I've heard academia be compared to a drug gang, a pyramid scheme, but I think a comparison to an MLM adds something, especially given how pervasive that kind of thinking is in modern corporate business.
I feel the comments about writing, personally. I went to three profs separately after my first semester in an MA, because it was clear that they didn't like my writing, and I asked for help. They offered a couple of platitudes. It wasn't until six years later that I finished my PhD without guidance that they realized that I could, actually, think. But I knew by then that the problem was that, at least in my experience, liberal arts academics tend to be far too fixated on how one says something, about how one proceeds, and on the "hidden curricula" of expectations that I had only recently begun to unravel.
My key insight, then as now, is that being a good philosophy--my field--is not the same as being a good professor. Often, they're opposed, as I see too many people take scholarly positions for the sake of having something to write, of getting attention, even if the argument is facile and anyone of that level of intelligence and dedication should know it.
So, I guess I leave with another thought, the difference between doing well in the field and doing well as a professional in the field.
Re: the writing skills. I have been taking a workshop on creative non-fiction writing this spring and have been struck by how much of it can be truly taught. I have an amazing teacher (shout out to Brian Benson) but also it seems that a lot of work has been done to show how to write well. In scientific writing, we kind of teach it like "read some papers, write one yourself, and we'll tell you what's wrong." I feel sure it can be done better.
Re: the final thought. This is so interesting to me. They are not the same thing, and each has its own rewards. But only the second set of people gain power.
So much of the structure of, at least professional philosophical writing, can be taught but isn't. Unsurprisingly, you just summed up the advice I got from three people, "read some papers, write one yourself, and we'll tell you what's wrong." I quickly noted that professors were very responsive to theses they liked, but also good literary style regardless of content. It stumped me, because the same people would go on about scholarship, but respond to something else. My mistake was listening to what they said, not what they rewarded. What took me years to recognize is that there are so many different kinds and styles of professional writing--even in one field--that the advice is almost useless.
For instance, if one wants to play the provacateur, they need only be interesting and find a journal that will put up with a polemmic with myopic scholarship. It will start a firestorm of conversation, and everyone will pile on.
Or, if a particular thesis is popular with a certain crowd, then one can get away with sloppy scholarship. This is rife.
People with prestigious degrees or at such places usually get automatic passes from anyone of lower prestige rank. Inversely, great scholarship without such prestige will be judged harshly.
But, at least in my read, much of the scholarship in my field is just plain pedestrian and boring--thesis that are either purely hypothetical or obviously true. And after the conferences, when people are hanging out at the bars after a few drinks, they admit that they're all playing a game where everyone needs publications and they're just not that willing to call anyone out lest they get called out.
You can tell me how much this maps to fields you know.
So ... when a graduate student notices all of this ... what are they to think of the advice, "just read some articles?" There's some good stuff out there, but the scholarship needs some curation and young authors need guidance.
My field was rhetoric and composition, much of which is spent on teaching writing, so these comments really hit home to me. So many of my students had internalized the idea belief that if they wrote badly it was their own fault; they just didn’t have the ability. So a lot of my job was spent convincing them that their writing could get better, that it was a skill they could learn.
But across the universities where I worked, it was clear that many faculty don’t believe this. They leave their students to sink or swim, then complain that “students can’t write anymore” but do absolutely nothing to teach them.
This was my experience as well! And I didn’t do a great job of trying to teach either, there wasn’t time and I didn’t have any idea how. But I do think it can be done.
The two conflicting categories of writing that I see in my field are 1) overstating results with big claims of solving huge problems and 2) discussing pros and cons and alternate explanations. Graduate students aren't taught either, or that there are differences.
Though this varies somewhat, my experience in an MFA program fits this model. These programs bring in students then essentially pit them against each other often without really teaching them. When the students fail, it’s their own fault, but the programs claim credit and gain prestige from the students who succeed. The successes then get jobs at other programs and replicate the situation. A very few make it as writers and faculty. Most of the graduates don’t.
Where the academia <-> MLM/pyramid scheme parallels *really* started to take off is the trend towards replacing actual faculty positions with low-paid adjuncts with no benefits or security. You're required to have a PhD and formal credentials, but you're literally a GIG WORKER! Of course, this is to allow the tenured faculty to keep doing research (cough, or loafing, cough) instead of teaching undergrad classes, where a large part of university revenue actually comes from
In the "old days", there may not have been ample tenure-track faculty jobs, but at least there were *some* (so I'm told, this pre-dates me). Now, there is literally no place for academic employment for some people who finish grad school. It's not a personal failing to secure a faculty job if those jobs don't exist in the first place!
