Is taxpayer-funded academia worth it?

[Colonel Sanders]

University Policy: Put out something original or you're fired.

Professor: Okay then, I have this brilliant idea about how dog turds in their fresh form represent the defeat of racist crackers in the diluvial context of the misinterpreted mastery of the Latina-Japanese sector in a thriving two flat apartment complex in southeastern Havana.

University Policy: Sounds great!

So of course this leads to insufferable horse shit, and of course it leads to the misuse of public funding. But until someone can put a number on it, as in how much it's actually costing the taxpayers to endure it, it doesn't seem like a big problem. More importantly, this nonsense never goes anywhere anyway. All academia, not just humanities, loves to blow itself and this is just one more way of doing it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think its worthwhile to have taxpayer dollars fund studies like this. Not because of any worth to the studies themselves, but because limits on what research the government deems acceptable should be very loose. Nobody's going to hit the line of acceptability all the time and it's far better to err on the side of wasting cash on bullshit like this than to have government paper pushers deny legitimate research topics.

Lets make one thing clear, quoted studies are a result of "publish or perish" policies. I highly doubt any of these authors believe that shit they put out is legitimate research, but they are forced by universities to publish something and bring in public funding or they will be fired.
Some people don't like it but they do it anyway. Some like it and spew bullshit all the time and more often than not it pays off.

This is not true. Pressures to publish do not mean you need to publish post-modernist tripe. There is a sincerely held religious ideology of post-modernism among many in the humanities.

Besides, the problem isn't just when a professor puts out tripe, but fails to put out anything productive. Without publishing pressures, some would put out nothing at all, meaning they would be doing nothing at all worth paying them for besides their teaching, which most only spend about 1/3 their time doing at the kind of Universities that have publishing pressures.

That said, much of the cited work in the OP and other posts doesn't qualify as meaningless tripe, and is in fact perfectly valid empirical work within the social sciences.
For example the systematic analysis of bathroom graffiti is actually interesting and potential useful. How strangers within a gender speak to each other within the context of privacy of gender-specific bathrooms is a meaningful question relevant to important knowledge about human beings, gender differences, etc..

The problem is that the OP and their scientifically illiterate conservative sources start with the presumption that "useful" = "make corporations lots of money" and thus limits the concept to applied hard sciences or computer science giving rise to profitable technology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I remember Sarah Palin railing on wasteful study money being spent on bumble bees. The oddity was the study was actually with reference to Downs Syndrome.

 

[thebeave]

I remember Sarah Palin railing on wasteful study money being spent on bumble bees. The oddity was the study was actually with reference to Downs Syndrome.

Actually, IIRC it was genetic research on fruit flies she was complaining about, which are have been a valuable tool for many years in genetics research due to their simplicity and short lifetimes. Sarah Palin is a fucking moron.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I remember Sarah Palin railing on wasteful study money being spent on bumble bees. The oddity was the study was actually with reference to Downs Syndrome.

Actually, IIRC it was genetic research on fruit flies she was complaining about, which are have been a valuable tool for many years in genetics research due to their simplicity and short lifetimes. Sarah Palin is a fucking moron.

Fuck! You are right. Fruit flies and autism, not bees and Downs. Oi.

 

[ronburgundy]

I remember Sarah Palin railing on wasteful study money being spent on bumble bees. The oddity was the study was actually with reference to Downs Syndrome.

Yeah, the same conservative outlets that discount everything in the social sciences, also discount things in the "hard" sciences that don't have direct, profitable applications that are obvious to someone who shares the level of scientific illiteracy.

There is plenty of pseudo-intellectual vacuous nonsense coming from some academics that they could point to. So, the fact that conservatives trying to take down public education and science for the public benefit give so many examples that are actually useful practices and information shows just how ignorant they are in being unable to tell the difference.

 

[Derec]

This is not true. Pressures to publish do not mean you need to publish post-modernist tripe. There is a sincerely held religious ideology of post-modernism among many in the humanities.

Exactly. But there is also a sincerely held religious ideology of racial/gender grievance among many in social sciences. Sometimes those two combine, like in that paper on "black feminist calculus".

