a break from politics.

The linked article in the CS Monitor argues that traditional, peer-viewed academic journals, especially in the sciences, may be near the end of the line as the internet make research results available to a wider audience, much more quickly, and cheaply, than in the past.

This has been happening for some time now; a search of the Internet on virtually any topic will find many items.  However, I think that one of the problems we have now is actually LACK of sufficient unbiased peer review; if we academics and researchers are forced to do our own validations on everything we read, it is going to open the floodgates to lots and lots of pseudo-scientific and even bogus papers.  There are currently enough problems in this area; we don't need to consign the validity checks currently in place, however inefficient they may be, to oblivion.

Another problem: how on earth would one keep up with the papers in one's area if the number published per month went up by a factor of ten?  Especially if eight out of ten were from unknown researchers or otherwise questionable?

unverified reporting - no fact checking...etc. everyone from Dan Rather to the local paper.  

I would like to see FEWER publications, but publications of merit.  More rigirous review...  not less.  The internet is wonderful to looking at first blush... but not so good for finding fact... unless you know where to look.

That's pretty much how I feel, peer review [with some egregious exceptions and mistakes, remember the spoof essay by Sokol around 1994?] some broadly defined minimal level of competence and reliability can be inferred from the fact that the paper was published [apologies, that sentence reads terribly].

But nothing precludes peer-reviewed papers from appearing on the internet. A point in the article wa that taditinal academic journals move at a slow pace, whereas online does not. Another point in the article was that these papers didn't have to be trailblazing or even significant contributions to the discipline.  But they did have to embody some discernible academic merit.

BDS points out he'd like to see fewer papers.  Not likely in a world of "publish or persih."  Ironic, when you consider the origin of "professor" that teaching ability is not more highlty regared in the academic world, and definitely  not considered the fast track to promotion, tenure and grants.  Oh, well.

funding sources in my academic career... two federal and one research foundation.  Publish or perish!" yea - well while I was funded I was totally on "soft money" but still was required to carry a teaching load! lol!  Tenur Track?  nope... left academia before that could happen.  Why? because I came to the realization that I could spend the next 50 years of my life doing little other than research that would be read by few, appreciated by next to noone, and actually wind up helping only the publishers.  

Sad to say, you are due papers and the results that are in them - after all you paid for the research with your state and federal tax dollars... you get an annual report if you own stock in GM right?  so why don;t you get an annual report on where  your TAX dollars went?  or at least access - free and clear to the research that you paid for... instead - it is published in a journal - for which the researcher has to pay a fee for publishing - and to access it someone pays a subscription fee to the journal (not cheap) just to have access to research - that was already bought and paid for.  This is truly a corrupt system.

Fewer papers... You know how much dival is in the so called scientific lit?  how poorly conceived the "controls" are devised... actually they are devised to optimize the effect that they seek to "prove"! in some cases.

There is just tooo much junk in the literature today... But I agree-  the system is set up to support the system - as is.

Which is why I am for dismantelling the entire educational system - BRICK BY FREAKING BRICK - and guaranteeing a free education through the college level.  Hows that for a conservative view...?

A big part of the problem is that "academic success" is all too often measured by the NUMBER of papers published and less often by the QUALITY of the papers.  Being a good teacher is often not considered at all --- and can even be a liability if you don't bring in grant money. Even in "lesser" schools and universities, you are at the mercy of student evaluations, which in turn often depends not on the quality of your teaching, but how good you make the students feel.

The rapid increase in the number of colleges and universities in recent years has created a situation like that if major league baseball were to expand to have 400 teams in each league.  There are just so many good minds to go around, and the faculty slots all need to be filled by warm bodies of some sort.  Couple that with the insane emphasis on number of publications and you have a recipe for mass mediocrity.

