Hiring freeze in academia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is outrageous. The purpose of academia is the steady expansion of hiring, funded by an increasing debt burden on younger generations. For Ttump to even slow this process is monstrous.

Yup, 70% of the tuition revenue goes to administrative costs such as yet another assistant dean of Frisbee or assistant dean of you name it and DEI programs.

So your brilliant idea is drive our best and brightest to boost their research/ innovations/ talents?

Forcing our best and brightest to other countries to contribute their highly Educated brains to other countries’ medical and STEM research and innovations?

You do realize that the private sector will be hard hit by this? And there wont be social security or Medicare for many seniors anymore …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

This is *extremely* limited thinking and not well grounded in economics at all.

Ideas are inherently non rival (my use of an idea doesn't limit your use of an idea). But, just having a new idea isn't enough for a business to profit--they need to be able to somehow exclude other businesses from using (or fully taking advantage of) the new idea, or any potential profits will be competed away. And, if there's little chance to make a profit from an idea in the future, then the business won't do the research to develop the idea in the first place. It doesn't matter that the idea might be fantastic for society, since businesses only care about the gains that they themselves can capture.

We handle this problem, by, among other things, patent and copyright law. You get a temporary legal monopoly for a new idea to incentivize investment, and in exchange the idea is made public so the rest of the world can build upon it. But there is a big inherent tradeoff in this--monopolies are economically inefficient, and society would actually be better off if we could get the ideas without giving businesses these monopoly powers.

And, even those systems aren't enough to incentivize many kinds of research, because the research is not directed enough at a specific problem for businesses to assess how likely they are to profit, or because successfully generating the idea would undercut profits in other areas (like using existing compounds or naturally occurring substances in place of patented drugs). Or, sometimes, the immediate costs of allowing a monopoly for a couple decades are so big that we'd be better off just paying the research costs outright (e.g., HIV/AIDS medications).

Government and academic research exists to fill in these gaps. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't also have plenty of private research. But the idea that "all the endpoints are for private industry" or that private research alone could handle everything is absurd and frankly, dangerous.

Let's paraphrase. Businesses don't like what you are doing, people from modest backgrounds don't like what you are doing, the only people that get any benefit it seems are the dumb rich kids that paid to sit in class next to me and the foreigners that want green cards who sharpened my pencils so they could cheat off me. Academia has degenerated to a Visa mill.

BTW how many bad disingenuous arguments does academia get to make, like the one above about marginally qualified students doing well.

Absolutely. Taxpayers foot the bill for most of the basic R&D costs to develop a medication and then the pharmaceutical companies take them and spend a small fraction of the amount of tax money that were spent and those companies develop drugs and charge American taxpayers who paid for most of the development costs 4 to 7 tines what these companies charge people in other countries who never paid a cent. Disgusting that taxpayers who paid taxes for decades have to starve to psy for these exorbitantly priced drugs.

That's an argument for weakening patent protections, not an argument for getting rid of public research. And pharmaceutical companies don't charge consumers in other countries less out of the goodness of their heart. They charge us more because we let them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is outrageous. The purpose of academia is the steady expansion of hiring, funded by an increasing debt burden on younger generations. For Ttump to even slow this process is monstrous.

Yup, 70% of the tuition revenue goes to administrative costs such as yet another assistant dean of Frisbee or assistant dean of you name it and DEI programs.

So your brilliant idea is drive our best and brightest to boost their research/ innovations/ talents?

Their brilliant idea is to feel maligned and misunderstood and express in this forum by grasping at straws. If all these posts are the same PP (and I'm pretty sure they are), they definitely need to spend some time looking inward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

Why is it science did so well in Fascist countries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

Why is it science did so well in Fascist countries?

It did? Other than Einstein getting ousted from Germany and them wasting resources trying to prove him wrong (hint: they failed). I guess your idea of "worked well" include inhumane trials where they often killed their patients...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

Why is it science did so well in Fascist countries?

