Measuring the social, ethical, and political values of different AI models

I continue to enjoy reading my hard copy of The Economist every week. Occasionally, I post examples of insightful graphics presented in articles.

Here are some graphics that struck me recently. They are taken from a fascinating article. AI models’ values are very different from most people’s

The first figure shows a comparison of the answers given to the World Values Survey by different Large Language Models and people from different regions (cultures) of the world. The vertical axis goes from traditional values at the bottom to secular values at the top. The horizontal axis goes from survival (or communal) values on the left to self-expression on the right.

Note how the different cultures do not overlap. Furthermore, the LLMs are distant from almost everyone. Just a few are close to the English speaking world. 

The second graph compares answers to the VOTER survey of political questions. The horizontal and vertical axes correspond to Social and Economic issues respectively. Positive and negative values correspond to conservative and liberal respectively. Answers from LLMs are compared to a sample of Trump and Biden voters from the 2020 USA Presidential election. Note the clear political polarisation. Furthermore, the AI models are all liberal.

I offer no comments on whether any of this is good or bad. I do suggest two implications. First, extensive use of AI will tend to shift peoples values in a particular direction, just like media (music, TV, movies, art) does. Second, given the conflict of values with most people these biases will offend or concern many communities and increase the backlash against AI companies and its widespread adoption. Consequently, some will modify the training of their models so they align more with the values of vocal communities. Whether or not that is seen as a good thing, will depend on whether you think some of those values should be affirmed.

What do you think?

Responding to scientific uncertainty

Science provides an impressive path to certainty in some areas, particularly in physics. However, as scientists seek to describe increasingly complex entities, moving from chemistry to biology, and then to humans and societies, the level of uncertainty increases.

One observes a wide range of responses to scientific knowledge being uncertain. Here are a few.

Denial. Science is about facts and absolute truth. There really isn’t a problem. We should just trust the scientists.

Minimisation. There is some uncertainty, but it isn’t anything to be concerned about. Some scientists will also minimise any uncertainty about their own research. This may occur because of career ambition. Others will minimise public discussion of uncertainty to try and avoid promoting the science scepticism discussed below.

Optimistic perseverance. The uncertainty is openly acknowledged. Some of the uncertainty does not matter for what we need to know. Other uncertainties can be reduced by further scientific work, such by more precise measurements with new instruments or by developing more sophisticated theories.

Total scepticism. There is a suspicion about the validity of most scientific knowledge, particularly that which is perceived to have philosophical, religious, or political implications.

Suspicion about science

In spite of the success of science at describing the material world and leading to powerful and useful technologies, there is much public suspicion of science. On the one hand, this is understandable given that science has led to technologies with undesirable health, environmental and social consequences. Some scientists, governments and companies have lied about these consequences and hidden them from the public. Human subjects have been abused in medical experiments. Drugs that were claimed to be effective and safe turned out to be ineffective or have undesirable side effects. Science has been used for ideological purposes. Sometimes scientists have faked results to advance their own careers. However, these failures should not undermine our trust in reliable scientific knowledge. Distinctions should be made between the bodies of knowledge, the applications of that knowledge, and the actions of institutions. I now discuss several common claims in public discussion that are used to justify scepticism of scientific knowledge.

Science is always changing. 

One day, scientists tell you that chocolate is good for your health, and the next year they say it is bad for you. And that is just the start. Then there are eggs, wine, running marathons, and cheese. They just can’t make up their mind. So why should we trust them? At one time, they believed in phlogiston and the aether. Now they say they don’t exist. Aristotle was replaced by Newton, who was replaced by Einstein. So why believe in human-induced climate change, biological evolution, vaccines, the Big Bang theory, or Einstein’s theories?