That said, much of the cited work in the OP and other posts doesn't qualify as meaningless tripe, and is in fact perfectly valid empirical work within the social sciences.
For example the systematic analysis of bathroom graffiti is actually interesting and potential useful. How strangers within a gender speak to each other within the context of privacy of gender-specific bathrooms is a meaningful question relevant to important knowledge about human beings, gender differences, etc..

That is actually true, depending on how the topic is tackled. There is always a danger it is just an excuse to bash white males. Most of the stuff in "[minority] studies" or "women's studies" is just left-wing politics masquerading as research.
But some other stuff might be accepted by their fields but not make any sense whatsoever.

The problem is that the OP and their scientifically illiterate conservative sources start with the presumption that "useful" = "make corporations lots of money" and thus limits the concept to applied hard sciences or computer science giving rise to profitable technology.

I do not take that approach. But you can't tell me that for example a paper that dismisses evidence and objectivity as "right wing" has any value whatsoever.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I remember Sarah Palin railing on wasteful study money being spent on bumble bees. The oddity was the study was actually with reference to Downs Syndrome.

Yeah, the same conservative outlets that discount everything in the social sciences, also discount things in the "hard" sciences that don't have direct, profitable applications that are obvious to someone who shares the level of scientific illiteracy.

There is plenty of pseudo-intellectual vacuous nonsense coming from some academics that they could point to. So, the fact that conservatives trying to take down public education and science for the public benefit give so many examples that are actually useful practices and information shows just how ignorant they are in being unable to tell the difference.

One of the biggest is a lobbying firm http://junkscience.com/ They were founded to defend large industries such as tobacco and pesticides by calling industry critical studies "junk". I was interviewed in one of their exposes. The reporter kept asking leading questions about our cities tobacco ban.

 

[ronburgundy]

Exactly. But there is also a sincerely held religious ideology of racial/gender grievance among many in social sciences. Sometimes those two combine, like in that paper on "black feminist calculus".

That said, much of the cited work in the OP and other posts doesn't qualify as meaningless tripe, and is in fact perfectly valid empirical work within the social sciences.
For example the systematic analysis of bathroom graffiti is actually interesting and potential useful. How strangers within a gender speak to each other within the context of privacy of gender-specific bathrooms is a meaningful question relevant to important knowledge about human beings, gender differences, etc..

That is actually true, depending on how the topic is tackled. There is always a danger it is just an excuse to bash white males.

And there is the danger that research in the hardest of "hard" sciences will be used to bash one race as genetically inferior. But unless their is evidence a study is being used for such political purposes, its irrational to assume it is. Besides, the cited research isn't about racially segregated bathrooms, so how could it possibly be about bashing "white" males?

The problem is that the OP and their scientifically illiterate conservative sources start with the presumption that "useful" = "make corporations lots of money" and thus limits the concept to applied hard sciences or computer science giving rise to profitable technology.

I do not take that approach.

The OP takes that approach, as does almost every internet source trying to argue that public Universities are generally useless.

But you can't tell me that for example a paper that dismisses evidence and objectivity as "right wing" has any value whatsoever.

I'm not telling you that. At first blush, that paper sounds like post-modernist, anti-science tripe. That's my point. The OP just puts together a list of that includes valid and probably invalid academic work and treats it all as the same, thus, showing its own ignorance and political agenda that it is ironically accusing academia of.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I do not take that approach. But you can't tell me that for example a paper that dismisses evidence and objectivity as "right wing" has any value whatsoever.

What approach? You have condemned papers you haven't read.

 

[Trausti]

I do not take that approach. But you can't tell me that for example a paper that dismisses evidence and objectivity as "right wing" has any value whatsoever.

What approach? You have condemned papers you haven't read.

Unless you take a course in young-earth creationism, you can't condemn it!

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not telling you that. At first blush, that paper sounds like post-modernist, anti-science tripe. That's my point. The OP just puts together a list of that includes valid and probably invalid academic work and treats it all as the same, thus, showing its own ignorance and political agenda that it is ironically accusing academia of.

Which one of those did you think was valid?

And I just randomly picked some from here: https://twitter.com/real_peerreview

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What approach? You have condemned papers you haven't read.

