<p>"Psychologists may know that seratonin causes xyz, but they don't know why that happens"</p>
<p>Yes, but while we do understand the biochemistry of serotonin and its reaction pathways on a single cell level, we know next to nothing on how these reactions are integrated in the context of higher order structure in the brain. The fact that neuroscience and psychology are such different fields tell us that we are a long way from understanding such processes.</p>
<p>Ah, 81 posts later the discussion about the economic crisis in higher ed has morphed into a discussion of brain biochemistry.</p>
<p>Mombot: Ouch! I am sure there are brilliant folks in all these disciplines. These biaswes are more cultural than real. A good friend of mine from Lebanon recently completed a Masters in Art History. She explained to me that as a young girl in Lebanon she was a math major because she was not considered bright enough for a Humanities major. In certain cultures women are the accountants because men are "too important" for mere numbers. Sociology, Anthropology or Gender Studies students would have access to this information.</p>
<p>My D told me that at her school Art History is the fall back degree. How discouraging to those who really want to study art. I suggested that she might be a teeny bit biased. In many the male-female ratio of a field determines its "respectability". Friends from Russia tell me that in the Soviet Union, while it existed, academics were much more respected than doctors who were predominantly women. They also enjoyed a higher standard of living. Imagine their disappoinment when they landed her after the collapse of the Soviet Union and their jobs disappeared!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bedhead, "What if he/she really has never been academically motivated in the first place?". You are now defending your position with students who should not have enrolled in a college in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you just proved my point exactly by admitting that college is not for everyone because the "payback" narrowly or broadly is not there. I am glad you agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would think that it is paramount for persons in such jobs to have a better understanding of what is meant by being a human. I can't think of a better start than having a liberal arts education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, a person who had a 6th grade education and a criminal record feels pretty human doing a responsible technical job such as the one talked about and by taking care of their children. A lot more human than if they hadn't been able avail themselves of the opportunity. You are stating some kind of aery-fairy ideal that doesn't apply well to the practicalities of the lives discussed. In a world where everybody is rich, what you say might apply; then everybody would be able to live further up the pyramid of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is nothing wrong with average or less than genius students wanting to attend a college. To have our citizens better educated is always beneficial. The problem lies in our failure to provide such. Attending post secondary schools is virtually free of costs for students in almost all technologically advanced countries except here in the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And so the solution to our failure to provide such is for people to stretch well beyond their means and earning potential to go get an education which puts them in indentured servitude and doesn't, in some cases as you noted above, fit their circumstances and needs well? What you say makes no sense, padad.</p>
<p>You may not "need" a PhD to teach introductory calculus, but -- in all fields -- the PhD is more likely to get a student excited about the scope of that field. He or she is actively involved in new developments, research and ideas.</p>
<p>Another thing: What we're discussing has already happened in many places, with lots of non-tenured, adjunct professors teaching an increasing number of courses in many places. The result is poorer advising and, overall, less time for professors to engage deeply with undergraduate students. Why? The adjuncts don't have advising assignments, nor any involvement in the hidden work faculty do in departmental and university committees. And don't say that faculty don't need to be part of those committees. If they weren't, all sorts of decisions about universities would be made by people who have almost no contact with students and their parents.</p>
<p>This is all very true. I taught for many years as an adjunct. I was paid poorly (but didn't do it for the money), but was only on campus four hours...three to each the class and an hour for office hours. I wasn't there more to advise the kids, and while they could call or email me, many didn't. I was good at teaching the class, but completely peripheral to the college community.</p>
<p>It is really important to have full-time professors.</p>