I agree with all of this—I definitely need to pay more attention to the plight of adjuncts—except for the faculty loafing part. With some exceptions faculty are busting their a$$es.
Most faculty definitely do work super hard. At some of the institutions I’ve been at, there were issues with people past tenure who precipitously dropped off their work ethic and collegiality carrying the load. Perhaps a too flippant or offensive way to broach the very real issue of needing to make post-tenure review processes more robust
The MLM idea resonates with me. I got my PhD late in life, after struggling financially all through grad school, then having to leave and care for my terminally ill parent, then doggedly returning to finish the degree after she died -- but then I was stuck with student debt, probably for the rest of my life. I feel like I swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker. I'm a better writer now, gained some good contacts in grad school, expanded my knowledge base--but the PhD will always feel like a gigantic scam that I fell for.
I’m sorry to hear this. There is definitely a question to ask about PhD programs and whether they serve the students--they definitely serve the faculty.
Great article, and an important piece in holding universities to account.
Some thoughts on my end regarding this topic.
1. Multi-level Marketing with its commisssioned based structure is not intrinsically illegal, and I believe that people mostly have an ethical revulsion against MLMs rather than a specific legal one. There may be lots of businesses that operate in the economy similar to this (i.e. Sales, payperclick, partnership deals etc), which are not called MLM, yet are perhaps socially accepted because they produce a quality product.
1.1 Does this pyramid structure bear similarities to the university's, dean> head of school> lecturers> postgrads> undergrads. Yes it does somewhat, but then most large companies also have kinda heirarchical structure. Even if the commissions are not directly recorded and calculated as such, people's salaries and financial inputs stem from customers on the bottom and their employees output, like MLM.
Why its bad:
2. Typical cases of MLM are really bad for two reasons. Firstly their products totally suck and are extremely expensive. Take the example of Amway. Purchases of their inferior product at exorbitant prices are regretful. Their products essentially sabotage their own success. Secondly, both the customer experience and experience of being a new recruit in MLM really sucks, which means that even though the image of the money pyramid is envisioned to people that buy into MLM. The truth is that the pyramid quickly dissolves and disintegrates, most buy-ins into MLM are loss making.
2.1. Does the university experience replicate these two elements?
Yes, the quality of education or the 'product' of universities is declining, degrees are getting more expensive, and there is increasing data to show that degrees are loss making. Many types of degrees cause graduates to make less money in their lifetime after their degree (see economist article). Buying a degree might be a loss-making move, it depends on which one.
3. Unfortunately, there is nothing intrinsically illegal about MLM. Businesses that sell crappy products should be allowed to exist, albeit, maybe they should charge 'at bargain' prices rather than premium prices. The most interesting thing about MLMs however is the fact that they still exist. While most businesses that sell terrible products soon run out of sales and shut down, the 'commissions' based pyramid business structure might the only thing that is keeping MLMs alive (but just barely).
3.1 But what is keeping the university sector thriving and profitable (if its like an MLM)?
As we mentioned, many aspects of academia and the university sector resembles an MLM. Yet the university sector is thriving, and not reflective of the poor educational experience of its students, nor the poor working conditions of its employees. The reasons for this are many and are likely to fill a book. Briefly here:
i) Public sector funding is inefficient and wasteful - government has not caught onto the fact that universities are not delivering their goals in 'education' or 'vocation' yet still receiving a lot of money.
ii) There is no market efficiency with highschool students - the market efficiency principle is based on knowledgeable experts who undertake due diligence. Highschool students are highly biased and influenced by many factors (i.e. parents, funding, social expectations, dreams) such that there is still demand, despite poor educational experiences.
iii) The cultural narrative of the college experience, and not attending college as being a loser. Ingrains many highschool graduates to automatically attend university.
iv) Falling employment opportunities, encourages university graduates to take the mistaken path of 'post-grad' education. Which is also sold by universities as the more 'employable' route. This myth unfortunately lures graduates into further difficulties with employment, as employers prefer 'work-experienced' candidates rather than university or academic trained employees.
v) Lack of vocational training opportunities (i.e. technical training programs for young people)
vi) Highly regulated bureaucracies protecting the creation of new universities. Techniques like - 'certifications' and 'university' titles, liasion with government, protects existing incumbents in the ecosystem, and prevents competition against universities or new universities being created.
vii) Moral Hazard, the desyncing of the vocational duties of universities based on philosophical grounds. (i.e. ""the university's role is to provide education not employable graduates"" argument ). Decouples the universities' poor records of achievement, which would otherwise lead to its reduced levels of funding.