Unless you take a course in young-earth creationism, you can't condemn it!

Wow, that wasn't even remotely close to be a paralleled observation.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm not telling you that. At first blush, that paper sounds like post-modernist, anti-science tripe. That's my point. The OP just puts together a list of that includes valid and probably invalid academic work and treats it all as the same, thus, showing its own ignorance and political agenda that it is ironically accusing academia of.

Which one of those did you think was valid?

For starters, the one that I already discussed which compared the nature of interactions via bathroom wall comments. Not seeing how that could be informative requires Palin-level ignorance.

And I just randomly picked some from here: https://twitter.com/real_peerreview

IOW, you're just blindly and uncritically cut and pasted from a list compiled by rabid ideologues who are scientifically illiterate.

 

[dismal]

University Policy: Put out something original or you're fired.

Professor: Okay then, I have this brilliant idea about how dog turds in their fresh form represent the defeat of racist crackers in the diluvial context of the misinterpreted mastery of the Latina-Japanese sector in a thriving two flat apartment complex in southeastern Havana.

University Policy: Sounds great!

So of course this leads to insufferable horse shit, and of course it leads to the misuse of public funding. But until someone can put a number on it, as in how much it's actually costing the taxpayers to endure it, it doesn't seem like a big problem. More importantly, this nonsense never goes anywhere anyway. All academia, not just humanities, loves to blow itself and this is just one more way of doing it.

The burden of proof should be on those arguing for public funding. If you are going to point guns at people and take away the product of their labor you need evidence the use of their money is just and wise.

Universities have vast amounts of private wealth they control. Multi-billion dollar endowments. They manage to fund lavish buildings and sports stadiums and multi-million dollar salaries for football coaches, so surely they can fund some level of research without taxpayer involvement.

Where is the evidence that level is less than optimal?

 

[laughing dog]

You don't say! Of course not. My point was that she'd have trouble with simple algebra, and forget about calculus.
You can see it from her usage of the word "limit" in her abstract. It's the everyday usage of the word, and has nothing with limits as used in math.

Not if you actually think about instead of posting kneejerk bile.

That is pure speculation.

So is everything you have posted in your responses.

 

[laughing dog]

The burden of proof should be on those arguing for public funding. If you are going to point guns at people and take away the product of their labor you need evidence the use of their money is just and wise.

It is more than ironic that someone insists on proof while claiming that guns are pointed at taxpayers.

The economic argument for public funding of knowledge generation or expansion is that knowledge is a public good. Given the characteristics of a public good, there is no reason to expect the free market to generate the optimal level - as any successful student of econ 101 learns and knows.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

University Policy: Put out something original or you're fired.

Professor: Okay then, I have this brilliant idea about how dog turds in their fresh form represent the defeat of racist crackers in the diluvial context of the misinterpreted mastery of the Latina-Japanese sector in a thriving two flat apartment complex in southeastern Havana.

University Policy: Sounds great!

So of course this leads to insufferable horse shit, and of course it leads to the misuse of public funding. But until someone can put a number on it, as in how much it's actually costing the taxpayers to endure it, it doesn't seem like a big problem. More importantly, this nonsense never goes anywhere anyway. All academia, not just humanities, loves to blow itself and this is just one more way of doing it.

The burden of proof should be on those arguing for public funding. If you are going to point guns at people and take away the product of their labor you need evidence the use of their money is just and wise.

Universities have vast amounts of private wealth they control. Multi-billion dollar endowments. They manage to fund lavish buildings and sports stadiums and multi-million dollar salaries for football coaches, so surely they can fund some level of research without taxpayer involvement.

They can and they do. Often there are strings attached to these funds. The federal government provides a level of funding beyond what these can give.

Where is the evidence that level is less than optimal?

The evidence is in the United States economy that is becoming more and more dependent on our advances in science and technology. Basic research is at the heart of this economic engine.

 

[ronburgundy]

University Policy: Put out something original or you're fired.

Professor: Okay then, I have this brilliant idea about how dog turds in their fresh form represent the defeat of racist crackers in the diluvial context of the misinterpreted mastery of the Latina-Japanese sector in a thriving two flat apartment complex in southeastern Havana.