It is true that scientific knowledge does develop and change over time. However, today we have incredibly detailed observations and theories in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and geology. Any future changes will be relatively minor because they will have to be consistent with all the knowledge we have now. Furthermore, when theories change, such as when Einstein superseded Newton, they don’t show that the old theory was completely wrong, but rather that it applied in a limited domain. For example, Newton’s theories of motion and gravity are extremely reliable when it comes to objects that are much larger than atoms, less dense than a black hole, and are moving at speeds less than about 10,000 kilometres per second. This is why engineers spend years learning Newton’s theories, not Einstein’s. If you want to build a good bridge or a rocket, Newton is good enough. He is not wrong.

Update. (Jan. 19). I just discovered that the NY Times had a recent op-ed Science Keeps Changing. So Why Should We Trust It?

“Well, that’s just a theory.” 

In popular debate, such a refrain may be applied to the theory of biological evolution, the Big Bang theory in cosmology, or human-induced climate change. The claimant usually wants to dismiss a particular theory as just idle speculation. Here, the term “theory” is used in the same sense as everyday speculations, such as “I have a theory as to why the president resigned,” or “I have a theory about why my computer is running so slowly.” These are just stories that sound somewhat plausible. In contrast, scientific theories in physics, such as quantum theory and Einstein’s theories of relativity, have precisely defined mathematical formulations that have been checked for logical consistency, made specific predictions, and tested to great precision in experiments. They are not “just theories.” For example, for the Big Bang theory about the beginning of the universe and Darwin’s theory of biological evolution and diversity, there are many independent lines of evidence that are consistent with each theory.  

Scientists cannot be trusted. 

They are not committed to the truth, but rather to their own interests and agendas, related to their careers, politics, and religion. They close ranks and support the status quo of current scientific “dogma”, rather than being open to original thinkers who critique it and propose alternative theories. They don’t want to lose their well-paid jobs and lucrative grants. 

On the one hand, scientists can be conservative and resistant to new ideas. On the other hand, there are significant career incentives to overturn existing knowledge and have your radical new theory accepted. That is how some scientists become famous and win Nobel Prizes. The reasons it does not happen very often are not necessarily for social or ideological reasons. Many of the theories we have today can explain an awful lot. It requires a lot of evidence, carefully acquired and checked, to convince people that those theories need to be modified, let alone abandoned. This may take decades. But it does happen. An example is the Big Bang theory of the universe, whose acceptance was initially resisted because it went against the prevailing view that the universe did not have a beginning. In biology, the discovery in 1970 of the enzyme reverse transcriptase went against a popular version of the “Central dogma” of molecular biology that DNA was always converted to RNA and not the reverse. That discovery led to a Nobel Prize.

I don’t trust scientists. I will do my own research. There is lots of good material from unbiased sources on the internet.

The internet provides a range of information and perspectives on practically any issue imaginable, including science. The material is particularly vast and controversial on biological evolution, the beginning of the universe, fundamental physics, the age of the earth, climate change, and medicine. Since the covid-19 pandemic, scepticism of the effectiveness and safety of vaccines has increased. 

Ivermectin is a drug that was developed as a treatment for parasite worms. Its incredible success was recognised by the award of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to William Campbell and Satoshi Omura, who discovered the drug. During the pandemic, high-profile politicians and social media influencers promoted ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19, even after systematic medical studies showed it was ineffective. Recently, it has gained a reputation as a “miracle” drug that can even cure cancer, but this is being suppressed by the medical establishment. All clinical trials have shown the drug is ineffective for human ailments, beyond deworming. Nevertheless, there are groups on social media with hundreds of thousands of members that discuss the conspiracy, how to get the drug, and the experiences of participants using it to treat a wide range of ailments. Danny Lemoi, a founder of one of the largest groups, died in 2023 after taking massive daily doses of the drug for several years to treat a heart condition. Afterwards, one member of the group wrote “No one can convince me that he died because of ivermectin. He ultimately died because of our failed western medicine which only cares about profits and not the cure.”

