
The Slow Death of the University (2015) - jimsojim
http://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/the-slow-death-of-the-university-by-terry-eagleton-uk
======
zepto
[http://edge.org/conversation/geoffrey_west-why-cities-
keep-g...](http://edge.org/conversation/geoffrey_west-why-cities-keep-growing-
corporations-and-people-always-die-and-life-gets)

Tldr; Universities used to be structured like cities, or be an extension of a
city. Cities are so far essentially immortal. In keeping with modern doctrine,
universities have been transformed into commercial corporations. We know that
as a form, corporations have a limited lifespan. The average lifespan of a
company in the s&p 500 has decreased over the last century from 67 years to
around 15.

If you turn a university into a corporation, you limit its lifespan and should
expect it to die after a few decades. The evidence is clear.

~~~
TheCowboy
I don't think the lifespan figure usually accounts for mergers and
acquisitions. It is not always clear that a company "died" if it still
continues under a different corporate brand.

I haven't found any articles that try to sift the data based on this, so it's
possible that it isn't a significant factor.

It might be interesting to compare this recent period of consolidation with
the turn of the century when Pres. Theodore Roosevelt became known as a
"trust-buster".

~~~
cafard
Interesting point. I remember that the University of Denver ended up with the
physical plant of Colorado Women's College, but to what extent it assimilated
it otherwise--faculty, staff, students, programs--I don't think I ever heard.
Apparently Yale once had the notion that absorbing Vassar would be a quick way
to go coeducational. I can't offhand think of other consolidations or proposed
consolidations of colleges, though.

------
cs2818
While I think that many of the world's higher education systems are moving
towards optimizing throughput rather than focusing on truly engaging with
students, it is wrong to assume that this trend only affects the humanities.

As a researcher in a STEM field (at US university) for only ~7 years I have
often posited that many of the ideas which appeal to administrators result in
a degraded academic experience for students. In turn, this can negatively
impact research efforts.

I understand that this must be more frustrating to those in the humanities, as
funding is more abundant in STEM, but my guess is that these same trends are
harming the quality of research in all fields.

~~~
epalmer
> As a researcher in a STEM field (at US university) for only ~7 years I have
> often posited that many of the ideas which appeal to administrators result
> in a degraded academic experience for students. In turn, this can negatively
> impact research efforts.

Just wondering if you can give some examples. I work at a Liberal Arts
University.

------
return0
The UK universities are considered by many others in europe as degree
factories; i think they're the ones who invented the business.

Universities were once respected as the bastions keeping humanity's precious
knowledge. There is no reason for that anymore, we need more online and freely
accessible courses, data corpuses, libraries, and education material, funded
by national governments. Education should be a fundamental human right, and it
is not up to some startup or non-profit to fix that.

------
rpdubose
Couldn't agree more. I got my BS in Comp Sci from a traditional university.
Got out, got a job, did okay, got promoted out of day-to-day development &
eventually lost my ability to dev. Now, in my 40s I've decided to get back to
my tech roots. With all the great free resources & contributors online, as
well as shops like Udemny (& others) I am getting better & more practical
instruction than I originally received at a university.

~~~
jhbadger
That's not Eagleton's point. The guy's a literary critic and is upset that
STEM fields have taken the prestige position in universities, which to him
means universities are "dying". While I have probably more respect for the
humanities than most people with a scientific background, Eagleton makes the
error that a lot of people with his background do, which is to assume that
only people trained in the humanities are capable of critical thinking and
that STEM fields generate robots with no interests outside their technical
fields.

~~~
analog31
I wonder what people with scientific backgrounds actually think about
humanities. I live in a town where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting
a scientist. Just a couple of anecdotes: 1) My kids participate in a youth
music program, and several of the most prominent donors who support the
program are retired scientists. 2) The parents who clamor for more liberal
K-12 education, with arts, humanities, and even gym, are the scientists. 3) My
parents, both scientists, have always been interested in the humanities.

~~~
Fomite
I have a science-field PhD, and am about to start an assistant professorship
in a STEM field. This pretty much echoes my feelings on the humanities - that
they're a worthwhile thing that people should absolutely be exposed to.

And also, that playing the "Whose field is more important" game is a losing
one for all involved.

------
lambdasquirrel
The counterpoint is that at no other point in history has it been that (1)
having a higher education was crucial to success and (2) the middle class (or
what used to be the middle class) had access to higher education.

