Interviewer: What you've got is college experience. Not the practical, hard-nosed business experience we're looking for. If you'd joined our training program out of high school, you'd be qualified for this job by now.
Brantley Foster: Then why did I go to college?
Interviewer: You had fun, didn't you?
--The Secret of My Success
My niece is among many contemporary high school juniors preoccupied with looking at colleges. One factor on her want list is a diverse student body.
I hope that she also considers the ideological diversity of the institution itself.
It can be argued that a primary benefit of a college education is to learn how to think critically. Critical thinking requires exposing the mind to various points of view. Thought processes must also be developed for sifting through those various perspectives to get closer to the truth.
On the surface, universities would seem to offer an effective platform for advancing critical thought. A student body drawn from various backgrounds helps attendees learn from each other in this regard. However, it can be argued that a more important factor is the capacity of the primary engines of the instructional platform--i.e., that of the faculty and others who convey knowledge in classrooms and other learning forums--for stimulating students to expand their minds and probe issues in search of truth.
Unfortunately, this part of the higher ed learning platform has been deteriorating to the point where potential for developing critical thought process has been severely diminished and, in some institutional environments, completely eliminated. A primary cause of this breakdown has been increasingly homogeneous ideology among faculty and administrators, particularly as related to politics and its spillover into economic and social issues.
It has been known for some time that the academy is skewed politically left. One consequence of the lack of political diversity in higher ed is that it has biased hiring of instructors. In some disciplines, preference for hiring faculty with like-minded, left-leaning ideologies is so strong that capability for honestly offering alternative views in the classroom is virtually non-existent.
Another consequence of the left skew in higher ed is that has fostered cultures of intolerance on campus. Speakers who offer competing perspectives are seen as threats and chased off campus by protesting faculty and students. Those incapable of coping with heterogeneous viewpoints are granted 'safe spaces' and language controls from 'microaggressions' committed by individuals perceived as posing ideological threats.
Several prominent academics have recognized the problems that lack of ideological diversity pose for higher ed. For example, a former Stanford provost discusses 'the threat from within' presented by ideological sameness and its consequential intolerance. The president of the University of Chicago has been outspoken about how and why his institution seeks to avoid policies that stifle diversity and freedom of thought.
Rising tuitions and and cheap credit (which are not unrelated) have increased the supply of college grads and made pursuing a college degree a riskier proposition now than in the past. All the more reason why inbound students should carefully assess the ideological diversity of prospective institutions. Attending a school rich in ideological perspectives increases the likelihood of securing the critical thinking skills commensurate with a valuable college degree.
I hope my niece does so.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query higher ed. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query higher ed. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Friday, October 30, 2009
Book Bubble
"Looks like the University of Illinois!"
--Joel Goodson (Risky Business)
Why do higher ed costs remain persistently high? Mike Shedlock hits it right on the nose. The reason is government subsidies. Loan programs like Sally Mae subsidize the market for higher ed. Subsidies always increase demand relative to supply. Consequentially, scarce resources are misallocated and prices rise.
Moreover, the 'cheap credit' structure of these subsidies has prompted borrowers to enter into larger commitments than they otherwise would. This should sound familiar, for it describe a process similar to the housing bubble.
How has this been operationalized on college campuses? Massive spending programs to build university capacity. Enrollment of students who would not have been admitted without subsidies--many of whom lack talent and motivation to do college level work. Diversion of resources away from those students with talent and motivation to do college level work. More debt. And, of course, higher prices.
Very few in the higher ed industry view this situation as bubblish. When reviewing the evidence, however, the familiar signs are there.
Which bids the question, what happens to these institutions and their stakeholders when the bubble pops, as bubbles always do?
--Joel Goodson (Risky Business)
Why do higher ed costs remain persistently high? Mike Shedlock hits it right on the nose. The reason is government subsidies. Loan programs like Sally Mae subsidize the market for higher ed. Subsidies always increase demand relative to supply. Consequentially, scarce resources are misallocated and prices rise.
Moreover, the 'cheap credit' structure of these subsidies has prompted borrowers to enter into larger commitments than they otherwise would. This should sound familiar, for it describe a process similar to the housing bubble.
How has this been operationalized on college campuses? Massive spending programs to build university capacity. Enrollment of students who would not have been admitted without subsidies--many of whom lack talent and motivation to do college level work. Diversion of resources away from those students with talent and motivation to do college level work. More debt. And, of course, higher prices.
Very few in the higher ed industry view this situation as bubblish. When reviewing the evidence, however, the familiar signs are there.
Which bids the question, what happens to these institutions and their stakeholders when the bubble pops, as bubbles always do?
Monday, November 30, 2015
Insulated Higher Ed
Well, the years start coming and they don't stop coming
Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running
Didn't make sense not to live for fun
Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb
--Smash Mouth
Article discusses core problems of higher education, including rising costs and lower student outcomes. One economist suggests that "The American university is a grand political accommodation," meaning that institutions seek to appease all key stakeholders.
This is classic resource dependence theory in concert with institution theory. Create 'negotiated environments' to stabilize resource flows from outside entities and bow to institutional forces that prompt compliance and isomorphism rather than innovation and change.
The author proposes four "obvious and reasonable" changes:
1) Cap administrative costs. Data indicate that, at large research universities, administration costs are growing much faster than costs related to core processes such as teaching and research. I doubt the findings would be different at smaller, teaching oriented schools. Overhead costs have reached epic levels.
2) Operate five days per week, year round. Most schools grossly underutilize their facilities. Friday capacity utilizations are usually below 40% (while about 70% for the rest of the week). I'd guess utilization rates are below 30% during the summer. Paradoxically, institutions have been busy adding more capacity despite the low URs.
3) More teaching, less mediocre research. Citation data that suggests most published research has little or no intellectual or social impact. Many articles are never cited (98% arts and humanities, 75% social sciences, 25% hard sciences) with average number of citations in the 1-2 range. Meanwhile, universities have been incentivizing more research and less teaching via lower teaching loads and use of cheap grad students/adjunct faculty in the classroom. The proposal is to tilt the incentive system toward rewarding more and better teaching.
4) Cheaper, better gen ed. Gen ed options are proposed as largely worthless in their current form, and should be structured around relevant problems of the day. Use of technology to teach large sections of more 'commodity' subjects is also proposed.