University Policy: Sounds great!

So of course this leads to insufferable horse shit, and of course it leads to the misuse of public funding. But until someone can put a number on it, as in how much it's actually costing the taxpayers to endure it, it doesn't seem like a big problem. More importantly, this nonsense never goes anywhere anyway. All academia, not just humanities, loves to blow itself and this is just one more way of doing it.

The burden of proof should be on those arguing for public funding. If you are going to point guns at people and take away the product of their labor you need evidence the use of their money is just and wise.

The fact that most basic science is done using public funds means the only "proof" required is "proof" that basic science research benefits the public.

Universities have vast amounts of private wealth they control. Multi-billion dollar endowments. They manage to fund lavish buildings and sports stadiums and multi-million dollar salaries for football coaches, so surely they can fund some level of research without taxpayer involvement.

Almost none of the research referred to in the OP is actually "funded" beyond the basic salary paid to the authors for their role as professors at the University. Most of it does not cost anything beyond the author's time, so the University is covering any costs from the their general budget.

 

[SimpleDon]

A lot of academic work coming out of colleges and universities certainly has value (usually in the hard sciences). Yet, there's also a current of pseudo-scientific nonsense which enjoys taxpayer funding and the implication of credulity by being associated with a university and published in a journal.

<snip>​

Should tax money fund this?

<snip>​

I am somewhat in a minority here. I decry the postmodernism (and its related ideas such as cultural relativism, truth relativism, moral relativism, etc.), the identity politics, the anti-technology and the all consuming hypersensitivity to any possible racial slights of the modern left. But I do so because the left is wasting their efforts on this and not spending any time on their role as the only possible counterbalance to the much more destructive and dangerous tenets of the movement conservatism, libertarian, neoliberal philosophy that determines our government policies now as they have for the last thirty five years or so.

So while I agree with you that these are crazy it is almost a sure bet that you and I won't agree on the solution to this problem, if you were to advance one. So I will.

This is a small price to for the much broader good of academic freedom. And I agree that the left is also guilty of trying to suppress academic freedom. But the solution isn't to allow the much more powerful right to suppress the academic freedoms of the left. The solution is to allow academic freedom for all and then to laugh at and to mock both extremes.

And it is not a problem that these are tax supported and that the also absurd and much more dangerous right wing research is supported by the very people who have materially gained from it. We need balance, even if it is accomplished with the extremes of both sides.

What we really need is moderation.

 

[ronburgundy]

A lot of academic work coming out of colleges and universities certainly has value (usually in the hard sciences). Yet, there's also a current of pseudo-scientific nonsense which enjoys taxpayer funding and the implication of credulity by being associated with a university and published in a journal.

<snip>​

Should tax money fund this?

<snip>​

I am somewhat in a minority here. I decry the postmodernism (and its related ideas such as cultural relativism, truth relativism, moral relativism, etc.), the identity politics, the anti-technology and the all consuming hypersensitivity to any possible racial slights of the modern left. But I do so because the left is wasting their efforts on this and not spending any time on their role as the only possible counterbalance to the much more destructive and dangerous tenets of the movement conservatism, libertarian, neoliberal philosophy that determines our government policies now as they have for the last thirty five years or so.

So while I agree with you that these are crazy it is almost a sure bet that you and I won't agree on the solution to this problem, if you were to advance one. So I will.

This is a small price to for the much broader good of academic freedom. And I agree that the left is also guilty of trying to suppress academic freedom. But the solution isn't to allow the much more powerful right to suppress the academic freedoms of the left. The solution is to allow academic freedom for all and then to laugh at and to mock both extremes.

And it is not a problem that these are tax supported and that the also absurd and much more dangerous right wing research is supported by the very people who have materially gained from it. We need balance, even if it is accomplished with the extremes of both sides.

What we really need is moderation.

I agree with all of this, except where you imply that the OP is correct in treating all of the academic work it cites as equally vapid, ideological, and useless. Some of it is no more useless than the hard science research right-wingers decry as useless because they are too ignorant to understand it, such as much of what is singled out in the "Golden Fleece" awards and similar anti-science propaganda from the Fox News crowd.