Roger, I have enjoyed this series of articles and agree with most of what you have said. You started this final essay by rightly saying that the starting point is the problem definition - not considering the solutions. Might that point be that universities don't realise they have a problem? Are the financial consequences of their actions causing them pain? Don't they dismiss the accusations of bias and lack of diverse opinions as just more populist rhetoric? For sure the voices echoed on your substack are getting louder, as is the political intent to 'do something'.
Will this be enough to ignite academia's desire for change, or have we gone beyond that point, and will it require more draconian actions?
This is not just a US problem. It's seen in most developed countries. As just one example a Canadian university called Royal Roads has courses leading to a degree in Climate Change Leadership.
I completely agree that universities need to act in some way and I also agree that universities need to do this on their own; it can't be imposed.
But some of the things you say here make me pause. E.g., "Much like the behavior change climate advocacy center at the University of Colorado Boulder that I discussed last week — which seeks to change how people behave and consume — operating a campus program focused on climate advocacy is clearly not institutional neutrality."
I don't know. Or at least, I would need more clarification. Let's say we have a food institute that focuses on healthy eating and does engage in advocacy/communication work about good diets. It seems to me that prohibiting an institute like this would not work; people work in food science because they have strong beliefs about food and nutrition. It's hard to draw the line between "science" and "advocacy" in this context. It can probably be drawn for climate change which is much more overtly politicized. But I'd be curious to hear your take.
UF has redefined itself over recent years. Though some of my liberal friends hate the changes the board and president has brought most do. Here is their mission statement. Educate
Enable students to lead and influence the next generation for the benefit of society, culture, and the economy
Research
Create new knowledge and technologies, and perform research that has an impact
Serve
Share the benefits of research and knowledge for the public good
Contribute
Contribute to a diverse and well-qualified citizenry, workforce, and leadership
The university's core values include: Commitment to society, Service to the nation, Creative risk-taking, and Looking for inspiration and new ways of doing things.
The university's vision is to create an unstoppable momentum to strengthen the community and reward all with a better life.
UF has departed from its liberal ways. The president and board has done an excellent job of ridding itself of woke. Also the governor deserves some credit.
Reform from within universities is very dubious. They are actually expert at deflecting reforms. I have some experience with this when I ran an attempt to rein in extravagant spending on building by the University of California in the 1990's.
The University of California suborned the California master plan for higher education and lied continuously. I once asked the president of the university when they were going to stop the racist practice of giving preference to minorities they liked (blacks) in opposition to the state constitution. He told me never.
I think the best solution is to cut off their air supply (money). That's all they care about and they will shape up any way desired very quickly. We're dealing with narrow minded intellectual snobs. Bullies fold when confronted with forceful opposition.
These are great if gentle suggestions, Roger. On a less gentle note, why does tenure exist? If a professor is adding value, that will surely be noticed.
I have enjoyed reading this series. A recent article by David Brooks in The Atlantic (December 2024 issue) entitled "How the Ivy League Broke America" is a very good read that approaches education more broadly than just universities, focusing on meritocracy and how it has changed the way education in America has evolved.
1) I cannot tell you the frustration that commercial meteorologists (and, I suspect NWS managers when having a beer outside of work) have with universities. They'd invite us to "career day" to speak to the students about our companies and then tell us all the reasons they cannot teach meteorology students to read a radar, make a forecast of a snow storm, or design weather instruments that actually work*. One professor at OU (my alma mater) said, "What do you want us to be, a vo-tech?!" Well, yes. Students of meteorology don't sign up solely to learn equations or to become clones of their professors.
If you want a quality education for actually working in the field (as opposed to research), a student is far better off going to a South Alabama or a Valpo than an OU or PSU.
2) The Yale Climate Communications group is exactly what a university should NEVER do. A focus group in southern Oklahoma -- with Yale paid by advocates of a ballot measure -- is the equivalent of selling political toothpaste and far outside of the mission of a tax-sponsored, state university.
There have been numerous occasions where their "communications about climate" have zero scientific credibility. For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true. Roger has done work showing the trend is normalized tornado damage is DOWN and, as of today, we continue with the longest streak in history without an F-5 intensity tornado (11.5 years and counting).
Yale is selling its soul to allow this group to operate on campus with the "Yale" name and logo.
The above said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a wonderful 2025 to all of you!!
*Someday, I'll explain about the ASOS anemometer and wind vane fiasco due to the lost art of weather instrument design.
He asserts that many of the trends we see today are a result of the feminization of higher ed. (both students and faculty). As a result, the systems start to emphasize different priorities (like diversity, equity, and inclusion).
Keep up the great work. This has been an excellent series!
College and University education has long had a price tag higher than what it is worth to most students. The problem has become worse and worse in the past few years. First way to fix things is to close about two-thirds of them, just shut them down and replace them with standardized computerized online courses.
Sorry, Roger, but it seems to me that history does not support the view that the scope of universities has broadened as you describe over only the past 60 years.
The University of Michigan's first hospital opened in 1869, making it the first university-owned and operated hospital in the United States
Football at major universities was more of a professional sport a century ago than it is today. The first national title claimed by UM is from 1901.
One could find similar examples for many other universities.
Roger, I have enjoyed this series of articles and agree with most of what you have said. You started this final essay by rightly saying that the starting point is the problem definition - not considering the solutions. Might that point be that universities don't realise they have a problem? Are the financial consequences of their actions causing them pain? Don't they dismiss the accusations of bias and lack of diverse opinions as just more populist rhetoric? For sure the voices echoed on your substack are getting louder, as is the political intent to 'do something'.