Most of these recommendations make sense but they do little to address underlying causes of the problem. Availability of cheap students loans has subsidized demand for higher ed. Higher tuition, underqualified incoming students, excess supply of college grads, delinquent loans, money for expansion are all consequences of these subsidies.
Moreover, by definition, institutions are built for stability--not for change. For example, reward systems do little to incentivize key groups such as faculty for acting entrepreneurially. Instead, rewards favor the status quo. Such systems serve to insulate faculty and other actors from external forces that would otherwise be driving changes essential for adaptation.
Until these underlying causes are addressed, then changes such as those enumerated above will have marginal impact.
Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running
Didn't make sense not to live for fun
Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb
--Smash Mouth
Article discusses core problems of higher education, including rising costs and lower student outcomes. One economist suggests that "The American university is a grand political accommodation," meaning that institutions seek to appease all key stakeholders.
This is classic resource dependence theory in concert with institution theory. Create 'negotiated environments' to stabilize resource flows from outside entities and bow to institutional forces that prompt compliance and isomorphism rather than innovation and change.
The author proposes four "obvious and reasonable" changes:
1) Cap administrative costs. Data indicate that, at large research universities, administration costs are growing much faster than costs related to core processes such as teaching and research. I doubt the findings would be different at smaller, teaching oriented schools. Overhead costs have reached epic levels.
2) Operate five days per week, year round. Most schools grossly underutilize their facilities. Friday capacity utilizations are usually below 40% (while about 70% for the rest of the week). I'd guess utilization rates are below 30% during the summer. Paradoxically, institutions have been busy adding more capacity despite the low URs.
3) More teaching, less mediocre research. Citation data that suggests most published research has little or no intellectual or social impact. Many articles are never cited (98% arts and humanities, 75% social sciences, 25% hard sciences) with average number of citations in the 1-2 range. Meanwhile, universities have been incentivizing more research and less teaching via lower teaching loads and use of cheap grad students/adjunct faculty in the classroom. The proposal is to tilt the incentive system toward rewarding more and better teaching.
4) Cheaper, better gen ed. Gen ed options are proposed as largely worthless in their current form, and should be structured around relevant problems of the day. Use of technology to teach large sections of more 'commodity' subjects is also proposed.
Most of these recommendations make sense but they do little to address underlying causes of the problem. Availability of cheap students loans has subsidized demand for higher ed. Higher tuition, underqualified incoming students, excess supply of college grads, delinquent loans, money for expansion are all consequences of these subsidies.
Moreover, by definition, institutions are built for stability--not for change. For example, reward systems do little to incentivize key groups such as faculty for acting entrepreneurially. Instead, rewards favor the status quo. Such systems serve to insulate faculty and other actors from external forces that would otherwise be driving changes essential for adaptation.
Until these underlying causes are addressed, then changes such as those enumerated above will have marginal impact.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Political Diversity in Higher Ed
I try so hard to keep it inside
So no one can hear
--Til Tuesday
Georgetown b-school prof questions why universities do not recruit for political and ideological diversity with at least the same priority as cultural or ethnic diversity. After all, a primary objective of higher ed is exposing minds to a variety of ideological perspectives, something can hardly be done when faculty selection processes favor ideological homogeneity.
The author states that he has been involved in searches in which the chair of the search committee stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered, and when candidates were dismissed because of their associations with conservative or libertarian institutions.
He then cites some of the many studies that indicate how lopsided the political ideologies of university faculties tend to be--with some disciplines, such as sociology, almost completely void of conservative or libertarian professors (see for example here, here, here).
I witness the consequences of this bias daily in the classroom. Having been inculcated with singular ideological perspectives, many students are incapable of articulating other possibilities, or of critiquing the opinions that they have come to hold.
I also routinely see it in scholarship, particularly in research that has 'policy' implications. It is rare to read an journal article that considers merits of less rather than more intervention in private affairs.
More balance in political ideology among faculty would certainly heighten learning in higher ed.
So no one can hear
--Til Tuesday
Georgetown b-school prof questions why universities do not recruit for political and ideological diversity with at least the same priority as cultural or ethnic diversity. After all, a primary objective of higher ed is exposing minds to a variety of ideological perspectives, something can hardly be done when faculty selection processes favor ideological homogeneity.
The author states that he has been involved in searches in which the chair of the search committee stated that no libertarian candidates would be considered, and when candidates were dismissed because of their associations with conservative or libertarian institutions.
He then cites some of the many studies that indicate how lopsided the political ideologies of university faculties tend to be--with some disciplines, such as sociology, almost completely void of conservative or libertarian professors (see for example here, here, here).
I witness the consequences of this bias daily in the classroom. Having been inculcated with singular ideological perspectives, many students are incapable of articulating other possibilities, or of critiquing the opinions that they have come to hold.
I also routinely see it in scholarship, particularly in research that has 'policy' implications. It is rare to read an journal article that considers merits of less rather than more intervention in private affairs.
More balance in political ideology among faculty would certainly heighten learning in higher ed.
Monday, May 8, 2017
Higher and Lower Ed Bias
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind
It's gonna be a bright, bright, sunshiny day
--Jimmy Cliff
Column re-plows much ground covered on these pages about the left skew of the ideological spectrum on higher ed campuses. The article's title suggests that parents 'prepare' their offspring for the ideological that they will experience.
It is likely that kids have already been prepared, however, as many have been immersed in leftist educational settings since kindergarten. While this is particularly true for kids who have come up thru public school channels, minds that have been developed in private school settings have also been subject to significant skew as well.
In fact, many students will move from lower to higher ed and sense no difference in ideological position of the institution at all.
It's gonna be a bright, bright, sunshiny day
--Jimmy Cliff
Column re-plows much ground covered on these pages about the left skew of the ideological spectrum on higher ed campuses. The article's title suggests that parents 'prepare' their offspring for the ideological that they will experience.
It is likely that kids have already been prepared, however, as many have been immersed in leftist educational settings since kindergarten. While this is particularly true for kids who have come up thru public school channels, minds that have been developed in private school settings have also been subject to significant skew as well.
In fact, many students will move from lower to higher ed and sense no difference in ideological position of the institution at all.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Higher Ed Bubble
Well we got no choice
All the girls and boys
Makin' all that noise
'Cause they found new toys
--Alice Cooper
Spot on commentary by Walt Williams on the glut of college grads. As he notes, a signficant portion of college grads are 'underemployed.' Their jobs may never generate enough income to pay back the economic resources that went into their college educations.
