Marginalium

How business metrics broke universities. I hate the layout of this article, but suffer through. Interesting skim:

Small departments were eliminated or merged into new units that employed dozens of adjunct instructors teaching hundreds of sections across multiple locations. Demands for efficiency and scale have led to the replacement of senior faculty mentorship with online training modules. Regular departmental discussions, collaborative curriculum development, shared teaching experiences—all of which had a politically moderating function—disappeared.

When the decision to mount a suite of courses is driven by metrics, the rigor of each class matters less than its ability to attract students. Radical voices that spark controversy suddenly have an advantage. Assessment coordinators can point to high enrollment numbers and enthusiastic student feedback as evidence of success. Quality and rigor do not matter. And when departments are dissolved or merged, the traditional role of senior faculty in mentoring junior colleagues has been replaced by centralized “course development” training programs, and their influence over hiring and promotion is diminished by administrative mandates.

And most interestingly to me, they propose it as an input to the increasing politicisation on-campus:

It was not obvious at the outset that centralization and bureaucratization would drive politicization, but perhaps it should have been. With departmental homes broken and disciplinary ties severed, why wouldn’t faculty seek emotional connection in politics and causes? Why wouldn’t they spend their extra time on social media rather than in the lab or the library?

Though, obviously the solution to this wouldn’t be to go back to the old problem they were trying to fix, so I feel like this article is missing something.