The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so I take some entrepreneurial university could dismiss all the liberal arts, keep the grant money, and do that much better, right? Free market at work. Yet they dont.

If you think that higher education is a properly-operating free market then you need to hand over your econ credentials right now.

[MRT144]

is tuition factored into the university budget for personnel and infrastructure? and if so which students (by department) make up the most university income by tuition. If the case is that liberal arts students pay for the salaries, and infrastructure of other departments through tuition.

Could you explain what would happen if each department retained the grant, tuition, and donation money given to it instead of ? would that really be a better system?

I'm really curious if any universities post their budgets online so one could take a look at this.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If you think that higher education is a properly-operating free market then you need to hand over your econ credentials right now.

He didn't say it was

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If you think that higher education is a properly-operating free market then you need to hand over your econ credentials right now.

I first heard people say "ya know econ is wrong cause there is no atomistic market subject to all the assumptions you guys make" before you were born, I suspect, young man.

Show me specifically what aspect of the higher education market would cause a market failure in this area. AFAICT the reasoning of Univ Adminstrators is exactly what I indicate.

And its not like ONLY A FEW universities are dropping liberal arts. I cant think of ONE that is. That tells me something, even if the higher education market is imperfect.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
so I take some entrepreneurial university could dismiss all the liberal arts, keep the grant money, and do that much better, right? Free market at work. Yet they dont. They must know something. Perhaps that the best would be science undergrads want to attend a place with liberal arts as well? Biology majors want schools with psych, or anthro. Econ majors want schools that offer poli sci. That liberal arts work brings prestige to universities. etc, etc.

In this case, I see no argument for market failure.

It might be worth noting that outside the anglosphere, you do find purely technical (and purely humanistics) universitites. While none of them happens to be Oxford, they seem to be doing well enough at their level.


(Particularly obnoxious pedants might retort that, by definition, a university needs to have philosophy, theology, law, and medicine faculties. Throw rocks at them.)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144
is tuition factored into the university budget for personnel and infrastructure?

Of course

and if so which students (by department) make up the most university income by tuition

That's not the relevant question. I'll let you think about which one is.

If the case is that liberal arts students pay for the salaries, and infrastructure of other departments through tuition.

I'm sure this made some sort of sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Could you explain what would happen if each department retained the grant, tuition, and donation money given to it instead of ? would that really be a better system?

There's obviously a necessity for the university to get paid something from grant money. Those with large grants use more university resources than those with smaller grants (or none at all. The point is that the more the university can get away with charging in overhead the more they see in their bottom line. They end up charging enough to see a handsome profit from the "rich" professors without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Even within departments those with smaller grants are subsidised by those with larger grants. Whether this requires a solution, and what form this solution should take are not easy questions.

I'm really curious if any universities post their budgets online so one could take a look at this.

Public universities are generally far more transparent and also have significantly smaller overhead charges.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Show me specifically what aspect of the higher education market would cause a market failure in this area. AFAICT the reasoning of Univ Adminstrators is exactly what I indicate.

Higher education is far less of a free market than, say, the computer hard drive market. More of one than the primary education market.

1) Higher education is tradition driven. The stature of a university is extremely important. Therefore things are slow to change.

2) The existence of a large public sector

3) The deep involvement of even private universities with public funding

And its not like ONLY A FEW universities are dropping liberal arts. I cant think of ONE that is. That tells me something, even if the higher education market is imperfect.

It's not a question of entirely dropping liberal arts. It's a question of de-emphasising the importance of maintaining a world-class arts faculty. I have a feeling that if you look at the numbers the spending on arts&humanities departments by universities relative to their spending on sciences&engineering departments you will see a clear trend.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Higher education is far less of a free market than, say, the computer hard drive market. More of one than the primary education market.

1) Higher education is tradition driven. The stature of a university is extremely important. Therefore things are slow to change.

2) The existence of a large public sector

3) The deep involvement of even private universities with public funding



It's not a question of entirely dropping liberal arts. It's a question of de-emphasising the importance of maintaining a world-class arts faculty. I have a feeling that if you look at the numbers the spending on arts&humanities departments by universities relative to their spending on sciences&engineering departments you will see a clear trend.

Even if thats true, it could simply reflect that the cost of a world class science faculty has gone up, for any of a number of reasons.

Stature is indeed important. As is a broad student body, a lively intellectual environment, and many other things that the administrators of the best universities are very concerned with.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Of course



That's not the relevant question. I'll let you think about which one is.

If the case is that liberal arts students pay for the salaries, and infrastructure of other departments through tuition.

I'm sure this made some sort of sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Could you explain what would happen if each department retained the grant, tuition, and donation money given to it instead of ? would that really be a better system?

There's obviously a necessity for the university to get paid something from grant money. Those with large grants use more university resources than those with smaller grants (or none at all. The point is that the more the university can get away with charging in overhead the more they see in their bottom line. They end up charging enough to see a handsome profit from the "rich" professors without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Even within departments those with smaller grants are subsidised by those with larger grants. Whether this requires a solution, and what form this solution should take are not easy questions.

Is the relevant question which department makes up the most income for the university?

Oh, the question was interrupted by a White Russian. Sorry. I was going to say, if it was the case that the majority of university income is from liberal arts programs then would you be in favor of reducing liberal arts programs?

And if this subsidization doesn't require a solution then why are the Sci&Eng students using it as ammo for putting down liberal arts students?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I might argue that the value of something to someone is, by definition, what that someone is willing to pay for it.

Then youd have to thank an economist for teaching you that. And, Id suggest, youd have to thank a really good economist for showing you the limits to that, and the need for philosophy, sociology etc to fill in the gaps.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MRT144

And if this subsidization doesn't require a solution then why are the Sci&Eng students using it as ammo for putting down liberal arts students?

Why does anyone troll?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Why does anyone troll?

lack of culture gained from a well rounded education?

[KrazyHorse]

Is the relevant question which department makes up the most income for the university?

It's a question of income minus cost.

It's also not obvious that you should separate undergraduates by department that neatly, given the large number of external classes some students take.

[KrazyHorse]

Why does anyone troll?

I actually haven't yet trolled in this thread.

And if this subsidization doesn't require a solution then why are the Sci&Eng students using it as ammo for putting down liberal arts students?

I'm not using it as ammunition...yet. I'm explaining why scientists are interested in the value of the liberal arts. In a real sense part of our money goes to them, so we'd like to know whether it's being used well or not.

[MRT144]

From what you've said the liberal arts programs don't require vast sums of money, and from what I can tell they recieve a large sum of income. Do their costs don't exceed their income (from every source) and not just grant money?