-fifty-cover-letters-three-inter...
         | (the URL kind of gives the point away already)
        
           | iraqmtpizza wrote:
           | getting rejected from a master's program is like dodging a
           | bullet
        
         | gnicholas wrote:
         | I worked as a lawyer from 2007-2014. Most of the partners I
         | worked for had PhDs and had taught at least briefly in the
         | 80s-90s. They went back to school to get JDs (their PhDs were
         | in unrelated fields) and now make very good money as biglaw
         | partners. One is married to a professor at an R1, but that's
         | the extent of their connection to higher ed.
         | 
         | The lack of jobs for PhDs has been a trend for several decades.
         | These guys are smart and are successful. They came from all
         | different fields. And if they hadn't detoured into academia
         | they would have had an extra 10-15 years of legal earnings (or
         | the ability to retire that much sooner).
        
       | pfdietz wrote:
       | I had discussions with my children about this issue before they
       | even went to college. The one that went on to an advanced degree
       | decided she'd rather be an MD than a PhD. It's much more
       | rewarding, and even if you want to do medical research (she
       | didn't) a dual degree is better than just a PhD.
        
       | boring-alterego wrote:
       | Community colleges do a great job. I went to one before the 4
       | year university for electrical engineering and gave me a much
       | better foundation than those that went straight to the 4 year
       | uni.
        
       | pc_edwin wrote:
       | The elephant in the room is the modern collectivist initiative of
       | college/higher education for the common man. I don't how people
       | don't see it, especially the HN crowd..
       | 
       | This article is shows only one of the smaller downstream
       | consequences, it gets much worse. We are talking an entire
       | generation indebted by trillions, entire areas of the economy
       | with staff shortages, "highly credentialed" people working
       | unrelated jobs etc etc
       | 
       | Colleges we always meant to a niche entity. Huge inequalities
       | were not just optional downsides, rather they were structurally
       | essential. Most people shouldn't go to college, most phds and
       | professorhips shouldn't exist and most colleges shouldnt..
       | 
       | This is not a luddite take, i think these things actually should
       | 100x but not like the way it is right now. The issue is
       | socialism.
       | 
       | Government/non-profit funded high education should only be
       | afforded to a very small subset of the population. The gifted.
       | 
       | Everything else should be private and amongst them most should be
       | treated like trades/apprenticeship.
       | 
       | These ideas seem radical/ridiculous but most of what we think of
       | high education these days are a consequences of extremely silly
       | post WWII socialist policies.
       | 
       | I don't even have a massive problem with government funding
       | either, this can be effective but not socalism, nothing like what
       | we have now. More like military research during the WWWII and the
       | early period of the cold war.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-10 23:02 UTC)