Unfortunately, there climate of universities is rapidly shifting to this viewpoint that they "make money." However, this focus on the internal exchange of money between a student and the institution, or a grantor and the grantee, ignores the obvious externalities that higher education provides to the economic system.
The social benefits of higher education far exceed the private benefits of the graduate or the institutional benefits of the university. The marginal private benefits of higher education come in the way of higher salaries and ability to compete in selected disciplines for which education is virtually required. Without this, the student would have to spend a lot more effort to attain the same heights, making it much much harder and even impossible for many people. In otherwords, education as hard as it is, is a short cut to success. An educated person is learning from the mistakes of others. Society, on the other hand benefits greatly from a student's education. First, the typical graduate will pay more taxes and demand fewer social services than the typical nongraduate. Those with education are less likely to turn to crime and will be a better informed voter. These and MANY OTHERS provide economic benefits through positive externalization to the economic system. Consequently, when a state or other entity attempts to value education of any kind based on just the exchange of tuition and income from grants (the latter of which is obviously very important nonetheless), they under-estimate its value and ignore its true contribution to our economy. When we ignore externalities during assessment of economic systems we set ourselves up for economic failure. This same rationale applies to conservation efforts, government supports to businesses, and the list goes on. It should be of no surprise that some of the countries with the highest education subsidization are in the best economic situations. Each of us who gets a PHD is contributing a ton to the US economy, even if completely unemployed. Unfortunately, the value of the external benefits we provide society is largely ignored by the politicians who control the majority of PHD's salaries and employment opportunities. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Eric North <xcs...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Honestly, with all due respect to Mr. Dossey, do you believe in economics? > > It seems to me, in my very humble opinion, that universities exist to MAKE > MONEY. They take cuts of grants received, pay grad students a fairly minimal > wage for teaching responsibilities, and often try to "cater" to different > areas of student interest; the subjects often in the highest demand and/or > the highest paying in the job markets. As we know, not all Biology > departments are created equal, which is not to say that they are "selected > against" as "not fit" but may not necessarily be the focal department in a > university as a whole. Even if it is the focal department, the University may > not have the name recognition as others with no less intelligent and gifted > faculty. This is where the "star power" (not my phrase) comes in. Big names > draw more kids ready to spend bigger dollars to study or be affiliated with > said "big shot". > > It's not readily apparent that you need to be a "star" to qualify to have > your spouse considered for a position. Maybe just a good fit for what they're > looking for in a candidate. My guess is that a hiring committee wouldn't dare > hire with out knowing that it was a good investment. And that includes > "taking a chance" on a lesser name. Doesn't it stand to reason that a hiring > committe of biology department heads and faculty stand to gain by hiring > someone who is going to positively effect enrollment of Biology Majors and > potentially increase tuition revenues? > > I find it ironic that this discussion stemmed from a thread about a FEDERAL > position hiring practices. Nope...no spousal hiring there! Take it from > someone with NO interest in academia, 15 years experience in multiple > disciplines having worked in dozens of US states and Canada, there's not much > happening out here either. I've applied for untold number of positions and > have come close ONCE last year....I was one of two candidates given an > interview for a wetland ecologist position and the DIDN'T FILL the position. > It may be time for a career change. It's capitalism. I'm not needed here, so > it's retool and go elsewhere. > > Best of luck and peace to all of you... > > Eric > > Eric North > All Things Wild Consulting > > P.O. Box 254 > > Cable, WI 54821 > > 928.607.3098 > > >> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:23:33 -0400 >> From: k...@kimvdlinde.com >> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ethics of spousal hires (was Re: [ECOLOG-L] Job >> Announcement: US Forest Service Ecologist) >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> >> On 8/20/2011 11:32 AM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: >> > Personal interests like "but my wife/child/friend wants a job too!" >> > should not be a consideration of any hiring entity. >> >> I think it should be. You do not want your new faculty member leave >> after two years for a place closer to her partner. After she spend most >> of the setup money and forcing you to go through a new hiring round (any >> idea how expensive they are money and time wise?). >> >> > Where does it end? Is it ok for a chair and group of faculty to >> > decide only to hire members of their church or their own religion, >> > or only hire other atheists? Is it ok for them to only hire their >> > friends to the exclusion of all other applicants regardless of >> > QUANTITATIVE qualification/skill/talent? Maybe a department wishes to >> > be all white, or all Chinese, or all Jewish? Kosher? >> >> You seem to miss the point. A spousal hire is not a prerequisite set by >> the university before they can hire someone; it is a added issue that >> needs to be resolved before someone is willing to come. It is not a >> university set requirement but an applicant set requirement. Having a >> specific religion etc are university set requirements. >> >> > Spousal hiring is not benign, it is not a victimless crime. It is an >> > unethical tragedy which is leading to many very good hard working >> > scientists to leave the field and their dreams, some of us who have >> > worked hard all our lives toward this goal of starting our own lab >> > one day, and were the first in our families to even go to graduate >> > school (and second to college at all). >> >> I would argue that the opposite takes place. Many highly qualified >> scientists left and still leave the field when forced to choose between >> love and passion. >> >> But really, when you apply without a spouse needing a job, and you are >> passed by for a guy who also demands a job for his wife, I think you >> better start thinking about the quality difference between you and that >> person. The problem with this discussion is that this is a non-issue. >> Universities do not ALWAYS hire a spouse. No, they weigh that on a >> case-by-case basis. >> >> >> > The "American Dream" has been dead in the private sector for many >> > years, is it dead in Academia too? >> >> No, you can still make it. The illusion is that you would have MORE >> changes if there were no spousal hires. Because if a university is >> willing to pay for a spousal hire, it means that the person they intent >> to hire is a lot better than the person who does not require a spousal >> hire. That most likely also means that there are a lot of candidates >> between you and the top choice. >> >> Kim > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Oceania University of Medicine Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