It did? Other than Einstein getting ousted from Germany and them wasting resources trying to prove him wrong (hint: they failed). I guess your idea of "worked well" include inhumane trials where they often killed their patients...

Well, we always here about how great these Germans and Chinese are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

Why is it science did so well in Fascist countries?

Hi Vlad!

Judging by the state of Russia’s military and nuclear facilities - they don’t do that well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Stanford University, MIT, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, Emory University, University of Washington, and North Carolina State University are among other institutions that have announced either full or partial hiring freezes. You should expect more to follow suit.

Anyone who knows anything about academe knows that this has been going on since the pandemic when enrollment continued its trend of falling off the cliff. A college education has become too expensive and the cost benefit analysis is not always in the favor of throwing yourself into debt for 10 years.

The science community disagrees with you.

Currents cuts to research at eu precedented. The withholding of allocated USAID money/ NIH/ CDC and Dept Energy funding have caused many planned health and STEM research projects to be cancelled or paused.

DC is post doc at leading STEM academic research center and all the post docs are worried about finding work now.

Also enrollment has not been dropping off at top colleges but they are impacted by the research cuts as well.

You reference post doctoral students in STEM and top colleges. I was referring to the generic college education that does not lead to a doctorate, much less a post doc or to a top college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Stanford University, MIT, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, Emory University, University of Washington, and North Carolina State University are among other institutions that have announced either full or partial hiring freezes. You should expect more to follow suit.

Anyone who knows anything about academe knows that this has been going on since the pandemic when enrollment continued its trend of falling off the cliff. A college education has become too expensive and the cost benefit analysis is not always in the favor of throwing yourself into debt for 10 years.

The science community disagrees with you.

Currents cuts to research at eu precedented. The withholding of allocated USAID money/ NIH/ CDC and Dept Energy funding have caused many planned health and STEM research projects to be cancelled or paused.

DC is post doc at leading STEM academic research center and all the post docs are worried about finding work now.

Also enrollment has not been dropping off at top colleges but they are impacted by the research cuts as well.

You reference post doctoral students in STEM and top colleges. I was referring to the generic college education that does not lead to a doctorate, much less a post doc or to a top college.

So with PhD programs gutted, who are the future professors at universities? The pipeline has been cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't see why subsidizing research needs to be done by the public.

All of the endpoints are for private industry.

A) Why do you get an education? So that you can get a job in private industry.

B) Why do we develop technology? So that private industry can make money developing it.

For point A, I can see the argument that we can make people that wouldn't otherwise have an opportunity to get the education and get the jobs, but in practice is doesn't play out like that. Private industry is so nepotistic. Very few of the people that get government aid end up in good jobs in industry. In cases there are jobs that the Good Ol' Boys for industry don't want to give their kids, they clearly prefer foreigners as indentured servants. So basically, we pay to train foreigners so that private industry can take advantage of indentured servants. The rest of us end up with giant academic bills.

Before World War 2, the principle language of science was German. After World War 2, it is English. Think about it.

This. It happens very quickly. Academics were targeted in the decade prior to ww2 and they took refuge positions elsewhere, that was the end, it didn't come back.

Why is it science did so well in Fascist countries?

Guy at the gas station has opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Stanford University, MIT, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, Emory University, University of Washington, and North Carolina State University are among other institutions that have announced either full or partial hiring freezes. You should expect more to follow suit.

Anyone who knows anything about academe knows that this has been going on since the pandemic when enrollment continued its trend of falling off the cliff. A college education has become too expensive and the cost benefit analysis is not always in the favor of throwing yourself into debt for 10 years.

The science community disagrees with you.

Currents cuts to research at eu precedented. The withholding of allocated USAID money/ NIH/ CDC and Dept Energy funding have caused many planned health and STEM research projects to be cancelled or paused.

DC is post doc at leading STEM academic research center and all the post docs are worried about finding work now.

Also enrollment has not been dropping off at top colleges but they are impacted by the research cuts as well.

You reference post doctoral students in STEM and top colleges. I was referring to the generic college education that does not lead to a doctorate, much less a post doc or to a top college.