Will this be enough to ignite academia's desire for change, or have we gone beyond that point, and will it require more draconian actions?
This is not just a US problem. It's seen in most developed countries. As just one example a Canadian university called Royal Roads has courses leading to a degree in Climate Change Leadership.
I completely agree that universities need to act in some way and I also agree that universities need to do this on their own; it can't be imposed.
But some of the things you say here make me pause. E.g., "Much like the behavior change climate advocacy center at the University of Colorado Boulder that I discussed last week — which seeks to change how people behave and consume — operating a campus program focused on climate advocacy is clearly not institutional neutrality."
I don't know. Or at least, I would need more clarification. Let's say we have a food institute that focuses on healthy eating and does engage in advocacy/communication work about good diets. It seems to me that prohibiting an institute like this would not work; people work in food science because they have strong beliefs about food and nutrition. It's hard to draw the line between "science" and "advocacy" in this context. It can probably be drawn for climate change which is much more overtly politicized. But I'd be curious to hear your take.
“I’m of the view that major universities should be in the business of vocational education.”
That’ll preach Brother… Amen!
UF has redefined itself over recent years. Though some of my liberal friends hate the changes the board and president has brought most do. Here is their mission statement. Educate
Enable students to lead and influence the next generation for the benefit of society, culture, and the economy
Research
Create new knowledge and technologies, and perform research that has an impact
Serve
Share the benefits of research and knowledge for the public good
Contribute
Contribute to a diverse and well-qualified citizenry, workforce, and leadership
The university's core values include: Commitment to society, Service to the nation, Creative risk-taking, and Looking for inspiration and new ways of doing things.
The university's vision is to create an unstoppable momentum to strengthen the community and reward all with a better life.
UF has departed from its liberal ways. The president and board has done an excellent job of ridding itself of woke. Also the governor deserves some credit.
Reform from within universities is very dubious. They are actually expert at deflecting reforms. I have some experience with this when I ran an attempt to rein in extravagant spending on building by the University of California in the 1990's.
The University of California suborned the California master plan for higher education and lied continuously. I once asked the president of the university when they were going to stop the racist practice of giving preference to minorities they liked (blacks) in opposition to the state constitution. He told me never.
I think the best solution is to cut off their air supply (money). That's all they care about and they will shape up any way desired very quickly. We're dealing with narrow minded intellectual snobs. Bullies fold when confronted with forceful opposition.
These are great if gentle suggestions, Roger. On a less gentle note, why does tenure exist? If a professor is adding value, that will surely be noticed.
I have enjoyed reading this series. A recent article by David Brooks in The Atlantic (December 2024 issue) entitled "How the Ivy League Broke America" is a very good read that approaches education more broadly than just universities, focusing on meritocracy and how it has changed the way education in America has evolved.
Roger, this was excellent.
I have a two-part comment.....
1) I cannot tell you the frustration that commercial meteorologists (and, I suspect NWS managers when having a beer outside of work) have with universities. They'd invite us to "career day" to speak to the students about our companies and then tell us all the reasons they cannot teach meteorology students to read a radar, make a forecast of a snow storm, or design weather instruments that actually work*. One professor at OU (my alma mater) said, "What do you want us to be, a vo-tech?!" Well, yes. Students of meteorology don't sign up solely to learn equations or to become clones of their professors.
If you want a quality education for actually working in the field (as opposed to research), a student is far better off going to a South Alabama or a Valpo than an OU or PSU.
2) The Yale Climate Communications group is exactly what a university should NEVER do. A focus group in southern Oklahoma -- with Yale paid by advocates of a ballot measure -- is the equivalent of selling political toothpaste and far outside of the mission of a tax-sponsored, state university.
There have been numerous occasions where their "communications about climate" have zero scientific credibility. For example, they keep contending tornadoes are getting worse even though there is ZERO evidence this is true. Roger has done work showing the trend is normalized tornado damage is DOWN and, as of today, we continue with the longest streak in history without an F-5 intensity tornado (11.5 years and counting).
Yale is selling its soul to allow this group to operate on campus with the "Yale" name and logo.
The above said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a wonderful 2025 to all of you!!
*Someday, I'll explain about the ASOS anemometer and wind vane fiasco due to the lost art of weather instrument design.
Mike Smith
Don’t forget Miss State! About a third of broadcast meteorologists have ties to there.
John Papola has been outlining much of the same trends on his podcast "Dad Saves America." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqdCct6cyPY
He asserts that many of the trends we see today are a result of the feminization of higher ed. (both students and faculty). As a result, the systems start to emphasize different priorities (like diversity, equity, and inclusion).
Keep up the great work. This has been an excellent series!
My opinion, for what its worth.
College and University education has long had a price tag higher than what it is worth to most students. The problem has become worse and worse in the past few years. First way to fix things is to close about two-thirds of them, just shut them down and replace them with standardized computerized online courses.
Sorry, Roger, but it seems to me that history does not support the view that the scope of universities has broadened as you describe over only the past 60 years.
The University of Michigan's first hospital opened in 1869, making it the first university-owned and operated hospital in the United States
Football at major universities was more of a professional sport a century ago than it is today. The first national title claimed by UM is from 1901.
One could find similar examples for many other universities.
Yes indeed, the path from university to multiversity starts in the middle ages!