An energizing and powerful statement. I wonder how this experience - even with your thoughtfully proposed solutions - can be made accessible to the students that have to work full time. I was able to relish in this challenge of deep thinking and spirit of doing it the hard way by my own ambition (even if certain class structures and professors allowed and enabled the comfortable route), but it was also enabled by the time I had available to me to do the extra work, to spend the time being curious and turning over the material, to write long essays from scratch.
For those who may be taking care of family, working a full time job - to survive, not just pay for school - they may not be taking the easy route in response to the allure of comfort, but instead because they are under the much weightier pressure of getting by. Critical thinking and deep understanding often take time. Curiosity, creativity and analysis are encouraged by certain kinds of invigorating pressure - the threat of a room turned against them, reputation, success - not necessarily the pressure of a lack of sleep or making rent.
I couldn’t feel more fully the disappointment in the trade too often made of true academic rigor for comfort, and I champion your point fully, especially for those with the ability to spend the time and energy doing the work. But I think it’s an important element to acknowledge those whose time and energy is consumed by trying to keep the lowest rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs intact.
Alas, perhaps this argument is better directed at our broader society, rather than higher education.
Was just talking with my friend Joey Keegin about this — we both had to work full time during undergrad — about ways to manage that part of something like this. Once upon a time, as Scott Smith, another Pitt PhD and a union guy and a reader here, knows , labor organizations and other civic societies had debating and reading groups for this kind of enrichment. But we can do more today. And as another read commented, maybe there’s a way to tie AI into that solution.
But there’s more to come and these are giving me ideas for future collaborations. I just wanted to return to my academic work and lay out a bold thesis. Now it’s time to do the work of fleshing it out!
Absolutely electric. This is the kind of truth-telling that scorches the earth around the hollow cathedral of credentialism.
I agree — the real university must return to the arena. But here’s the twist: I say embrace AI. Use it to learn, to rehearse, to sharpen — but not to hide. Let it be your sparring partner, not your mask.
Because in the end, the proving ground must be human as you point out. No devices, no ghostwriters, no second chances. Just the raw collision of intellects — teacher and student, student and student — in a room where souls meet through dialogue, challenge, and fire.
That statement strikes at the heart of a deep paradox in modern higher education. For too long, the system has treated students like customers handing out A's as if satisfaction can be measured through easy grades rather than rigorous learning. This approach may please in the short term, but it ultimately dilutes the very essence of education: challenging ideas, rigorous debate, and genuine intellectual growth.
The call for "ruthless, face‑to‑face thinking on the spot" is a demand for a return to demanding, directly engaged discourse. It envisions a classroom where ideas are not simply received passively but are sharply critiqued, dissected, and rebuilt in real time. Such an environment isn't about being harsh for its own sake; it's about pushing every student to truly engage with the material, question assumptions, and learn the art of critical thinking a skill that's essential not only academically but in every facet of life.
I hope someone is listening to you. I have been one of those lowly paid adjuncts at a community college for ten years and my experiences there, I believe, proves your position on higher education articulated here is spot on.
PS I am glad I had the opportunity to sit in your classroom (and learn) at the University described in your comment above.
Or, ask the students to engage with making a difference in the real world and with their own performance improvement in meaningful ways. See the Local Innovation Lab we built at Southern Oregon University.
Rather than blood on the floor, maybe we can think about the Humane leadership value of generative care.
Not the warm hug of a nurse, but the loving toughness of a really good coach.
Can we help young humans learn to do this for themselves and each other? We've learned that the answer is yes.
That’s absolutely another way it can be done — in conjunction with a rigorous classroom experience for those who need it or want it. Apprenticeships, local service, out of classroom experiences, etc. should be the primary thing most universities transition into doing
Agreed, and as one of those underpaid adjuncts who also was generous with my grading, I completely agree with the need for a more rigorous classroom experience.
But, in the end we are hoping to create autodidacts, no?
At some point my dream is that the of the rigor lights a fire inside the student and they run off into their lives to learn everything possible from books and from the act of living their own creative journey.