The 1/3 number that Williams cites is consistent with the fraction of students in my classrooms that, in my estimation, have no business being in a college classroom.
What WEW leaves out is a discussion of the government controlled student loan market and its role in creating this oversupply. Government offers college loans at rates and terms below the market. As a result, many students who would not have attended college otherwise find the cheap borrowing rates irresistable. Thus, they lever up with loans to attend school.
This off course jacks prices higher as credit artificially stimulates demand. Universities, in turn, spend lavishly on facilities to handle more capacity. And then jack tuitions higher again to pay for the build outs.
Welcome to the higher ed bubble. Like all others, this bubble will surely pop.
So, not only do are we producing a large fraction of college grads that are underemployed, but students who routinely graduate with five or six figure liabilities. Large numbers of defaults seem certain. As does a large contraction in future enrollments. Which means campuses will be lugging too much capacity.
Bottom line: scarce economic resources are being squandered on a large scale.
Just one more example of the folly of central planning. In this case, it is based on the flawed belief by planners that people have a 'right' to a college education. That flawed belief drags down general standard of living.
All the girls and boys
Makin' all that noise
'Cause they found new toys
--Alice Cooper
Spot on commentary by Walt Williams on the glut of college grads. As he notes, a signficant portion of college grads are 'underemployed.' Their jobs may never generate enough income to pay back the economic resources that went into their college educations.
The 1/3 number that Williams cites is consistent with the fraction of students in my classrooms that, in my estimation, have no business being in a college classroom.
What WEW leaves out is a discussion of the government controlled student loan market and its role in creating this oversupply. Government offers college loans at rates and terms below the market. As a result, many students who would not have attended college otherwise find the cheap borrowing rates irresistable. Thus, they lever up with loans to attend school.
This off course jacks prices higher as credit artificially stimulates demand. Universities, in turn, spend lavishly on facilities to handle more capacity. And then jack tuitions higher again to pay for the build outs.
Welcome to the higher ed bubble. Like all others, this bubble will surely pop.
So, not only do are we producing a large fraction of college grads that are underemployed, but students who routinely graduate with five or six figure liabilities. Large numbers of defaults seem certain. As does a large contraction in future enrollments. Which means campuses will be lugging too much capacity.
Bottom line: scarce economic resources are being squandered on a large scale.
Just one more example of the folly of central planning. In this case, it is based on the flawed belief by planners that people have a 'right' to a college education. That flawed belief drags down general standard of living.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Dumbing Down Higher Ed
"Mr Hoover, president of Delta house. 1.6...four C's and an F. A fine example you set. Daniel Day Simpson...has no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr Blutarsky...zero...point...zero."
--Dean Vernon Wormer (Animal House)
Interesting insider view on higher ed written by a humanities prof at a Canadian institution. Several points ring true (e.g., trending disengagement of students, caveats of on-line instruction, gradeflation, rising influence of 'student services' staff). Similar points have been discussed on these pages.
Other points ring less true (e.g., inadvisability of contract or adjunct faculty with less than PhD degrees).
He also fails to discuss the role of cheap credit (i.e., low cost student loans) facilitated by government in creating and/or exacerbating the problem.
However, his article does raise a question worthy of self-reflection: How much am I bowing to institutional pressures when formulating and executing my instructional approach?
--Dean Vernon Wormer (Animal House)
Interesting insider view on higher ed written by a humanities prof at a Canadian institution. Several points ring true (e.g., trending disengagement of students, caveats of on-line instruction, gradeflation, rising influence of 'student services' staff). Similar points have been discussed on these pages.
Other points ring less true (e.g., inadvisability of contract or adjunct faculty with less than PhD degrees).
He also fails to discuss the role of cheap credit (i.e., low cost student loans) facilitated by government in creating and/or exacerbating the problem.
However, his article does raise a question worthy of self-reflection: How much am I bowing to institutional pressures when formulating and executing my instructional approach?
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Faculty Voter Registration
All in all you're just
Another brick in the wall
--Pink Floyd
Another study indicating the lack of political diversity in higher ed. Voter registrations records of over 7000 full time (tenured, emeritus, tenure track) faculty in five disciplines at 40 leading US universities found that 3623 were registered as Democrats and 314 were registered Republicans for an overall ratio of nearly 12:1.
Across the five disciplines examined, economics was the least biased at 'only' 4.5:1 while history 33.5:1 and journalism 20.0:1 were the most biased.
Institutionally, the only three universities under 4:1 are Ohio State, Case Western, and Pepperdine.
While such findings merely reinforce what is already known, those who believe that ideological diversity and tolerance should be the centerpiece of university environments should find the political bias in higher ed disturbing.
Another brick in the wall
--Pink Floyd
Another study indicating the lack of political diversity in higher ed. Voter registrations records of over 7000 full time (tenured, emeritus, tenure track) faculty in five disciplines at 40 leading US universities found that 3623 were registered as Democrats and 314 were registered Republicans for an overall ratio of nearly 12:1.
Across the five disciplines examined, economics was the least biased at 'only' 4.5:1 while history 33.5:1 and journalism 20.0:1 were the most biased.
Institutionally, the only three universities under 4:1 are Ohio State, Case Western, and Pepperdine.
While such findings merely reinforce what is already known, those who believe that ideological diversity and tolerance should be the centerpiece of university environments should find the political bias in higher ed disturbing.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Purdue Acquires Kaplan
"What are you looking at? You're laborers. You should be laboring. That's what you get for not having an education."
--Dr Jerry Hathaway (Real Genius)
Interesting acquisition in higher ed as Purdue buys Kaplan University. Kaplan U. is primarily invested in on-line education although it operates 15 facilities across the US.
The obvious objective is to expand Purdue's footprint in online higher ed. Most schools have elected to do this thru internal growth. Purdue is among the first to expand in this manner thru external acquisition.
The new online university will use the Purdue name in some fashion that has yet to be identified. Purdue also intends to rely solely on tuition and fundraising to cover operating expenses. No state appropriations will be utilized.
I have wondered for some time whether a publicly funded institution with broad accessibility mandates can compete with more focused, privately funded rivals. Now we have a public/private hybrid that seems to further complicate matters.
Will be interesting to see how this one unfolds.
--Dr Jerry Hathaway (Real Genius)
Interesting acquisition in higher ed as Purdue buys Kaplan University. Kaplan U. is primarily invested in on-line education although it operates 15 facilities across the US.
