Pitt trustee votes against funding for Pitt

[CrazyPaco]

I'd argue that higher education today has become much more like 'creating widgets' then in the past, except they want to keep creating widgets while keeping the price high. We don't need employes who are thought leaders in their field or who have terminal degrees to be teaching basic courses. 90% of things to learn in college can be easily obtained with a cheap or free online course or by simply visiting most libraries.

Who doesn't need employees that are thought leaders? Pitt is not a high school. Universities aren't just place for undergrad teaching. That's the difference between a community college and a university.

Tenure stream professors are expected to produce new knowledge in their field, perform institutional service, obtain funding...not just teach. They are bringing in, collectively at Pitt, over a $1 billion annually in sponsor research to Western PA.

Certainly it varies by the field, but just take someone in the natural sciences. A neuroscientist in Dietrich is expected to publish and present at international conferences their original high-impact research, obtain multiple federally funded research grants which pay a majority of their own salary along with the salaries of post-docs and technicians, supply their labs and pay overhead for their lab space, teach undergrad and/or grad school classes often creating their own classes and materials, mentor and advise grad students and undergrads conducting original thesis research, and perform service to the university with things such as sitting on a myriad of committees. Being a tenure stream professor, at least in the sciences, is more like running a small business than what I imagine some think as being a teacher. Outside of tenure stream, there are dedicated teaching positions, but the average of those salaries at Pitt is less than the average high school teacher salary in PA.

Students that go to universities like Pitt should want to be taught by international thought leaders...that's what they are paying for. The advantage of a place like Pitt is that they get to participate directly in this cutting edge, renown research and develop relationships with people in those fields. Anyone can learn the basics from a text book or on-line classes. That's always been true as long as there have been text books. Where you began to understand and critically think about an endeavor is by doing it and emersing yourself in it; whether it be in a lab, studio, or field. And yes, this is what Pitt undergrads, not just grad students, get to do.

If they just want a more surface knowledge of something instead of trying to develop a deep understanding, then yes, just go to vocational school or read the textbook at your local public library.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Who doesn't need employees that are thought leaders? Pitt is not a high school. Universities aren't just place for undergrad teaching. That's the difference between a community college and a university.

Tenure stream professors are expected to produce new knowledge in their field, perform institutional service, obtain funding...not just teach. They are bringing in, collectively at Pitt, over a $1 billion annually in sponsor research to Western PA.

Certainly it varies by the field, but just take someone in the natural sciences. A neuroscientist in Dietrich is expected to publish and present at international conferences their original high-impact research, obtain multiple federally funded research grants which pay a majority of their own salary along with the salaries of post-docs and technicians, supply their labs and pay overhead for their lab space, teach undergrad and/or grad school classes often creating their own classes and materials, mentor and advise grad students and undergrads conducting original thesis research, and perform service to the university with things such as sitting on a myriad of committees. Being a tenure stream professor, at least in the sciences, is more like running a small business than what I imagine some think as being a teacher. Outside of tenure stream, there are dedicated teaching positions, but the average of those salaries at Pitt is less than the average high school teacher salary in PA.

Students that go to universities like Pitt should want to be taught by international thought leaders...that's what they are paying for. The advantage of a place like Pitt is that they get to participate directly in this cutting edge, renown research and develop relationships with people in those fields. Anyone can learn the basics from a text book or on-line classes. That's always been true as long as there have been text books. Where you began to understand and critically think about an endeavor is by doing it and emersing yourself in it; whether it be in a lab, studio, or field. And yes, this is what Pitt undergrads, not just grad students, get to do.

If they just want a more surface knowledge of something instead of trying to develop a deep understanding, then yes, just go to vocational school or read the textbook at your local public library.

There are many subjects where students don't need to pay outrageous costs for basic undergrad courses. In fact, many courses online at least those in a technology field, are going to be more modern then what a university teaches. Heck, my book for my first Info Sci class at Pitt was being used 15 years after it was published. Meanwhile, I had a buddy at CCAC with an actual modern textbook.

I'm not against knowledgeable professors and thought leaders teaching and researching at a University, it's just the the system is being applied at a large scale and I don't think that is needed. It's too expensive and unnecessarily. And economies of scale don't work well in this case.

 

[CrazyPaco]

There are many subjects where students don't need to pay outrageous costs for basic undergrad courses. In fact, many courses online at least those in a technology field, are going to be more modern then what a university teaches. Heck, my book for my first Info Sci class at Pitt was being used 15 years after it was published. Meanwhile, I had a buddy at CCAC with an actual modern textbook.

I'm not against knowledgeable professors and thought leaders teaching and researching at a University, it's just the the system is being applied at a large scale and I don't think that is needed. It's too expensive and unnecessarily. And economies of scale don't work well in this case.

I would submit that there are few subjects where advanced classes are so interchangeable, but for sure, "Intro to Whatever" 101 can be largely be taught in an AP class in high school, at community college, or, if the student is exceptionally self-disciplined, by himself or herself. This foundational knowledge in any field is not unimportant but can be absorbed many places. However, in my experience, is not where true understanding, thinking, and mastering of a topic is takes place. But obviously, there's a lot of savings to be had for the cost-conscious consumer of education in those first two years where a student may be taking mostly intro and foundational classes in pursuit of a degree. Cost is an important consideration, and certainly it can be a wise decision to start one's academic career at a community college setting in many circumstances.

That said, the consumer of higher education has these free choices, so one has to ask about what Pitt (main) is offering on order to be in a position of relatively high demand for a typical freshman? Is it just the quality of Whatever 101? Probably not. So it must be some combination of other things. In a major research institution like Pitt, and for sure at Pitt, a student can pursue working with faculty on advance research or creative projects as soon as the set foot on campus, at the same time beginning to develop those personal networks in their desired field, etc. Or it could just be the collegiate environment and comradery of being away from home and transitioning to independence and adulthood. It could be internship programs. It could be student football tickets. Whatever it is, it is probably a mix of things.

There is nothing wrong with starting at a community college or going to a vocational school. But the choice of colleges and universities over these other cheaper options is still made within the free market of higher education.

For sure though, there is a discussion to be had whether so much of the US economy should be using the attainment of a college degree, which may not be truly necessary for a particularly position, as a way to screen candidates. Likewise, more training of employees used to be done at companies after a hire, but now this training has been offloaded to higher ed and a potential hire is expected to be more prepared in advance. So with higher education cost inflation, also has come the inflation of educational requirements to participate in the economy, and the two likely feed into each other. These topics often aren't discussed enough, IMO, and get back a question of the historic purposes of colleges and universities and what a college degree is supposed to convey about a person acquiring it: most of the historic, major universities weren't created, nor did they exist, primarily to provide vocational training. Pitt, itself, has many anecdotes throughout its history that relate to its fight to maintain purpose beyond vocational education.

As a side note, textbook choices are always made by the professors, so their decision to assign a textbook is usually deliberate for one reason or another. One would hope though, that in most cases, the textbook is only mostly supportive material to what is being taught in class. There are good and bad teachers at any institution, but I would agree, if one's only purpose of attending a college is class room instruction that could otherwise be had in a textbook, that person probably isn't getting their money's worth.