I thought this might interest some of you.
Interesting, but perhaps someone here can clarify a bit more in detail on the causes for the following assertion from the article, which I believe to be mostly true.
“Is there a private citizen more sheltered from the Market’s vicissitudes than the college professor? He has tenure, which means that, short of being caught in bed with a nine year old Cambodian sold into white slavery, he cannot be fired”
Why is this true for example in Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and any other private University. In what specific ways are they shielded from competition to such an extent that they can behave like this?
University professors have been given tenure for a long time. They are given this so they do not have to feel any danger of being fired for any new creative insights that they would like to profess. University are supposed to be bold places where intellectual curiosities are protected so new ideas can be born without fear. In Greece today they have a law that the police and military are not even allowed to go onto the property of any University. Students and professors are to feel that safe when on university campuses that they can speak about anything. Except in Greece recently the government broke it’s own law on occasion with all the protests going on there. This has caused a public outcry for they believe strongly the university is supposed to be safe and have intellectual freedom.
Yes, but what major market forces are missing that enables them to remain so inefficient?
Forgive me for being ignorant on this matter. I know that the Academia would have evolved much differently in a pure unhampered market, but I fail to recognize the missing critical market factors that are mostly responsible for this.
After all, you can’t say that there is no competition between the many private schools (and with state schools), and tuition is certainly a major factor.
I don’t know a whole lot about this other than what I wrote. Sorry.
I was thinking though since your comments got me thinking here. Are you saying Academia is inefficient because of what? If you mean professors sometimes continue to use the same statist materials and don’t explore sometimes, then I think that is due to the government gives huge grants to professors for their projects but those grants are only given if the professors stay within certain limits of intellectual curiosity. Now when there are books out there, such as Austrian economics and so why do Keynesian or Chicago schools persist? I think that’s due to what they offer as a career, but I know you know that.
I have to admit. I didn’t read the posted article in the OP, so, I apologize. Maybe I should read it to better have a grasp of what you might be inferring.
Well, I just mean, the average professor is engaged in meaningless research for the sake of publications. He teaches very few hours, has tenure, and so on… In other words, has very low productivity. Not all grants are public. Many are still private. Universities, it seems are extremely inefficient in all other aspects as well. Yet, they must still (at least in theory) compete for students. I cannot believe that this obvious lack of productivity is a result of consumer demand.
Yeah, professors as part of their contract (most universities require this) they need to publish papers true.
Well most of their work is to be in researching and publishing their findings. Teaching in the classroom is supposed to be more of a side job of theirs.
What lack of productivity specifically? Professors are supposed to be doing most of their work outside of the classroom and then they come back to the classroom as a way to share with others personally. But they are to be involved in seminars, mainly interacting with their professional peers, researching, etc… I do know this much, but maybe you are referring to something else.
Now I do say “supposed”, as you may notice, cause that’s what professors have discussed with me, and historically that’s what their profession is all about. When I sit and talk with them, I’ve realized they are involved in a lot more work outside the classroom as contractually agreed with the university and as professional obligations.
- I believe those organizations must comply with state accreditation policies, or they may not be able to advertise themselves as a higher education institution - same for their diplomas.
- I believe they still receive state funding. While not directly, scholarships and such give them incentives to cater towards the state.
- The job market is highly distorted. The average gov’t job pays 2x the average private sector job. If academic success is creating subsequent commercial success, even completely private institutions would focus on educating their pupils in a statist manner, so that they can be successful statists. It is like opening a private school for bank robbers, only without the charges of conspiracy to commit criminal acts and the social stigma such institutions would receive.
In regards to the article itself, why does MIT provide String Theory classes and education? Because there are many who are interested in the subject - and many are interested in the subject because they can find a job teaching it to others at a public university.
I think Hillsdale College in Michigan doesn’t accept money from the government, because of all the strings attached (no pun intended). They have their own private financial aid program funded by voluntary donations from individuals, businesses, and the college itself. I suspect there may be a few other colleges likes this, too, but I think it’s pretty rare. I think Lew Rockwell used to work there a while back. I think I saw someplace where he mentioned (or quoted someone else) that the college has more recently adopted some neocon views. I don’t know much else about the college and their inner workings, though, as I never took any classes there. There were a lot of Ron Paul supporters in the Hillsdale area, though.
These are very interesting points you raise, and I don’t feel qualified to give a complete answer. One of the other posters made some good points. I would also add that, for the same reason text books are statist and used in private schools, the physical community comes from overwhelmingly public backgrounds in education, and the field is influenced by the government.
We could also investigate to what extent the private schools are truly private and separate from the government. Excellent points, though.