So with PhD programs gutted, who are the future professors at universities? The pipeline has been cut.

Exactly - along with research ops for undergrads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Harvard, Princeton, Penn, University of Pittsburgh, University of Vermont …

All have sizeable endowments. Crack open that checkbook.

I love when people have no idea how higher eductaion works chime in.
Try learning something:https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/how-do-university-endowments-work/

Endowment funds support the teaching, research, and public service missions of colleges and universities.

Typically, endowment funds follow a fairly strict set of long-term guidelines that dictate the asset allocation that will yield the targeted return without taking on too much risk.

In the case of endowment funds for academic institutions, the income generated is intended to finance a portion of the operating or capital requirements of the institution.

Some endowment funds have guidelines stating how much of each year's investment income can be spent. For many universities, this amount is approximately 5% of the endowment's total asset value. Some institutions, such as Harvard, have endowments that are worth billions of dollars, so this 5% amount can end up equaling a large sum of money.
1
In the context of the U.S. higher educational system, the presence of endowment funds are often integral to the financial health of educational institutions.

Okay but that means that these institutions are hedge funds with an education side hustle.

Your statement reads like someone who heard something somewhere and just repeated it without an understanding of what you are saying.
They are not a hedge fund. You don't invest in a university and get your money back. Their endowments may and often are funneled to hedge funds instead of other money markets, but...
Oh never mind. You are not willing to understand so why waste my time.

Right. They are worse than hedge funds. They don’t benefit investors other than themselves and don’t pay taxes. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Stanford University, MIT, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, Emory University, University of Washington, and North Carolina State University are among other institutions that have announced either full or partial hiring freezes. You should expect more to follow suit.

Anyone who knows anything about academe knows that this has been going on since the pandemic when enrollment continued its trend of falling off the cliff. A college education has become too expensive and the cost benefit analysis is not always in the favor of throwing yourself into debt for 10 years.

The science community disagrees with you.

Currents cuts to research at eu precedented. The withholding of allocated USAID money/ NIH/ CDC and Dept Energy funding have caused many planned health and STEM research projects to be cancelled or paused.

DC is post doc at leading STEM academic research center and all the post docs are worried about finding work now.

Also enrollment has not been dropping off at top colleges but they are impacted by the research cuts as well.

You reference post doctoral students in STEM and top colleges. I was referring to the generic college education that does not lead to a doctorate, much less a post doc or to a top college.

So with PhD programs gutted, who are the future professors at universities? The pipeline has been cut.

We have too many PhDs starving working as adjuncts and lecturers due to extremely limited openings for professor positions so no need to worry about having enough PhDs.

On top of that, many colleges will close in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, the University of California, *not* all of academia.

Stanford University, MIT, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Notre Dame, Emory University, University of Washington, and North Carolina State University are among other institutions that have announced either full or partial hiring freezes. You should expect more to follow suit.

Anyone who knows anything about academe knows that this has been going on since the pandemic when enrollment continued its trend of falling off the cliff. A college education has become too expensive and the cost benefit analysis is not always in the favor of throwing yourself into debt for 10 years.

The science community disagrees with you.

Currents cuts to research at eu precedented. The withholding of allocated USAID money/ NIH/ CDC and Dept Energy funding have caused many planned health and STEM research projects to be cancelled or paused.

DC is post doc at leading STEM academic research center and all the post docs are worried about finding work now.

Also enrollment has not been dropping off at top colleges but they are impacted by the research cuts as well.

You reference post doctoral students in STEM and top colleges. I was referring to the generic college education that does not lead to a doctorate, much less a post doc or to a top college.

So with PhD programs gutted, who are the future professors at universities? The pipeline has been cut.

We have too many PhDs starving working as adjuncts and lecturers due to extremely limited openings for professor positions so no need to worry about having enough PhDs.

On top of that, many colleges will close in the future.

But whose going to collect all of that data that our darling professors need to get those publications, if they don't have cheap highly trained PhDs to do it? (snark)