The obvious objective is to expand Purdue's footprint in online higher ed. Most schools have elected to do this thru internal growth. Purdue is among the first to expand in this manner thru external acquisition.
The new online university will use the Purdue name in some fashion that has yet to be identified. Purdue also intends to rely solely on tuition and fundraising to cover operating expenses. No state appropriations will be utilized.
I have wondered for some time whether a publicly funded institution with broad accessibility mandates can compete with more focused, privately funded rivals. Now we have a public/private hybrid that seems to further complicate matters.
Will be interesting to see how this one unfolds.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Purdue Annual Letter
"When I signed up for the course, I thought I was playing it smart. I thought, 'I'll take shop. It'll be such as easy way to maintain my grade point average.'"
--Brian Johnson (The Breakfast Club)
Interesting annual letter from Purdue University President Mitch Daniels. Purdue made headlines last spring when it acquired the assets of online education provider Kaplan.
Daniels updates stakeholders on the Kaplan acquisition and how the institution plans to integrate the Kaplan assets into its higher ed processes. It remains to be seen whether a top tier institution can simultaneously do both face-to-face and distance education exceptionally well.
I found Daniels' comments on gradeflation particularly interesting. The evidence at Purdue is consistent with what is happening elsewhere: grades are drifting higher without commensurate improvement in student skills. Here is his central concern:
"In too many places, 'self-esteem' has apparently taken precedence over candor in student assessment. For many of our arriving students, anything less than an A comes as a jolt and a rude surprise. The student evaluations of our faculty which are collected at the end of each term are thought by many to be heavily tilted toward professors who are less demanding or inclined to easier grading."
I can attest to his latter point. Want better end-of-course evals? Grade easier.
Daniels admits that his "bias on the topic is evident." Further, he states that, "I believe that, in a sea of leniency, a university that maintains tough standards of performance will set itself and its graduates apart in a highly positive way."
Perhaps, but there be a wind in the face of an institution that seeks to attract large numbers of students by advertising candor and rigor in its evaluation systems. Students have been conditioned to seek out 'easy' classes and professors in order to achieve the highest mark possible.
I should add that Daniels writes like a CEO who demonstrates solid understanding of his organization's external environment and internal strengths/opportunities. Purdue is fortunate to have him.
--Brian Johnson (The Breakfast Club)
Interesting annual letter from Purdue University President Mitch Daniels. Purdue made headlines last spring when it acquired the assets of online education provider Kaplan.
Daniels updates stakeholders on the Kaplan acquisition and how the institution plans to integrate the Kaplan assets into its higher ed processes. It remains to be seen whether a top tier institution can simultaneously do both face-to-face and distance education exceptionally well.
I found Daniels' comments on gradeflation particularly interesting. The evidence at Purdue is consistent with what is happening elsewhere: grades are drifting higher without commensurate improvement in student skills. Here is his central concern:
"In too many places, 'self-esteem' has apparently taken precedence over candor in student assessment. For many of our arriving students, anything less than an A comes as a jolt and a rude surprise. The student evaluations of our faculty which are collected at the end of each term are thought by many to be heavily tilted toward professors who are less demanding or inclined to easier grading."
I can attest to his latter point. Want better end-of-course evals? Grade easier.
Daniels admits that his "bias on the topic is evident." Further, he states that, "I believe that, in a sea of leniency, a university that maintains tough standards of performance will set itself and its graduates apart in a highly positive way."
Perhaps, but there be a wind in the face of an institution that seeks to attract large numbers of students by advertising candor and rigor in its evaluation systems. Students have been conditioned to seek out 'easy' classes and professors in order to achieve the highest mark possible.
I should add that Daniels writes like a CEO who demonstrates solid understanding of his organization's external environment and internal strengths/opportunities. Purdue is fortunate to have him.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
College Free Speech
"Mr Hart, you're still not speaking loud enough. Will you stand? Speak louder, Mr Hart! Fill the room with your intelligence."
--Prof Charles W. Kingsfield Jr (The Paper Chase)
Updated ratings of colleges w.r.t. free speech. A rating of 75 or higher seems associated with a speech and idea environments that are favorable.
Very few institutions clear this hurdle. In this region, Kentucky rates highest at 55. Most regional schools have insufficient data to be included on the list at this time. However, those with partial data sets do not look promising.
Speech restrictions go on-in-hand with lack of ideological diversity to restrain learning capacities at higher ed institutions.
--Prof Charles W. Kingsfield Jr (The Paper Chase)
Updated ratings of colleges w.r.t. free speech. A rating of 75 or higher seems associated with a speech and idea environments that are favorable.
Very few institutions clear this hurdle. In this region, Kentucky rates highest at 55. Most regional schools have insufficient data to be included on the list at this time. However, those with partial data sets do not look promising.
Speech restrictions go on-in-hand with lack of ideological diversity to restrain learning capacities at higher ed institutions.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Overconfidence and Complexity
"I don't mean to suggest that you're indecisive, Mr Hunter. Not at all. Just...complicated. Of course, that's the way the Navy wants you. Me, they wanted simple."
--Captain Frank Ramsey (Crimson Tide)
Interesting proposition by Peter Atwater: the higher the confidence, the greater the creation of complex systems. Highly confident people and organization embrace innovation and new technology under the belief that there is unlimited opportunity ahead. Things become more interlinked.
Atwater suggests extreme complexity as an indicator of peaks in confidence. Mortgage and derivative markets, healthcare, global sourcing, and even higher ed have been exhibiting this characteristic, he says.
I would add current financial market supply chains that count 'dark pools,' complex market making arrangements, and high frequency trading among their complex features.
Pushing his logic to the extreme in the opposite direction seems to add validity: the lower the confidence, the greater the creation of simple systems.
When confidence is lacking, people like to keep things simple.
--Captain Frank Ramsey (Crimson Tide)
Interesting proposition by Peter Atwater: the higher the confidence, the greater the creation of complex systems. Highly confident people and organization embrace innovation and new technology under the belief that there is unlimited opportunity ahead. Things become more interlinked.
Atwater suggests extreme complexity as an indicator of peaks in confidence. Mortgage and derivative markets, healthcare, global sourcing, and even higher ed have been exhibiting this characteristic, he says.
I would add current financial market supply chains that count 'dark pools,' complex market making arrangements, and high frequency trading among their complex features.
Pushing his logic to the extreme in the opposite direction seems to add validity: the lower the confidence, the greater the creation of simple systems.