Furthermore, top-flite researchers often do not make good teachers.  Despite exceptions such as Enrico Fermi and Richard Feinman, the number of truly outstanding researchers that were also great teachers is very small.  The sort of pandemonium we see in the literature these days is a natural outcome of lesser researchers struggling to make tenure by meeting inappropriate criteria.

Yet I don't share your enthusiasm for the Draconian solution of dismantling the entire educational system and guaranteeing a free education through the college level.  Whatever evils may come with the present system, I have seen too many teachers in educational institutions that do not require publication, teachers whose last original thought probably occurred well in advance of puberty and simply teach the same syllabus year after year after dreary year.

If a college education were free, who, pray tell, would pay faculty salaries?  You want to rely on the current system of funded research?  Or perhaps you wish the faculty to teach for free because of their love for truth and beauty?  Surely you aren't arguing for the government to pay all costs???

Because we already do - through your tax dollars... typically universities receive Federal, State and Local Subsidies, research and grant money as well as general educational funds.  The reason that they pull in the tuition is that they are NEVER held accountable for the funds.  Seriously, when was the last time you saw a U pres removed from office because of fiscal irresponsibility - and yet it is almost a daily occurance (how do I know? I've audited - email me and I will share more - this is just too public.)  

Assignment - "the Flat Earth" - This book presumes that economic globalization is a reality.  For the US to compete - universal education is imperative.  The ONLY way to achieve that is for us to support education.  It is in our national best interests, it is the same as funding the Armed Forces.  It further has the benefit of decreasing the need for police and should decrease the burden on health care.  

As far as rebuilding the educational system, the problem is we graduate too many with non-marketable skills.  Last night I spoke with a young lady who has an advanced degree in Educational Anthropology.... she is working as the ID checker at my local gym.  I mean who told her that there is a growing job market in Educational Anthropology... she just might as well go to a local strip club - and make a pile of money, retire and write a book!

As I have stated, I mentor some undergrads... what do I tell them?  think about your life, and not your degree, what do you want to accomplish - on a personal level, professional level and economic level.  That will guide then better than some nare do well who has only existed in the academic labarinth.  

With respect to what I think should be emphasized?   I would restructure the first year totally!  Emphasis would be on "living skills"!

Details would encompas that things that currently are not covered - at all, at any level - civic responsibilities, business communications, a smattering of legal structures and regulatory authority (for instance - so you want to open a business - what do you need to know), basic finance and liability, and vocab/language.

So many know nothing of these... nothing.

So change ? yea - you see I happen to believe that because universities have failed to reorganize their structure in over 1400 years, they have become somewhat irrelevant to the modern world and focus on their past, as opposed to society's future.

An no, I do not wish a faculty to teach for free because of their love for truth and beauty... that of course is a joke.  They love neither truth nor beauty now!  Witness the Duke faculty petition to Nifong.... sheese! gimme a break... and you keep asserting that these are anomalies... I contend that they are the tip of the iceberg.  the tip!

Change... restructure... invent...

consider....

the University of Pennsylvania had a projected 2006 budget of $4.41 billion, including a payroll of $2.183 billion.  They pay no property tax.  and for the most part, no one is really held accountable for the expenditure of the $4.41B.  That is, was the money expended for the tasks it was granted.  Go figure... would the BOD for any major corporation get away with that... Did Ken Leigh?  

I would postulate that as a society that trusts its educational system to prepare the next generation, we are doomed to fail and decline unless we significantly overhaul the system.  It is truly broke - and as someone who has audited parts of it, I can state to you that it is probably worse than I imagine - as I only scratched the surface.

Maybe the revolutionary guard in China had it right... make all the excutives and academics spend a year, working on a farm - tilling the soil... and letting them know that they are indeed a part of the rest of humanity....  me conservative?! ya really think!?

I certainly agree with you about the urgent need to upgrade our current educational system.  I, too, believe that Friedman's "The World is Flat" is right on in its analysis, and that reforming the system IS a matter of high priority.

