Nice find. And what is true regarding cuts in primary and secondary ed. is also true for higher ed. Colleges and universities, especially those heavily supported by state funding, are taking a beating these days. Yes, there is surely some bloat than can be reduced by cuts. And things like tenure can seem to inhibit any sense of dynamism. However, when travel budgets, scholarships, and other forms of professionalization funding are severely reduced, the fundamental mission of higher ed. is impacted in the long term. If faculty positions are open, but not able to be filled (no $$), then departments are less able to teach certain subjects, unable to attract high quality students, unable to produce the kind of people and work that help the university both offer a quality undergrad curriculum and the kind of research that, and hold on for this one, actually generates funding (via grants, donations, etc.).
Like I said, yes: there are places where cuts could be made, and the tenured faculty member who makes $100K+ and no longer teaches, produces, or mentors much is a total drain. For that cost, a department can hire 2 jr. faculty. Unlike the private sector, those people can't just be laid off (see: IBM).
Anyway, there's alot out there written on this. Just thought I'd pipe up in support of the argument, and include the addition of higher ed.
HB:
ReplyDeleteNice find. And what is true regarding cuts in primary and secondary ed. is also true for higher ed. Colleges and universities, especially those heavily supported by state funding, are taking a beating these days. Yes, there is surely some bloat than can be reduced by cuts. And things like tenure can seem to inhibit any sense of dynamism. However, when travel budgets, scholarships, and other forms of professionalization funding are severely reduced, the fundamental mission of higher ed. is impacted in the long term. If faculty positions are open, but not able to be filled (no $$), then departments are less able to teach certain subjects, unable to attract high quality students, unable to produce the kind of people and work that help the university both offer a quality undergrad curriculum and the kind of research that, and hold on for this one, actually generates funding (via grants, donations, etc.).
Like I said, yes: there are places where cuts could be made, and the tenured faculty member who makes $100K+ and no longer teaches, produces, or mentors much is a total drain. For that cost, a department can hire 2 jr. faculty. Unlike the private sector, those people can't just be laid off (see: IBM).
Anyway, there's alot out there written on this. Just thought I'd pipe up in support of the argument, and include the addition of higher ed.