Absolutely a cult or MLM. I’d say one aspect you’ve not included which is essential, is the proliferation of adjunct faculty. “There is absolutely no way to make money if you come in late” to academia, because you will not get a tenured position. You’ll be tossed into the bilge of the ship with the other 60-75% of all faculty, who make less than minimum wage and have no benefits. But if you quit, you’re a failure. Let alone that throngs of poor saps will flood in to take your place. Don’t forget the adjuncts--they’re a bigger issue (and a bigger culty aspect of academia, I think) than even the exploited grad.
I’m reminded of the empty promises put forth by cryptobros: it’s a similar setup, in that if anyone is actually making money, it’s because they’re both early adopters, and highly corrupt. Exploiting those grinding at the bottom again, dangling that carrot to keep them there.
It's an interesting compassion to make. Academia is very insular. A few other points to mention - universities rely heavily on adjunct professors which are just a step above grad students, but very much stuck at the bottom of the pyramid. Academic publishing is also embedded in this - publishing in academic journals so that other people will cite you in their published journal, so that it can be used in another academic journal. And almost all of it uncompensated. There's also pressures to recruit and retain students - keep those tuition dollars coming! And then there's also the hierarchies between types of universities - R1 schools, liberal arts schools, state schools, specialty schools.
Yes to all of this. Publishing is a very big predatory influence for sure. I read that Elsevier is making money hand-over-fist, especially as they charge extra for open access!
I've heard academia be compared to a drug gang, a pyramid scheme, but I think a comparison to an MLM adds something, especially given how pervasive that kind of thinking is in modern corporate business.
I feel the comments about writing, personally. I went to three profs separately after my first semester in an MA, because it was clear that they didn't like my writing, and I asked for help. They offered a couple of platitudes. It wasn't until six years later that I finished my PhD without guidance that they realized that I could, actually, think. But I knew by then that the problem was that, at least in my experience, liberal arts academics tend to be far too fixated on how one says something, about how one proceeds, and on the "hidden curricula" of expectations that I had only recently begun to unravel.
My key insight, then as now, is that being a good philosophy--my field--is not the same as being a good professor. Often, they're opposed, as I see too many people take scholarly positions for the sake of having something to write, of getting attention, even if the argument is facile and anyone of that level of intelligence and dedication should know it.
So, I guess I leave with another thought, the difference between doing well in the field and doing well as a professional in the field.
So many interesting things in this comment.
Re: the writing skills. I have been taking a workshop on creative non-fiction writing this spring and have been struck by how much of it can be truly taught. I have an amazing teacher (shout out to Brian Benson) but also it seems that a lot of work has been done to show how to write well. In scientific writing, we kind of teach it like "read some papers, write one yourself, and we'll tell you what's wrong." I feel sure it can be done better.
Re: the final thought. This is so interesting to me. They are not the same thing, and each has its own rewards. But only the second set of people gain power.
Yes, I concur.
So much of the structure of, at least professional philosophical writing, can be taught but isn't. Unsurprisingly, you just summed up the advice I got from three people, "read some papers, write one yourself, and we'll tell you what's wrong." I quickly noted that professors were very responsive to theses they liked, but also good literary style regardless of content. It stumped me, because the same people would go on about scholarship, but respond to something else. My mistake was listening to what they said, not what they rewarded. What took me years to recognize is that there are so many different kinds and styles of professional writing--even in one field--that the advice is almost useless.
For instance, if one wants to play the provacateur, they need only be interesting and find a journal that will put up with a polemmic with myopic scholarship. It will start a firestorm of conversation, and everyone will pile on.
Or, if a particular thesis is popular with a certain crowd, then one can get away with sloppy scholarship. This is rife.
People with prestigious degrees or at such places usually get automatic passes from anyone of lower prestige rank. Inversely, great scholarship without such prestige will be judged harshly.