I also agree that too many students are graduating from college (or university) lacking marketable skills.  Unfortunately, the Balkanized system is locked into separate and competing fiefdoms competing for students to fill their classes up and justify their getting a larger cut of the funding pie.  Note that the emphasis is on producing more of the same old thing rather than revising the curriculum to meet the needs of the real world.

I had experience with this at one school where I worked to create a new interdisciplinary curriculum in environmental science.  Because it was slanted towards the regulatory community, a panel of advisors drawn from private industry, consulting businesses, and government employees was recruited to provide oversight and feedback.  They made it very clear that their primary concern was not so much the particular technologies that would be taught, but rather that the students would emerge with a solid foundation in basic science, good analytical skills, resourcefulness, and above all, an openness and readiness to learn to do the jobs well that they were hired for.  Having observed the lack of preparation of many of the students in that school for a truly rigorous program, I felt we had to justify the rigor to the administration.  Unfortunately, they felt that they wouldn't get a return on their investment quickly enough --- so the proposed curriculum was never instituted.  (I should add that this particular school is NOT state-funded.)

I certainly agree with your idea about arming students with basic life skills.  But, pray tell, why shouldn't that be done at the HIGH SCHOOL level?  Having seen all too much of the poor preparation of students matriculating in college for the first time, I am coming to see a great part of the problem as a high school system that is more concerned with making students feel good about their miniscule accomplishments than they are with inculcating useful life skills and preparing students to really LEARN.  It is all too common to find students with four years of high school math enrolling in first year algebra or even remedial mathematics.  My ex-wife reported that the psych department in her university found that there was no correlation between high school mathematics courses taken and competence in basic math.  (She teaches statistics, among other courses.)

Do I see you as conservative?  It depends on your definition of "conservative".  I see you as an intelligent, thoughtful and outraged educator who feels a strong sense of social responsibility as an educator.  If you are "conservative", so was Thomas Jefferson.

My students did well, but it was a true struggle with some.  There are reasons for making this basic life skills a 1st year college issue.  Simply put, I would start the revamp of the educational system at the top - college/university.  Why? Because they prepare those that teach/educate at the lower levels... and I need a new product (college graduate) to do change k-12!  But the life skills would NOT be the traditional "gloss over" civics and math classes... they would be as rigorous as any 1st year law school class is currently.  The finance would focus on P&L statements - income tax law and filing... etc... you see, this would not make college easier - just more practical.

And I too, have constructed classes to be more "job" focused - everything from basic lab skills to risk-adjusted net present value for technology.... go figure.

Change?  so what's on tap for today? "Scooter" Libby...?  Sorry, but I gotta say, a grown man who still uses the nickname of "scooter"!  Just should be in prison, for that alone.

Also please 'member that even though a schohol may not be state-funded - it probably receives some educational funding from the state (minor) but it certainly receives some hefty tax exemptions.... and I for one, am all for taxing any entity within a community for the services provided by that community - churches included!

If you haven't been an educator for "decades", then you probably aren't aware of how much the quality of high school education has degraded over the years.  A class "as rigorous as any 1st yeaar law school class is currently" would flunk out the overwhelming majority of freshmen.  (You can't turn a couch potato into a marathon runner in one semester.)  With administrations caring more about the bottom line than educational excellence, this is a suicidal approach that would get you fired as quickly as they could manage it.

Your comments certainly are on the mark as far as the wretched preparation most grade school and high school teacher get is concerned.  I have a friend who taught math for elementary ed students for some years --- and the stories he told of the gross dumbness of his students were appalling.  From what he said, I wouldn't trust most grade school teachers to run a hand calculator, let alone teach math.  Somehow, many college ed-school people think that all one needs to teach is a mastery of ed sociology, ed psych, and basic methods; content mastery does not count for much.  Which is why one sees phys ed majors teaching mathematics and civics in high schools.