When confidence is lacking, people like to keep things simple.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Student Loan Bailout
"Moral hazard is taking someone else's money and not being responsible for it."
--Gordon Gekko (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
"Moral hazard means once someone bails you out, what's stopping you from taking another shot?"
--Jacob Moore (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
After the Obama administration indicated that it is studying "new bankruptcy options" for student loan borrows, ZeroHedge notes that various progressive groups are jumping on the bandwagon with petitions to cancel all student debt.
These pages have discussed the bubble in higher ed for some time (ex here, here, here). Student loan debt is now north of $1 trillion and is far higher than credit card debt levels and growth rates. Some forecasts estimate student loan debt greater than $3 trillion a decade from now.
That number seems conservative if loans will be forgiven (debt 'forgiveness' of course is a deceptive term here as cancelling debt means that someone who lent resources will not get them back). How much would YOU borrow for any endeavor knowing that someone will bail you out in the event of problems? If you were an institution, how much would you charge for tuition knowing that buyer behavior is being subsidized?
As ZH observes, we are institutionalizing moral hazard.
--Gordon Gekko (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
"Moral hazard means once someone bails you out, what's stopping you from taking another shot?"
--Jacob Moore (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
After the Obama administration indicated that it is studying "new bankruptcy options" for student loan borrows, ZeroHedge notes that various progressive groups are jumping on the bandwagon with petitions to cancel all student debt.
These pages have discussed the bubble in higher ed for some time (ex here, here, here). Student loan debt is now north of $1 trillion and is far higher than credit card debt levels and growth rates. Some forecasts estimate student loan debt greater than $3 trillion a decade from now.
That number seems conservative if loans will be forgiven (debt 'forgiveness' of course is a deceptive term here as cancelling debt means that someone who lent resources will not get them back). How much would YOU borrow for any endeavor knowing that someone will bail you out in the event of problems? If you were an institution, how much would you charge for tuition knowing that buyer behavior is being subsidized?
As ZH observes, we are institutionalizing moral hazard.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Financial Repression
"You're from Receiving, aren't you?"
--Brantley Foster (The Secret of My Success)
Carmen Reinhart (of This Time is Different fame) writes one of the more cogent pieces to appear on op-ed pages that I can recall. What separates this piece from typical op-ed drivel is linking assertions to tests of truth, using logic and/or empirical evidence.
Reinhart discusses the onset of policies being deployed by governments and central banks that help liquidate debt burdens and ease debt service. She terms these policies 'financial repression' because they are essentially taxes on bondholders and savers.
Financial repression is the consequence of massive buildup in debt around the globe. Reinhart's Fig 1 shows that central govt debt among developed nations is at its highest peacetime level ever--nearly 100% of GDP. Factor in private sector debt and unfunded liabilities and the degree of leverage is much higher.
The important thing to note is that the spike higher to record debt levels came in response to problems caused by already high debt levels. The credit crisis of 2007-2008 was 'fixed' by adding more debt to the system. This, of course, is classic Ponzi--both unsustainable and unstable.
Reinhart observes that large debt:GDP ratios have been reduced throughout history via some combination of: economic growth, austerity (spending cutbacks), debt default, inflation, and financial repression. She also notes that the last two options are only viable for debts denominated in domestic currency. Indeed, for those countries that do have control over their own printing press, inflation and financial repression have been the preferred avenues for coping with the debt overhangs since 2008.
A focal point of financial repression is central bank intervention that keeps nominal interest rates lower than market. All else equal, this reduces government interest expense and leads to deficit reduction. However, when central bank intervention results in negative real interest rates (as is now the case), then this action amounts to a transfer of wealth from creditors to debtors--in the present case from savers to governments.
As Reinhart notes, this is a tax that is largely invisible and discriminatory, thus it is likely to be politically palatable to policymakers and to the masses.
Reinhart also touches on the growing practice of 'monetizing debt,' although she does not term it that. Her Fig 2 indicates that sovereign (and GSE) debt is increasingly owned by government entities rather than by 'outside' market players. This "means markets for government bonds are increasingly populated by nonmarket players, calling into question the information content of bond prices relative to their underlying risk profile--a common feature of financially repressed systems."
Nice point. Financial repression also amounts to distortion of information. Market truths morph into...false signals that have a propaganda feel to them.
Not only do savers have their capital robbed from them during financial repression, but information that might help those people regain their footing is taken from them as well.
Reinhart think financial repression will be with us a long time. My sense is that the time period may last only until the chaos unleashed by financial repression drives systemic collapse.
--Brantley Foster (The Secret of My Success)
Carmen Reinhart (of This Time is Different fame) writes one of the more cogent pieces to appear on op-ed pages that I can recall. What separates this piece from typical op-ed drivel is linking assertions to tests of truth, using logic and/or empirical evidence.
Reinhart discusses the onset of policies being deployed by governments and central banks that help liquidate debt burdens and ease debt service. She terms these policies 'financial repression' because they are essentially taxes on bondholders and savers.
Financial repression is the consequence of massive buildup in debt around the globe. Reinhart's Fig 1 shows that central govt debt among developed nations is at its highest peacetime level ever--nearly 100% of GDP. Factor in private sector debt and unfunded liabilities and the degree of leverage is much higher.
The important thing to note is that the spike higher to record debt levels came in response to problems caused by already high debt levels. The credit crisis of 2007-2008 was 'fixed' by adding more debt to the system. This, of course, is classic Ponzi--both unsustainable and unstable.
Reinhart observes that large debt:GDP ratios have been reduced throughout history via some combination of: economic growth, austerity (spending cutbacks), debt default, inflation, and financial repression. She also notes that the last two options are only viable for debts denominated in domestic currency. Indeed, for those countries that do have control over their own printing press, inflation and financial repression have been the preferred avenues for coping with the debt overhangs since 2008.
A focal point of financial repression is central bank intervention that keeps nominal interest rates lower than market. All else equal, this reduces government interest expense and leads to deficit reduction. However, when central bank intervention results in negative real interest rates (as is now the case), then this action amounts to a transfer of wealth from creditors to debtors--in the present case from savers to governments.
As Reinhart notes, this is a tax that is largely invisible and discriminatory, thus it is likely to be politically palatable to policymakers and to the masses.