Very nice, except for the egregious shot at Allan Bloom, who was a master of the very kind of one-on-one grilling you celebrate, but who also understood and explained to a generation the reasons for the phenomena you kvetch about. "Whinging?" "Invert?" Really? Why?
Very fair point. I wrote this at 2-3 a.m. and was simply blasting through the piece, and undoubtedly assumed that was halfway amusing in part because I've sat with that material for so long that I felt comfortable poking at it (The Closing... and Roger Kimball's The Long March, both of which I read in 2000 at my uncle's urging, were the first such books of that kind that I'd encountered) and in part because I was sleep deprived. At any rate, I've updated the permatext (the URL version here) but retained the American Prospect on Bloom's love life (such as it was) because it's interesting.
On grade inflation: I’ll never forget doing a campus visit at Harvard in 2008 and being told by my host that “An advantage of Harvard over Princeton was the grade inflation.” 👀
One thing I’ll always thank my era at Princeton for is being able to look at my transcript and know I earned exactly what I deserved. The deliberateness of the deflation policy at the time put things on “hard mode,” and while that was stressful, I have no illusions of ever having “coasted” and full confidence that I got an actual education along with that degree.
An interesting protip, which of course Vincent Jiang was wise not to mention here, is that you can simply lie about your GPA in those instances when no one is checking, like with many private-sector job applications.
Been there, brother. It all seems so meaningless, and then we remember the one or two kids we really helped. But I still don't regret walking away from academia.
An energizing and powerful statement. I wonder how this experience - even with your thoughtfully proposed solutions - can be made accessible to the students that have to work full time. I was able to relish in this challenge of deep thinking and spirit of doing it the hard way by my own ambition (even if certain class structures and professors allowed and enabled the comfortable route), but it was also enabled by the time I had available to me to do the extra work, to spend the time being curious and turning over the material, to write long essays from scratch.
For those who may be taking care of family, working a full time job - to survive, not just pay for school - they may not be taking the easy route in response to the allure of comfort, but instead because they are under the much weightier pressure of getting by. Critical thinking and deep understanding often take time. Curiosity, creativity and analysis are encouraged by certain kinds of invigorating pressure - the threat of a room turned against them, reputation, success - not necessarily the pressure of a lack of sleep or making rent.
I couldn’t feel more fully the disappointment in the trade too often made of true academic rigor for comfort, and I champion your point fully, especially for those with the ability to spend the time and energy doing the work. But I think it’s an important element to acknowledge those whose time and energy is consumed by trying to keep the lowest rung of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs intact.
Alas, perhaps this argument is better directed at our broader society, rather than higher education.
Was just talking with my friend Joey Keegin about this — we both had to work full time during undergrad — about ways to manage that part of something like this. Once upon a time, as Scott Smith, another Pitt PhD and a union guy and a reader here, knows , labor organizations and other civic societies had debating and reading groups for this kind of enrichment. But we can do more today. And as another read commented, maybe there’s a way to tie AI into that solution.
But there’s more to come and these are giving me ideas for future collaborations. I just wanted to return to my academic work and lay out a bold thesis. Now it’s time to do the work of fleshing it out!
Absolutely electric. This is the kind of truth-telling that scorches the earth around the hollow cathedral of credentialism.
I agree — the real university must return to the arena. But here’s the twist: I say embrace AI. Use it to learn, to rehearse, to sharpen — but not to hide. Let it be your sparring partner, not your mask.
Because in the end, the proving ground must be human as you point out. No devices, no ghostwriters, no second chances. Just the raw collision of intellects — teacher and student, student and student — in a room where souls meet through dialogue, challenge, and fire.
Beautifully said, as always
I pivoted on this one and I had to go against Janet’s take, but I can’t see another way!
That statement strikes at the heart of a deep paradox in modern higher education. For too long, the system has treated students like customers handing out A's as if satisfaction can be measured through easy grades rather than rigorous learning. This approach may please in the short term, but it ultimately dilutes the very essence of education: challenging ideas, rigorous debate, and genuine intellectual growth.