But, at least in my read, much of the scholarship in my field is just plain pedestrian and boring--thesis that are either purely hypothetical or obviously true. And after the conferences, when people are hanging out at the bars after a few drinks, they admit that they're all playing a game where everyone needs publications and they're just not that willing to call anyone out lest they get called out.
You can tell me how much this maps to fields you know.
So ... when a graduate student notices all of this ... what are they to think of the advice, "just read some articles?" There's some good stuff out there, but the scholarship needs some curation and young authors need guidance.
My field was rhetoric and composition, much of which is spent on teaching writing, so these comments really hit home to me. So many of my students had internalized the idea belief that if they wrote badly it was their own fault; they just didn’t have the ability. So a lot of my job was spent convincing them that their writing could get better, that it was a skill they could learn.
But across the universities where I worked, it was clear that many faculty don’t believe this. They leave their students to sink or swim, then complain that “students can’t write anymore” but do absolutely nothing to teach them.
This was my experience as well! And I didn’t do a great job of trying to teach either, there wasn’t time and I didn’t have any idea how. But I do think it can be done.
The two conflicting categories of writing that I see in my field are 1) overstating results with big claims of solving huge problems and 2) discussing pros and cons and alternate explanations. Graduate students aren't taught either, or that there are differences.
Though this varies somewhat, my experience in an MFA program fits this model. These programs bring in students then essentially pit them against each other often without really teaching them. When the students fail, it’s their own fault, but the programs claim credit and gain prestige from the students who succeed. The successes then get jobs at other programs and replicate the situation. A very few make it as writers and faculty. Most of the graduates don’t.
The part where it’s the students fault if they fail, instead of the system, is 100% MLM behavior!
Where the academia <-> MLM/pyramid scheme parallels *really* started to take off is the trend towards replacing actual faculty positions with low-paid adjuncts with no benefits or security. You're required to have a PhD and formal credentials, but you're literally a GIG WORKER! Of course, this is to allow the tenured faculty to keep doing research (cough, or loafing, cough) instead of teaching undergrad classes, where a large part of university revenue actually comes from
In the "old days", there may not have been ample tenure-track faculty jobs, but at least there were *some* (so I'm told, this pre-dates me). Now, there is literally no place for academic employment for some people who finish grad school. It's not a personal failing to secure a faculty job if those jobs don't exist in the first place!
I agree with all of this—I definitely need to pay more attention to the plight of adjuncts—except for the faculty loafing part. With some exceptions faculty are busting their a$$es.
Most faculty definitely do work super hard. At some of the institutions I’ve been at, there were issues with people past tenure who precipitously dropped off their work ethic and collegiality carrying the load. Perhaps a too flippant or offensive way to broach the very real issue of needing to make post-tenure review processes more robust
Powerful metaphor. Lots of bait-and-switch in academe. The recruit-or-die imperative is very strong.
The MLM idea resonates with me. I got my PhD late in life, after struggling financially all through grad school, then having to leave and care for my terminally ill parent, then doggedly returning to finish the degree after she died -- but then I was stuck with student debt, probably for the rest of my life. I feel like I swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker. I'm a better writer now, gained some good contacts in grad school, expanded my knowledge base--but the PhD will always feel like a gigantic scam that I fell for.
I’m sorry to hear this. There is definitely a question to ask about PhD programs and whether they serve the students--they definitely serve the faculty.
In any case, thanks for posting this and bringing up these questions.
Great article, and an important piece in holding universities to account.
Some thoughts on my end regarding this topic.
1. Multi-level Marketing with its commisssioned based structure is not intrinsically illegal, and I believe that people mostly have an ethical revulsion against MLMs rather than a specific legal one. There may be lots of businesses that operate in the economy similar to this (i.e. Sales, payperclick, partnership deals etc), which are not called MLM, yet are perhaps socially accepted because they produce a quality product.
1.1 Does this pyramid structure bear similarities to the university's, dean> head of school> lecturers> postgrads> undergrads. Yes it does somewhat, but then most large companies also have kinda heirarchical structure. Even if the commissions are not directly recorded and calculated as such, people's salaries and financial inputs stem from customers on the bottom and their employees output, like MLM.
Why its bad:
2. Typical cases of MLM are really bad for two reasons. Firstly their products totally suck and are extremely expensive. Take the example of Amway. Purchases of their inferior product at exorbitant prices are regretful. Their products essentially sabotage their own success. Secondly, both the customer experience and experience of being a new recruit in MLM really sucks, which means that even though the image of the money pyramid is envisioned to people that buy into MLM. The truth is that the pyramid quickly dissolves and disintegrates, most buy-ins into MLM are loss making.