That having been said, most people in the broader economy still need to fill
roles with practical value as opposed to e.g. working at a think-tank. The
critical skills the author describes are nonetheless important, and one of the
terrifying things about this whole education business is that large parts of
the middle and upper classes lack this, in spite of said higher education. But
I digress.

The point is that we have more people going to university. So you put that
together with the needs of the students and of course there will be an overall
de-emphasis on ivory-tower activities. But I wonder if the total amount of
such activities hasn't changed much, with regards to the size of the country
or economy.

That said, we still need a place for those sorts of things to happen. And it
does feel like it's been pushed off into "grad school," whereas undergrad has
become a career mill much like how high school has become a college mill.

What I'll give the author credit for is the value of the mill. He's right that
there isn't that critical thinking, and isn't that what we needed to begin
with in the creative economy? And I do remember what that was like in school,
and even today. People like the idea of creativity and critical thinking until
you make them do it.

~~~
CM30
The first point kind of is the biggest issue with modern universities and
education. Not all jobs should require a degree, and people shouldn't be
forced to get one in order to get a decent job. The fact so many do is why a
lot of students only attend university for a piece of paper rather than an
interest in actually learning anything, and why universities don't want to
really challenge people any more.

If the first point wasn't true and the second point was, the world would be
much better, since everyone who wanted to go to university could do so and
everyone who didn't wouldn't be forced to.

------
jackcosgrove
Eagleton used the same exact phrase twice about teaching and research. So much
for his great writing skills.

I stopped reading after that.

This rant is like anything else that could be posted to Crooked Timber. "Oh
no! Humanities professors have to work like anyone else, with measurable
results. The university is dying!"

I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them.
Whereas the knowledge, technology, wealth, and all-around good stuff gained
from electrical engineering, astrophysics, materials science, etc. is as
limitless as the universe.

~~~
alberte
>I do respect the humanities, but there's only so much you can do with them.

I believe someone from the humanities would have trouble with this statement.
Of what use is all the techno gadgets if we lose what makes us human? I'm a
techie, but I've also studied some humanities, and delve into some in my spare
time, things like communication, psychology, arts these all make life a lot
richer, even if they do have less flashing lights.

Humanities professors on the other hand have had it pretty easy, and that
seems to be coming to an end, the same for universities in general. It's
something I'm torn about, I always loved my time at university, but the reason
I went there was for the knowledge, because that was where it was stored. Now
universities are in many ways obsolete - all the knowledge is in the cloud. If
you need to ask an expert then just ask online, so we still need experts, just
the renumeration model is being disrupted - like everyone elses pretty well.

What we do need is critical thinking, and traditionally this was what was
taught in an arts degree. In many ways the academics have done this to
themselves, by dumbing down degrees and focusing more on 'business' outcomes
they've eliminated what was the defining characteristic of a degree and it is
now just a set of check boxes, which of course you don't need a uni for. I
blame the MBA's - the cultureless hoards of middle management that suck the
life out of everything that's not quantifiable and can be entered on a spread
sheet.

~~~
jackcosgrove
I got a degree in the social sciences and most of the stuff they talk about is
just made up. As in, psychology studies cannot be replicated, literature
criticism is all just opinion, political science insights are just common
sense with weasel words. It's fine as a dalliance or avocation, but there's no
there there, intellectually. Science and engineering are so much more honest
about the truth and what constitutes knowledge than the humanities and social
sciences. The latter two nowadays are mostly rhetoric with a political slant,
anyways.

~~~
superuser2
And yet at this moment you are engaged in philosophy.

People should grapple with these questions in a sustained, deliberate way,
with reference to what's already been said and where arguments are evaluated
critically by many eyes. That's what academia is for.

~~~
tmptmp
You can engage in philosophy without having to have a humanities department
sucking up tonnes of state money. You can prepare yourself for philosophical
and critical thinking without some people leading cushy life doing nothing in
state funded humanities departments.

He engaging in philosohpy doesn't necessarily justifies the existence of
humanties departments in universities. With spread of internet and MOOCs the
first even departments that should cease to exist on state money are the
humanities departments.

~~~
superuser2
I'd say the exact opposite: if industry requires trained worker bees, it can
pay for their training. It is not our collective responsibility to meet
workforce needs. State-funded engineering and CS programs are corporate
welfare.

Humanities are the _only_ departments that should exist on tax money.

