ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


"There's a tendency to value very obvious practical gain over human enrichment," says Charles W. Nuckolls, a professor of anthropology at Alabama. "That's why it's easy to see why professional schools, which emphasize their practical focus, get more money," he adds. "The long-term consequence will be the erosion and eventually the demise of the liberal arts, particularly at state-supported schools."
If only we should be so lucky!
You academic economists aren't doing your jobs! Haven't these music and anthropology professors heard of the law of supply and demand?
You know, for people who are so obsessed with "human enrichment", they're awfully money obsessed. Aren't they all liberals, too? Since when do they want to be highly paid?
What gain to the world would there be if professors of literature were less well paid?
"the opportunity cost for someone with a degree in literature has to be pretty low."
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a PhD in the humanities? The opportunity cost is about 20-25% of one's prime working years.
Let us for a moment direct our attentions to the real scandal on many universities: the outrageous salaries of football and basketball coaches! This foolishness is the result of conservative leaning alumni who have more money than brains. It tacitly informs the student body that academics is of secondary importance to winning an athletic contest.
Come now, David. While it may be a scandal, at least the salaries paid to coaches are based on market forces. These guys are bringing in the bucks and prestige through TV and whatever. They should be compensated accordingly.
That's quite a different situation than the rent seeking liberal arts academics.
Not that I'm big on college sports or anything. My alma matta excells at drinking and casual sex, not sports, so much so that MTV has made a "reality" series about our fraternities.
How does opportunity cost relate to rent seeking by academics? Is it that these academics have no job prospects other than the academy, and thus should accept a lower salary to ensure that more profs can be hired?
“Come now, David. While it may be a scandal, at least the salaries paid to coaches are based on market forces”
But what does this have to do with education? The universities have no logical reason justifying their exaggerated emphasis on these pampered sports programs. I am a strong believer in student athletes. However, the individual playing on a big time college football or basketball team is first, last, and foremost an athlete. So much so, that these young men rarely have any time for serious school work. And yes, I am compelled to reiterate the harsh fact that this silliness tacitly devalues the schools’ central reason for existence.
David, naturally their justification is that people watch the games, and dearly want to watch the games and have their team win. The television ratings is part of the proof of that.
It's certainly a logical reason. It's just not a reason you like.
I don't understand the repeated tendency of people (especially non-economists) to label preferences they don't like as "not logical." How does logic even enter in to it?
You may as well lambaste the universities for spending money on Art (or even Literature) Departments. There are plenty of people who find high art or critical theory to be as wasteful and pointless as presumably you find sports. From a logical perspective, your objection is no different. It's a matter of preference, not logic.
“It's a matter of preference, not logic.”
I simply cannot accept your relativist stance. A school is suppose to be about education and the sharing of knowledge. That is its only reason for existence. Sports entertainment shouldn’t even be on the list. Lastly, it is an outrage when young adults are recruited to be be primarily athletes and only secondarily students!
I can also prefer chess over checkers, but I can’t have it both ways. A choice has to be made. The same holds true for institutions of education. What is their central purpose? If I take a quick peek at the dictionary, will it say?
school: a place where one is entertained by sports contests