Unfortunately, one must deal with the wide-spread anti-intellectualism in this society.  Many would see your approach as "elitist", "politically incorrect" (since it doesn't coddle the educationally challenged), or "inappropriate"(!) (since it doesn't honor the sterile old gods of traditional academia).

In all, I don't think you and I differ all that much in our concerns; it is in the ways of achieving these goals that we differ.  Perhaps the key lies in reforming the ed schools and making them turn out well-trained teachers, then finding ways to institute the reforms in the high schools that would allow these teachers to truly do their jobs.

BSD and sunsword69, you guys are great on this topic.

A fine example of informed, responsible posting.  [I'm really proud to have kicked it off and to carry my "weight" as a "pillar" of this Board].

But, DON'T make a habit of it!  [LOL]

I'm wondering, though, given remarkable declines in general academic preparedness over the last 35 years or so, if worrying about the university is looking at the narrow spout of the funnel instead of the broad opening at the top?  The job is enormous, I can't imagine the time and $$$ needed to turn this around.

I hated every second of the 12 years I spent in Catholic school -- but I do credit those unspeakables for teaching me how to write the occassional  coherent sentence [even though they did fail with me in the spelling dept].

vested in the system, it would be difficult to only (or even start) with the ed schools.  Seriously, corruption is built into the university/college structure.  This is why I propose literally tearing down the buildings.  Campuses are even "configured" wrongly.  As an example - Departments such as pharmacology and chemistry are often in different colleges, (maybe even different campuses) and there is no dialog between them.  In a company, they are closely tied.  Accounting is taught to accountants, but then in the "Real world" in a company, the director of human resources has to manage a budget!  

What I am saying is, we do not teach and prepare kids for the "Real World" - rather, our ed system is geared into keeping folk going for the next level of education - whether that be movement from k to grade school - or college grad to post grad education.

With respect to challenging students... one thing I learned from the military - you can teach in two different manners -

In one manner - you are conveying information - it is up to the instructor to be crystal clear - provide the student with plenty of examples, work through problems... and reinforce over and over the lesson (actually this method is used in Med Schools... few flunk out of Med school they usually just leave due to boredom - and it is not because they take the "brightest and best" it is because of the redundancy of the lessons.... 8 AM - anatomy of the kidney, 9 AM biochem of the kidney 10 AM physiology of the kidnet 11 AM infections of the kidney, 12 AM diseases of the kidney 1 PM pharmacology of the kidney - get the picture?)

In the second manner - you are trying to see how "smart" the student is - hey - dude - here is a kidney.... figure out how it works... and here are some reading materials that will help - test on Tuesday!

When I started - I fell into method #2 - MOST U profs go there.  They are truly NOT interested, nor are they motivated to teach... as you point out - they are motivated to "GIT more money...." though rediculous #s of papers and severe grant writing episodes - most of which - they don't even have the vaguest idea of whether or not the work is valid... because they are NEVER in the LAB or working with the students and techs who actually do the work!  Where are they? In their offices - writing grants!  

Again, the folk that are in academia are grateful neither to God nor to society for the position they occupy... they see themselves as gods.... how to change? remove them.  From where I sit - that is the only way... As I say, when my career is over - I do plan to write.  I have a lot to say about the arrogance.... and the lack of creativity and morality in our academic morass.

-- Modified on 1/26/2007 8:40:08 AM

... Where Do I start, The UofM is close by... I can abate the structures for you, I recommend implosion, as to not spread the toxic dust unto the surrounding community... When do I start? BTW, please only clear the students prior to demolition... The proffs and staff need to go out with the debris... I'm not sure I can dig a hole deep enough to bury the refuse where it won't be dug up again... Better post guards at the site...

Some initial thoughts:
1) When is the last time you looked at the curriculum of a Business Administration school?