Reinhart also touches on the growing practice of 'monetizing debt,' although she does not term it that. Her Fig 2 indicates that sovereign (and GSE) debt is increasingly owned by government entities rather than by 'outside' market players. This "means markets for government bonds are increasingly populated by nonmarket players, calling into question the information content of bond prices relative to their underlying risk profile--a common feature of financially repressed systems."
Nice point. Financial repression also amounts to distortion of information. Market truths morph into...false signals that have a propaganda feel to them.
Not only do savers have their capital robbed from them during financial repression, but information that might help those people regain their footing is taken from them as well.
Reinhart think financial repression will be with us a long time. My sense is that the time period may last only until the chaos unleashed by financial repression drives systemic collapse.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
First Amendment Protection on Campus
A voice is waiting for me
To set it free
I got the key
I got the key
--Russ Ballard
This week President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting free speech on college campuses. The order threatens to pull federal funding from colleges that do not uphold those rights.
This order is directed at movements on college campuses to suppress speech deemed unpleasant by some students, administrators, or external resource providers. Those movements restrain communication of alternative viewpoints necessary for seeing various sides of an issue and for developing critical thought processes (perhaps the ultimate goal of higher ed).
Opponents of Trump's order claim that colleges are not free speech forums but learning institutions, and these institutions must set norms about how learning should take place. These norms may, at times, limit speech for the sake of learning.
Nice try, but few things challenge critical minds more so than views that run counter to orthodoxy and fall outside the comfort level of everyday norms. Free speech forums--not safe spaces--are vital for learning.
The First Amendment specifies that the federal government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. When speech takes place in public places, such as on college campuses that have received public funding, then no laws, rules, regulations, et al. can rightfully prevent speech from freely occurring. In fact, government is obligated to ensure a speaker's right to speak and his/her audience's right to hear. President Trump is fulfilling that obligation.
However, the president has no standing to uphold free speech in private college contexts. Under principles of private property, owners of private schools can manage speech as they choose and have the right to physically remove those who violate the rules.
The implication, of course, is that those schools not wishing to preserve the First Amendment can do so simply by removing their hands from public coffers.
To set it free
I got the key
I got the key
--Russ Ballard
This week President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting free speech on college campuses. The order threatens to pull federal funding from colleges that do not uphold those rights.
This order is directed at movements on college campuses to suppress speech deemed unpleasant by some students, administrators, or external resource providers. Those movements restrain communication of alternative viewpoints necessary for seeing various sides of an issue and for developing critical thought processes (perhaps the ultimate goal of higher ed).
Opponents of Trump's order claim that colleges are not free speech forums but learning institutions, and these institutions must set norms about how learning should take place. These norms may, at times, limit speech for the sake of learning.
Nice try, but few things challenge critical minds more so than views that run counter to orthodoxy and fall outside the comfort level of everyday norms. Free speech forums--not safe spaces--are vital for learning.
The First Amendment specifies that the federal government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. When speech takes place in public places, such as on college campuses that have received public funding, then no laws, rules, regulations, et al. can rightfully prevent speech from freely occurring. In fact, government is obligated to ensure a speaker's right to speak and his/her audience's right to hear. President Trump is fulfilling that obligation.
However, the president has no standing to uphold free speech in private college contexts. Under principles of private property, owners of private schools can manage speech as they choose and have the right to physically remove those who violate the rules.
The implication, of course, is that those schools not wishing to preserve the First Amendment can do so simply by removing their hands from public coffers.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Facebook and Personal Productivity
"Come. Waste time here."
--Miyagi (Karate Kid 3)
I joined Facebook in the early days when a .edu email address was still required. To join the network, enrollees must agree to Facebook's policies regarding property rights and information sharing. The content on your page is not your own. Facebook can share your information with whom it wants. It can even mine your site for data that it can use.
Despite the restrictions on privacy, I enrolled. The privacy issues did not bother me initially because my primary motivation for joining Facebook was job-related. I was working with an entrepreneurial financial media firm that sought extend its reach toward the academic community and I wanted to learn about Facebook's potential to connect with college students and perhaps even market to them.
After creating an account, I immediately commenced with the 'friending process,' sending requests to pretty much anyone I could think of in my higher ed circle. Upon confirming my request, a grad student acquaintance at the University of Wisconsin became the first to write on my wall. His message was, "Wow, welcome to the number one time waster for college students!"
It did not take long before I realized that my friend was right about Facebook as a magnet for people's time. Here was an novel, easy-to-use, and free platform for virtually networking with others. You could connect with friends anywhere. You could see what they were up to. You could build a 'profile' that conveyed your identity. You could 'like' what others were doing and saying, and others could do the same for you. You could measure how popular you were by the size of your network. The more people that you connected with, the more alluring the platform became.
Over time, I overstepped my original work-related scope. I had a profile. I was posting on my wall and on the walls of my friends. I was also, for lack of a better word, snooping. I was spending hours reading what others were saying in various threads. Occasionally, I'd jump into those threads and reply myself. I would engage in those mindless debates commonly seen in 'comments' sections of on-line posts. I began anticipating push-back, and looked forward to posts that I could counter.
After this process intensified over the course of years, I finally caught myself. An audit of my time revealed that I was spending at least an hour per day on Facebook--most of it unproductively. It had become, as my friend observed on my first day, my 'number one time waster.'
So I quit.
That was 5 or so years ago and I'm a better person for it. I am now considering the merits of my remaining social network connections, namely Twitter, the networks implied by by gmail and hotmail accounts, and, of course, this blog. My concern this time is not the snooping and debate problems I had with Facebook. Twitter, for example, has become almost exclusively an news and information feed for me. Almost all inbound with an occasional outbound.
Instead, my concern is privacy, and what I concede through my on-line choices and activity. Facebook is currently being questioned about how far the company has taken its access to user information, but it should not be surprising given what users agree to upfront.
It really is amazing what we seem to be willing to give away when we go on-line. In fact, this is a phenomenon that I would like to address in future posts.
Provided that I decide to remain here, that is.
--Miyagi (Karate Kid 3)
I joined Facebook in the early days when a .edu email address was still required. To join the network, enrollees must agree to Facebook's policies regarding property rights and information sharing. The content on your page is not your own. Facebook can share your information with whom it wants. It can even mine your site for data that it can use.
Despite the restrictions on privacy, I enrolled. The privacy issues did not bother me initially because my primary motivation for joining Facebook was job-related. I was working with an entrepreneurial financial media firm that sought extend its reach toward the academic community and I wanted to learn about Facebook's potential to connect with college students and perhaps even market to them.