2.1. Does the university experience replicate these two elements?
Yes, the quality of education or the 'product' of universities is declining, degrees are getting more expensive, and there is increasing data to show that degrees are loss making. Many types of degrees cause graduates to make less money in their lifetime after their degree (see economist article). Buying a degree might be a loss-making move, it depends on which one.
https://www.economist.com/international/2023/04/03/was-your-degree-really-worth-it?gad=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7uSkBhDGARIsAMCZNJunJB2TLRU6hXrH1LN4ORbynrUYddtpq5dMU6I411K3ciP7OY7iQTAaAuAJEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
Why is it allowed by regulators?
3. Unfortunately, there is nothing intrinsically illegal about MLM. Businesses that sell crappy products should be allowed to exist, albeit, maybe they should charge 'at bargain' prices rather than premium prices. The most interesting thing about MLMs however is the fact that they still exist. While most businesses that sell terrible products soon run out of sales and shut down, the 'commissions' based pyramid business structure might the only thing that is keeping MLMs alive (but just barely).
3.1 But what is keeping the university sector thriving and profitable (if its like an MLM)?
As we mentioned, many aspects of academia and the university sector resembles an MLM. Yet the university sector is thriving, and not reflective of the poor educational experience of its students, nor the poor working conditions of its employees. The reasons for this are many and are likely to fill a book. Briefly here:
i) Public sector funding is inefficient and wasteful - government has not caught onto the fact that universities are not delivering their goals in 'education' or 'vocation' yet still receiving a lot of money.
ii) There is no market efficiency with highschool students - the market efficiency principle is based on knowledgeable experts who undertake due diligence. Highschool students are highly biased and influenced by many factors (i.e. parents, funding, social expectations, dreams) such that there is still demand, despite poor educational experiences.
iii) The cultural narrative of the college experience, and not attending college as being a loser. Ingrains many highschool graduates to automatically attend university.
iv) Falling employment opportunities, encourages university graduates to take the mistaken path of 'post-grad' education. Which is also sold by universities as the more 'employable' route. This myth unfortunately lures graduates into further difficulties with employment, as employers prefer 'work-experienced' candidates rather than university or academic trained employees.
v) Lack of vocational training opportunities (i.e. technical training programs for young people)
vi) Highly regulated bureaucracies protecting the creation of new universities. Techniques like - 'certifications' and 'university' titles, liasion with government, protects existing incumbents in the ecosystem, and prevents competition against universities or new universities being created.
vii) Moral Hazard, the desyncing of the vocational duties of universities based on philosophical grounds. (i.e. ""the university's role is to provide education not employable graduates"" argument ). Decouples the universities' poor records of achievement, which would otherwise lead to its reduced levels of funding.
.....etc.....
Absolutely a cult or MLM. I’d say one aspect you’ve not included which is essential, is the proliferation of adjunct faculty. “There is absolutely no way to make money if you come in late” to academia, because you will not get a tenured position. You’ll be tossed into the bilge of the ship with the other 60-75% of all faculty, who make less than minimum wage and have no benefits. But if you quit, you’re a failure. Let alone that throngs of poor saps will flood in to take your place. Don’t forget the adjuncts--they’re a bigger issue (and a bigger culty aspect of academia, I think) than even the exploited grad.
I’m reminded of the empty promises put forth by cryptobros: it’s a similar setup, in that if anyone is actually making money, it’s because they’re both early adopters, and highly corrupt. Exploiting those grinding at the bottom again, dangling that carrot to keep them there.
Yes! I seem to have a big blind spot when it comes to adjuncts.
It's an interesting compassion to make. Academia is very insular. A few other points to mention - universities rely heavily on adjunct professors which are just a step above grad students, but very much stuck at the bottom of the pyramid. Academic publishing is also embedded in this - publishing in academic journals so that other people will cite you in their published journal, so that it can be used in another academic journal. And almost all of it uncompensated. There's also pressures to recruit and retain students - keep those tuition dollars coming! And then there's also the hierarchies between types of universities - R1 schools, liberal arts schools, state schools, specialty schools.
Yes to all of this. Publishing is a very big predatory influence for sure. I read that Elsevier is making money hand-over-fist, especially as they charge extra for open access!