2) Many departments, e.g., Chemistry, English, Physics, Biology, Mathematics, etc. are expected to teach so-called "service courses", that is, courses that provide training for students in a variety of disciplines.  In many schools this results in large lecture courses where one or a few faculty are responsible for lecture sections of up to 300 students.  These lecture sections are accompanied by "recitation" sections where underpaid graduate students (untrained in pedagogy) have classes with up to 30 students; in some cases (e.g., Chemistry, Physics, and Biology) there are also "laboratory" sections, typically (but not necessarily) taught by the same teaching assistant who runs their recitation section.  Consequently, because TA's (teaching assistants) are relative newcomers to the field and because there is substantial variation in the quality of TA's, it is unlikely that the average TA is going to be able to teach like your Method #1 without some substantial training.  Providing that training SHOULD be a part of predoctoral programs, but that would imply a shift in focus towards increased excellence in teaching.  I'm all for that, but how do we get there from here?  Your Draconian solution simply isn't going to produce the results you think it will.  Where, for example, will the new faculty come from?

3)The kind of total immersion you describe for med school is hardly possible in a general undergraduate program.  Not all students come to the university with their life decisions all made --- far from it.  What do you propose doing with the student who hasn't got a life plan yet?

4) I'm not sure you have thought about the financial implications of the kind of faculty/student ratio your type of program would entail.  In a society that already underinvests in education, how do you expect to convince people to pay the increased costs of a low faculty/student ratio?

All this presupposes an incoming student body that is already educational mature enough to successfully utilize a highly focused curriculum.  My experience with teaching at both a major university, a technical school, and a community college is that all too many of today's students need serious remedial work in one or more areas before they are ready for the sort of program you are advocating.

1) I lecture in two business courses... on IP development, commercial development and business strategy.  One of the schools I lecture at would shock ya!

2) Services couses taught by Profs who have NEVER held a job outside of academia... now there is a hoot.!!!  Get real, I am talking about a restructuring of the qualifications of being a faculty member.

3) it is possible, if a student in say a chemistry course knows that the dissertation he is expected to write on covalent bonding will be reviewed by an editor, from the language arts department.

4) Yes, I have.... WE ALREADY PAY FOR THIS STUFF!! look at the federal funds that POUR into universities...   it is obscene.

5) educational maturity - now that is the job I see for High schhools.... who are able to enforce discipline... that is correct - discipline.  no ifs ands or buts about it.

If we don't do this - we have what?  25-30 years left! as a nation of any sort???

1) Shock me!

2) I have taught in several different "service courses" --- introductory biology, calculus, and physics, among others.  I am not sure just how much it helps to have a lot of "real world experience" in teaching those particular service courses.  I have also taught introductory programming courses --- and there real world experience IS important.  As far as more advanced science and math courses --- such as linear algebra and quantum mechanics --- depth and maturity in discpline are of paramount importance.  This is typically achieved only as a result of graduate study in those fields AND continued growth within the discipline.  It is not my experience --- and I have been working in industry for many years now --- that growth within field is all that important in business and industry.  What IS emphasized is getting the job done yesterday by whatever means necessary.  That doesn't promote the kind of study and research that is important in teaching advanced courses in academia.

3) As a graduate student with above average writing skills, I was assigned for a few terms to an adjunct writing program where I DID, in fact, edit technical papers (lab reports, etc.) in biology classes and try to bring the students' writing abilities up to some minimal standard.  It was time consuming and, often, very frustrating.  One thing I learned, however: writing style is particular to both the subject material and the intended audience.  In short, to adequately critique biology papers, one must possess a modicum of knowledge of biology in general, and the material of the course whose papers are being reviewed.  The notion that a "good writer" can write clearly and lucidly on any subject for any audience is nonsense.  Besides, you seem to have no idea how time intensive that sort of work can be; are you suggesting that there should be a substantial number of faculty hired simply to review papers in various disciplines for other departments?