After creating an account, I immediately commenced with the 'friending process,' sending requests to pretty much anyone I could think of in my higher ed circle. Upon confirming my request, a grad student acquaintance at the University of Wisconsin became the first to write on my wall. His message was, "Wow, welcome to the number one time waster for college students!"
It did not take long before I realized that my friend was right about Facebook as a magnet for people's time. Here was an novel, easy-to-use, and free platform for virtually networking with others. You could connect with friends anywhere. You could see what they were up to. You could build a 'profile' that conveyed your identity. You could 'like' what others were doing and saying, and others could do the same for you. You could measure how popular you were by the size of your network. The more people that you connected with, the more alluring the platform became.
Over time, I overstepped my original work-related scope. I had a profile. I was posting on my wall and on the walls of my friends. I was also, for lack of a better word, snooping. I was spending hours reading what others were saying in various threads. Occasionally, I'd jump into those threads and reply myself. I would engage in those mindless debates commonly seen in 'comments' sections of on-line posts. I began anticipating push-back, and looked forward to posts that I could counter.
After this process intensified over the course of years, I finally caught myself. An audit of my time revealed that I was spending at least an hour per day on Facebook--most of it unproductively. It had become, as my friend observed on my first day, my 'number one time waster.'
So I quit.
That was 5 or so years ago and I'm a better person for it. I am now considering the merits of my remaining social network connections, namely Twitter, the networks implied by by gmail and hotmail accounts, and, of course, this blog. My concern this time is not the snooping and debate problems I had with Facebook. Twitter, for example, has become almost exclusively an news and information feed for me. Almost all inbound with an occasional outbound.
Instead, my concern is privacy, and what I concede through my on-line choices and activity. Facebook is currently being questioned about how far the company has taken its access to user information, but it should not be surprising given what users agree to upfront.
It really is amazing what we seem to be willing to give away when we go on-line. In fact, this is a phenomenon that I would like to address in future posts.
Provided that I decide to remain here, that is.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022
Student Loan Forgiveness
"Somebody's got to pay. Not gonna be me."
--Harry Lynch (Wall Street)
--Harry Lynch (Wall Street)
Ron Paul discusses the administration's plan to forgive college student loan debt. The plan is an overt attempt to buy votes, of course. Who is being bought?
Indebted college students, naturally. Plus all those who benefit from government subsidies to higher ed.
The plan can be viewed as a wealth transfer to the elite class. The working man is being forced to subsidize the 'educated.'
Moreover, the plan is inflationary. Loans that are forgiven don't just disappear. The liability must still be paid for. The money that can't be raised through taxes or borrowing will be...printed.
One more thing. Those who have actually paid for college now feel like suckers. In the future, more will borrow under the assumption that they won't have to pay.
Moral hazard writ large.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Big Business and the State
"The plane we flew in on this morning...leased from AIG. Construction downtown...AIG. Life insurance 81 million policies with a face value of $1.9 trillion. Billions of dollars of teachers' pensions. You want 'too big to fail?' Here is is!"
--Henry Paulson (Too Big to Fail)
Embedded in this piece is a nice history of the increasingly cozy relationship between government and big business. He integrates a number of key events, including:
Henry Clay and the Whigs' 'American System' which included planks for protectionist tariffs and government subsidized 'internal improvement' projects that benefitted large business.
The American System baton was handed to the Republican Party in 1854. It is straightforward to argue that big business influenced Lincoln and the prosecution of the Civil War.
Post Civil War, 'political entrepreneurs' such as many railroad operators relied on monopolistic grants, subsidies, and loans from the federal government. 'Market entrepreneurs,' on the other hand, were unassisted, and even opposed, by the government.
By 1900, competition was chewing into many large business franchises, driving many corporate leaders to approach Washington for 'regulation' to help keep competition (especially from new entrants) under control. Large businesses allied with administrations beginning with Theodore Roosevelt to advance their agendas.
The Progressive era strengthened the alliance between big business and the State. Progressive 'reforms' such as compensation laws were favored by big businesses and their affiliates.
Despite what history books suggest, no period period matched the New Deal for its incestuous relationships between business and government. FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act was essentially a copy of Mussolini's facist industry verticals. Welfare programs such as Social Security were backed by large corporations as an instrument for levying outsized burdens on smaller, nimbler competitors. FDR's administration also saw the rise of the military industrial complex which survives to this day.
The author lists some of the myriad government policies that prop up big business: licensing laws, regressive taxes, giveaways, military spending contracts, patents and copyright laws, secured higher ed loans, banking regs, credit expansion.
The incestuous relationship between big business and the federal government has clearly been a bipartisan effort. This administration has been no exception, providing bailouts, regulations, low interest rates, etc that favor incumbent operators at the expense of upstarts.
Yet we find President Obama arguing that the federal government is here to protect people from 'big business.' Of course, this administration is doing nothing new. As noted by the author, "'Liberal' politicians have long advanced their own power while serving the very monopolists they claim to oppose."
If you are one of the many who buy the 'government must protect you from big business' argument, then you are being played.
--Henry Paulson (Too Big to Fail)
Embedded in this piece is a nice history of the increasingly cozy relationship between government and big business. He integrates a number of key events, including:
Henry Clay and the Whigs' 'American System' which included planks for protectionist tariffs and government subsidized 'internal improvement' projects that benefitted large business.
The American System baton was handed to the Republican Party in 1854. It is straightforward to argue that big business influenced Lincoln and the prosecution of the Civil War.
Post Civil War, 'political entrepreneurs' such as many railroad operators relied on monopolistic grants, subsidies, and loans from the federal government. 'Market entrepreneurs,' on the other hand, were unassisted, and even opposed, by the government.
By 1900, competition was chewing into many large business franchises, driving many corporate leaders to approach Washington for 'regulation' to help keep competition (especially from new entrants) under control. Large businesses allied with administrations beginning with Theodore Roosevelt to advance their agendas.
The Progressive era strengthened the alliance between big business and the State. Progressive 'reforms' such as compensation laws were favored by big businesses and their affiliates.
Despite what history books suggest, no period period matched the New Deal for its incestuous relationships between business and government. FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act was essentially a copy of Mussolini's facist industry verticals. Welfare programs such as Social Security were backed by large corporations as an instrument for levying outsized burdens on smaller, nimbler competitors. FDR's administration also saw the rise of the military industrial complex which survives to this day.
