On the question of whether to reform or abandon and circumvent the universities, after a decade in higher ed I'm leaning towards the latter position. My reasoning is laid out in a series of essays on the DIEing academy:
In my opinion most of the pieces are already in place to build out an ersatz academy on the Internet. In fact, that's already happening. The key missing element is credentialization. Considering that universities don't really sell education, but credentials, cracking that nut is the key to disrupting their institutional monopoly. I've got some thoughts on how to do that here:
I have a pet theory that the internet is the root cause of our institutions crumbling. Amy asked “Why is it that the men allow this to happen”, I suspect it’s because the institutions were held up across generations by the flow of a few exceptional men, but the internet interrupted that flow by attracting the great men away.
In journalism the best people left and started their own thing (Youtube, Substack, Podcasts etc) and the carcass of the industry was infected by wokeism. Same in entertainment- the best people either left or never joined to begin with and did their own thing, allowing the rot to take hold in Hollywood.
I see the same pattern in our universities. If you think of universities as serving three functions (education, research, certification), the internet has poached the most competent educators because they can get so much more reach online, so that function has been replaced. I think we’ll see a replacement for research and certification emerge shortly, as there’s a lot of work being done in this direction. I remain optimistic.
Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth either, would it, Prof. Wax? You are sooo put upon. What is your intent when you say "You got here because of Affirmative Action?" It's a judgment of the person. It's a put-down. What is the person so to do once you say that? ..... Not very helpful. Your colleagues must be playing a very tiny violin for you.... You were employed to teach students however they arrived in your class. ... You don't need to invite Affirmative Action students to your private cocktail parties, but society presented you with students and it expects you to do the job for which you are paid.
And yet, the fact remains: affirmative action necessitates admission and hiring on grounds other than merit, unavoidably meaning less meritorious hires who are there only because of their immutable characteristics. Oh, but pointing this out is rude? How terrible.
Funny how it never occurs to you creatures that some of us might find it well beyond rude that, since admissions and hiring are zero sum, affirmative action also implies that meritorious individuals get passed over because they have unfashionable skin colors and genitalia.
Sarcasm acknowledged. I want to live in a world where when there's a problem we look for a solution rather than a defense. If Affirmative Action isn't working, let's address the problem of inequity in pre-K-12 education.
A problem implies a solution. If there's no solution, there's no problem: it's simply a feature of reality. Trying to 'fix' reality produces injustice and misery. Which is the only thing the left has produced in generations now.
To bring it to specifics, the politically mandated belief that all demographic outcome discrepancies are due to phobia and ism, rather than due to biological differences in ability, temperament, and interest profile, has broken our institutions. We've spent 50 years or more trying to fix 'the problem of iniquity in pre-K-12 education' all based on the assumption that your reality model is the only allowed model. Didn't work. Your side of things has failed. Completely and utterly. Your model of reality is broken.
You came here to shame Prof Wax for not bowing to your DEI, and when called out on your two-faced passive aggressive woke bullshit, fall back on 'ok but can't we agree we should do something?' No. We can't. We're not on the same side.
This was a fascinating interview.
On the question of whether to reform or abandon and circumvent the universities, after a decade in higher ed I'm leaning towards the latter position. My reasoning is laid out in a series of essays on the DIEing academy:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/the-dieing-prestige-of-the-academy
In my opinion most of the pieces are already in place to build out an ersatz academy on the Internet. In fact, that's already happening. The key missing element is credentialization. Considering that universities don't really sell education, but credentials, cracking that nut is the key to disrupting their institutional monopoly. I've got some thoughts on how to do that here:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/how-to-kill-the-incompetocracy
I have a pet theory that the internet is the root cause of our institutions crumbling. Amy asked “Why is it that the men allow this to happen”, I suspect it’s because the institutions were held up across generations by the flow of a few exceptional men, but the internet interrupted that flow by attracting the great men away.
In journalism the best people left and started their own thing (Youtube, Substack, Podcasts etc) and the carcass of the industry was infected by wokeism. Same in entertainment- the best people either left or never joined to begin with and did their own thing, allowing the rot to take hold in Hollywood.
I see the same pattern in our universities. If you think of universities as serving three functions (education, research, certification), the internet has poached the most competent educators because they can get so much more reach online, so that function has been replaced. I think we’ll see a replacement for research and certification emerge shortly, as there’s a lot of work being done in this direction. I remain optimistic.
Amy Wax is (or should be) a national treasure!
Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth either, would it, Prof. Wax? You are sooo put upon. What is your intent when you say "You got here because of Affirmative Action?" It's a judgment of the person. It's a put-down. What is the person so to do once you say that? ..... Not very helpful. Your colleagues must be playing a very tiny violin for you.... You were employed to teach students however they arrived in your class. ... You don't need to invite Affirmative Action students to your private cocktail parties, but society presented you with students and it expects you to do the job for which you are paid.
And yet, the fact remains: affirmative action necessitates admission and hiring on grounds other than merit, unavoidably meaning less meritorious hires who are there only because of their immutable characteristics. Oh, but pointing this out is rude? How terrible.
Funny how it never occurs to you creatures that some of us might find it well beyond rude that, since admissions and hiring are zero sum, affirmative action also implies that meritorious individuals get passed over because they have unfashionable skin colors and genitalia.
Sarcasm acknowledged. I want to live in a world where when there's a problem we look for a solution rather than a defense. If Affirmative Action isn't working, let's address the problem of inequity in pre-K-12 education.
There was no sarcasm there.
A problem implies a solution. If there's no solution, there's no problem: it's simply a feature of reality. Trying to 'fix' reality produces injustice and misery. Which is the only thing the left has produced in generations now.
To bring it to specifics, the politically mandated belief that all demographic outcome discrepancies are due to phobia and ism, rather than due to biological differences in ability, temperament, and interest profile, has broken our institutions. We've spent 50 years or more trying to fix 'the problem of iniquity in pre-K-12 education' all based on the assumption that your reality model is the only allowed model. Didn't work. Your side of things has failed. Completely and utterly. Your model of reality is broken.
You came here to shame Prof Wax for not bowing to your DEI, and when called out on your two-faced passive aggressive woke bullshit, fall back on 'ok but can't we agree we should do something?' No. We can't. We're not on the same side.