4) You want different qualifications for faculty than we have presently.  Why don't you be more specific and tell us how we are going to recruit such people AND get a totally new educational institution established without incredible growing pains (not to mention vigorous and determined resistance on the part of today's institutions)?

5) You see educational maturity as simply the result of "discipline" in the high schools.  Easily said, my friend.  But what exactly do you mean by "more discipline"?  If by that you mean simply enforcing order in the classroom and punishing those who misbehave, it is a (needed) start, but it is not the whole solution.  What is needed is a reformation of the whole high school experience so that kids are motivated to learn, not just to get through the day to more entertaining things.  That is why I have been talking about reforming ed schools --- and working to change parental attitudes about education.

6) I, too, have grave concerns about the future of this country.  Thomas L. Friedman's book "The World is Flat" is certainly a wake-up call, but one I fear is not being given sufficient attention.  Furthermore, the looming energy crisis is a threat of enormous significance, and I don't see enough being done to meet it.  Bush's "20/10" program is like putting a band-aid on the stump of an amputated arm.  But that's material for another discussion.

1) why not just announce my name?  sheese!  That would be REALLY DUMB - see the discussion board for all those who either divulge too much of themselves or provide some other identifying characteristic.... Gimme a break.  Only after I have a few verified facts about YOU would I reveal who I am.

2) It is interesting to note that you claim that only in programming (I take it to mean "code writing") do you think that real world experience is necessary or even desired.  You also make a broad assumption that leaps of invention and discovery only occur at the university!  lol!  Ever hear of Bell Labs in NJ?  Several Nobel prize winners.  So Please....  if industry had the type of money poured into it,  Just to do basic research... well!  Further, I have known many people, who obtained their degree by doing a thesis project under a professor - who happened to work in industry... they tend to be a tad better than the perpetual student who now only publishes in really obscure journals about some backwater topic that interests what - 2 people in the universe?  And as far as solving problems go, within the biotech industry there is more innovation surrounding rational drug design - that leads to a better understanding of receptor-ligand interaction than in ALL of academia...
3)I am not saying that an English major can or would write a paper in a technical field... merely that they would edit it for clarity and syntax.  In reading technology based business plans I find that most often the error is in the simple construction of sentences.  Most SBIR applications can benefit from someone (notably a professional grant writer) to proof read the grant... and the better ones are not technically inclined!  In fact, when I give talks on Grant Writing - I usually challenge the audience to write the grant, and then give it to someone outside of their field, have them read it to be sure that it is clear.  So often, it is not.
4) yea I would like different qualifications - absolutely - prerequisite - they work OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA for a minimum of 5 years in the snot that they intend to teach - that would eliminate a lot of lunatic offerings that only self-perpetuate - and know what?  We would still have a lot of liberal arts - but they would be tempered such the degree offerings by the U, would actually match the job market.  Sadly - that is not the current case.

5) yea! I do mean discipline - this has been demonstrated over and over and over.  enforcing rules.  punishing misbehavior... yea.  Parents - they need to be a part of the solution... but here is a twist - stopping frivalous lawsuits if a teacher enforces rules... some parents push to see what they can get away with - you know - kinda the "I ain't got no kolluge edjikasion... but I kin push da big colluge degreed guy around..." mentality.  It exists - get over it.

6) Bush!  Puhleeese.... this mess did not start with Bush - this started somewhere in the 60s or 50s... a fear of making folks "feel bad" or well, if they are not good a math... lets just have them weave baskets!  ugh.

Once when I was teaching biochem to nurses, one of the students came to me and bemoaned that she had to get a C in biochem, because she did not want to work at Howard Johnsons!  lol!  my reply?  someone has to!  why so harsh... well, think about it... would you sue if she got your medication wrong?  Yes, you would.  I was preparing her for the harsh reality of what is.

That is why I am for the above... sadly - most of the Children at universities - whether they be a full science faculty member or a college of education facutly member - have NEVER WORKED a day in their life... if they did, they would not act the way they do.