The author lists some of the myriad government policies that prop up big business: licensing laws, regressive taxes, giveaways, military spending contracts, patents and copyright laws, secured higher ed loans, banking regs, credit expansion.
The incestuous relationship between big business and the federal government has clearly been a bipartisan effort. This administration has been no exception, providing bailouts, regulations, low interest rates, etc that favor incumbent operators at the expense of upstarts.
Yet we find President Obama arguing that the federal government is here to protect people from 'big business.' Of course, this administration is doing nothing new. As noted by the author, "'Liberal' politicians have long advanced their own power while serving the very monopolists they claim to oppose."
If you are one of the many who buy the 'government must protect you from big business' argument, then you are being played.
Monday, May 2, 2016
Intolerance in Diverse Environments
Miyagi: You remember lesson about balance?
Daniel Larusso: Yeah.
Miyagi: Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have balance. Everything be better. Understand?
--The Karate Kid
Extending their previous work on victimhood culture, sociology professors Bradley Campbell (UCLA) and Jason Manning (WVU) propose how one form of cultural homogeneity amid other forms of diversity shapes conflict and moral climate.
Environments with little diversity give rise to moralities concerned with purity. To be moral is to share the belief's of one's ancestors, family, friends. Deviations from the norm become subject to ridicule and rejection. Heresy is seen as a serious offense.
Diverse environments, on the other hand, give rise to moralities of tolerance. Freedom of speech and religion are seen as rights. To be moral is to respect and value differences in others. Heresy is no longer offensive. On the contrary, opposition to diverse cultural expressions and opinions is viewed as offensive.
Why, then, do we see intolerance toward acts of 'underdiversity,' such as behaviors labeled as 'microaggressions,' in environments that seemingly value much diversity (such as college campuses)? Campbell and Manning argue that highly diverse environments become hypersensitive to even small challenges to diversity which results in a less tolerant environment. On its face, this argument does not resonate with me as it seems contradictory--i.e., diverse environments act like homogenous environments.
Their second explanation is more sensible. When administrative institutions populate diverse environments then those institutions become sources of moral dependency as individuals who feel offended by acts that challenge their views run to administrators for redress. As previously noted, this seems a straightforward extension of resource dependence theory as individuals become dependent on administrators to provide problem solving resources for their social coping problems.
In perhaps their freshest contribution, Campbell and Manning also argue that environments that are diverse on some dimensions but homogenous on others might paradoxically promote acts of intolerance. For example, college campuses, while diverse in many ways, are relatively homogenous when it comes to political views. As particular academic disciplines lean more to the left (e.g., sociology), then hostility grows in reaction to challenges to a discipline's sacred political beliefs.
Cultures that are not fully diverse--that have nested 'pockets of purity'--then, give rise to movements of intolerance.
The authors suggest two remedies in the context of university environments. One is to reduce the population of administrators to lower capacity for moral dependence that arises when individuals seek bureaucratic solutions to perceived offenses. Individuals would have to resolve conflicts on their own rather than leaning on administrators for help.
The other solution is to increase the political diversity of collegiate faculty. Balance left with more right, for example, in order to create a more stable and robust learning environment in higher ed.
Daniel Larusso: Yeah.
Miyagi: Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have balance. Everything be better. Understand?
--The Karate Kid
Extending their previous work on victimhood culture, sociology professors Bradley Campbell (UCLA) and Jason Manning (WVU) propose how one form of cultural homogeneity amid other forms of diversity shapes conflict and moral climate.
Environments with little diversity give rise to moralities concerned with purity. To be moral is to share the belief's of one's ancestors, family, friends. Deviations from the norm become subject to ridicule and rejection. Heresy is seen as a serious offense.
Diverse environments, on the other hand, give rise to moralities of tolerance. Freedom of speech and religion are seen as rights. To be moral is to respect and value differences in others. Heresy is no longer offensive. On the contrary, opposition to diverse cultural expressions and opinions is viewed as offensive.
Why, then, do we see intolerance toward acts of 'underdiversity,' such as behaviors labeled as 'microaggressions,' in environments that seemingly value much diversity (such as college campuses)? Campbell and Manning argue that highly diverse environments become hypersensitive to even small challenges to diversity which results in a less tolerant environment. On its face, this argument does not resonate with me as it seems contradictory--i.e., diverse environments act like homogenous environments.
Their second explanation is more sensible. When administrative institutions populate diverse environments then those institutions become sources of moral dependency as individuals who feel offended by acts that challenge their views run to administrators for redress. As previously noted, this seems a straightforward extension of resource dependence theory as individuals become dependent on administrators to provide problem solving resources for their social coping problems.
In perhaps their freshest contribution, Campbell and Manning also argue that environments that are diverse on some dimensions but homogenous on others might paradoxically promote acts of intolerance. For example, college campuses, while diverse in many ways, are relatively homogenous when it comes to political views. As particular academic disciplines lean more to the left (e.g., sociology), then hostility grows in reaction to challenges to a discipline's sacred political beliefs.
Cultures that are not fully diverse--that have nested 'pockets of purity'--then, give rise to movements of intolerance.
The authors suggest two remedies in the context of university environments. One is to reduce the population of administrators to lower capacity for moral dependence that arises when individuals seek bureaucratic solutions to perceived offenses. Individuals would have to resolve conflicts on their own rather than leaning on administrators for help.
The other solution is to increase the political diversity of collegiate faculty. Balance left with more right, for example, in order to create a more stable and robust learning environment in higher ed.
Monday, July 18, 2022
Unfair and Unbalanced
And you may ask yourself,
"Well, how did I get here?"
--Talking Heads
"Well, how did I get here?"
--Talking Heads
Pew study finds that the media generally does not agree with the 'fair and balanced' approach to journalism. While more than three quarters of adults believe all sides of an issue deserve equal coverage, only 55% of journalists do.
Political ideology moderates belief in 'bothsidesism.' Approximately 70% of journalists indicated that they worked for outlets that lean left.
Unfortunately, the survey did not ask respondents how they themselves leaned politically--or at least it was not reported. However, adults indicating affinity for the left were less likely to endorse 'bothsidesism.'
In a nod toward their increasingly progressive higher ed training grounds, younger journalists appear less likely to strive toward balanced coverage than older journalists.
It would be interesting to see some longitudinal data here. Has this sort of slant been on the increase? Or is it the same as it ever was?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