The call for "ruthless, face‑to‑face thinking on the spot" is a demand for a return to demanding, directly engaged discourse. It envisions a classroom where ideas are not simply received passively but are sharply critiqued, dissected, and rebuilt in real time. Such an environment isn't about being harsh for its own sake; it's about pushing every student to truly engage with the material, question assumptions, and learn the art of critical thinking a skill that's essential not only academically but in every facet of life.
Former Professor Bateman, you are correct, sir.
I hope someone is listening to you. I have been one of those lowly paid adjuncts at a community college for ten years and my experiences there, I believe, proves your position on higher education articulated here is spot on.
PS I am glad I had the opportunity to sit in your classroom (and learn) at the University described in your comment above.
Or, ask the students to engage with making a difference in the real world and with their own performance improvement in meaningful ways. See the Local Innovation Lab we built at Southern Oregon University.
Rather than blood on the floor, maybe we can think about the Humane leadership value of generative care.
Not the warm hug of a nurse, but the loving toughness of a really good coach.
Can we help young humans learn to do this for themselves and each other? We've learned that the answer is yes.
That’s absolutely another way it can be done — in conjunction with a rigorous classroom experience for those who need it or want it. Apprenticeships, local service, out of classroom experiences, etc. should be the primary thing most universities transition into doing
Agreed, and as one of those underpaid adjuncts who also was generous with my grading, I completely agree with the need for a more rigorous classroom experience.
But, in the end we are hoping to create autodidacts, no?
At some point my dream is that the of the rigor lights a fire inside the student and they run off into their lives to learn everything possible from books and from the act of living their own creative journey.
Very nice, except for the egregious shot at Allan Bloom, who was a master of the very kind of one-on-one grilling you celebrate, but who also understood and explained to a generation the reasons for the phenomena you kvetch about. "Whinging?" "Invert?" Really? Why?
Very fair point. I wrote this at 2-3 a.m. and was simply blasting through the piece, and undoubtedly assumed that was halfway amusing in part because I've sat with that material for so long that I felt comfortable poking at it (The Closing... and Roger Kimball's The Long March, both of which I read in 2000 at my uncle's urging, were the first such books of that kind that I'd encountered) and in part because I was sleep deprived. At any rate, I've updated the permatext (the URL version here) but retained the American Prospect on Bloom's love life (such as it was) because it's interesting.
On grade inflation: I’ll never forget doing a campus visit at Harvard in 2008 and being told by my host that “An advantage of Harvard over Princeton was the grade inflation.” 👀
One thing I’ll always thank my era at Princeton for is being able to look at my transcript and know I earned exactly what I deserved. The deliberateness of the deflation policy at the time put things on “hard mode,” and while that was stressful, I have no illusions of ever having “coasted” and full confidence that I got an actual education along with that degree.
Did that change afterwards? Princeton (three current undegrads on SCOTUS!) always had that rep as the "harder" / "more rigorous" Ivy.
I just felt my age when seeing that they withdrew the policy in 2014. Currently deciding how much I agree with the Prince op-ed on its 10-year anniversary: https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2024/01/princeton-opinion-column-grade-inflation-acceptance-rate-deflation
“Low, stable, and predictable grade inflation!”
An interesting protip, which of course Vincent Jiang was wise not to mention here, is that you can simply lie about your GPA in those instances when no one is checking, like with many private-sector job applications.
Love this !!! I see this in my urban middle school. Poor black kids expect As for nothing and cheat just as well as rich white kids.
Sad as heck. :/
Been there, brother. It all seems so meaningless, and then we remember the one or two kids we really helped. But I still don't regret walking away from academia.
Nor I, in its current form. My life + my family’s life are way better now.
I think I was in that class with the breaking bad guy!
BTW, I saved myself. I'm in private sector industry now, and while the learning curve is steep? I'm loving it and I look forward to the grind.
Yeah but you were always going to kick ass wherever you went. You were one of the fighters
I’m also 99% sure you were indeed in that class. Today I’m hearing all the guys like that are in their gambling apps nonstop
Booooo why sit in class AND lose money at the same time?!
The wife had one student send her an email at 11 pm... the email: u up? Boi, her syllabus after that... also she switched to staff and is happier.
lol “u up u lookin hmu”
She was BIG MAD lol