Fans of ivermectin claim that they are escaping the biases and vested interests of the medical establishment and Big Pharma as they pursue the truth. However, they are not escaping bias and vested interests. Successful social influencers build their reputations and million-dollar incomes from promoting scepticism. If there is no conspiracy, just scientific uncertainty and occasional incompetence and malpractice, their following collapses. Populist politicians build their careers on criticism of and stoking resentment towards elites, such as the medical establishment. The authority of the medical establishment is replaced with the authority of the popular opinion of a group of people whose views are shaped by social media algorithms, intuition, and anecdotal experience.

My purpose in giving the example of Ivermectin is not to start a detailed critique of science scepticism. Rather, it is to illustrate the role that the interplay of trust, authority, and tradition plays in how we determine what is true and what to act on. There are two competing traditions here: the populism of alternative medicine and the elitism of professional medicine. Each has its own sources of authority. In the end, it boils down to who we trust. We do not have the time, energy, resources or inclination to check the veracity of every single piece of information we have access to. We take shortcuts. This is what tradition does for us, for better and worse. Thus, we cannot escape tradition. We are all swimming in traditions, many of which are in conflict with one another. The question is whether we are aware of it and what we do with that awareness.

Science job openings in sunny Brisbane, Australia

Bribie Island, just north of Brisbane.

The University of Queensland has just advertised several jobs that may be of interest to readers of this blog, particularly those seeking to flee the USA.

There is a junior faculty position for a theorist working at the interface of condensed matter, quantum chemistry, and quantum computing.

There is also a postdoc to work on the theory of strongly correlated electron systems with my colleagues Ben Powell and Carla Verdi.

There is a postdoc in experimental condensed matter, to work on scanning probe methods, such as STM, with my colleague Peter Jacobson.

Glasshouse Mountains. Just north of Brisbane.

What Americans might want to know about getting a job in an Australian university

Universities and scientific research in the USA are facing a dire future. Understandably, some scientists are considering leaving the USA. I have had a few enquiries about Australia. This makes sense, as Australia is a stable English-speaking country with similarities in education, culture, democracy, and economics. At least compared to most other possible destinations. Nevertheless, there are important differences between Australia and the USA to be aware of, particularly when it comes down to how universities function (and dis-function!) and how they hire people. 

A few people have asked me for advice. Below are some comparisons. Why should you believe me? I spent eleven years in the US (1983-1994) and visited at least once a year until 2018. On the other hand, there are some reasons to take what I say with a grain of salt. I have never been a faculty member in a US university. I retired four years ago from a faculty position in Australia. I actually haven't sat on a committee for almost ten years :). Hopefully, this post will prompt other readers to weigh in with other perspectives.

There are discussions in Australia about trying to attract senior people from the USA to come here. Whether that will come to anything substantial remains to be seen.

The best place to look for advertised positions is on Seek. 

Postdocs

This is where the news is best. Young people in the USA can apply for regular postdoc positions. Most are attached to specific grants and so involve working on a specific project. 

Ph.D. students

Most of the positions go to Australian citizens who get there own scholarship (fellowship) from the government. These are not tied to a grant or a supervisor (advisor) There are a few positions for international students, but not many. Usually they go to applicants with a Masters degree and publications.

Ph.D's are funded for 3 to 3.5 years. There is no required course work. Australian students have done a 4-year undergraduate degree and no Masters. This means tackling highly technical projects in theory is not realistic, except for exceptional students.

Faculty hiring is adhoc 

There is no hiring cycle. Positions tend to be advertised at random times depending on local politics, whims and bureaucracy. Universities and Schools (departments) claim they have strategic plans, but given fluctuations in funding, management, and government policy positions appear and disappear at random. Typically, the Dean (and their lackies), not the department, control the selection process, particularly for senior appointments. The emphasis is on metrics. Letters of reference are sometimes not even called for before short listing. Some hiring is done purely from online interviews and seminars.

Bias towards insiders 

People already in the Australian system know how to navigate it best. They may also already have a grant from the Australian Research Council and have done some teaching and (positive) student evaluations. They are known quantities to the managers and so a safer bet than outsiders. If you want to get a junior faculty position here (a lectureship) your chances may be better if you first come as a postdoc. However, there are exceptions...

Current funding crunches

Unfortunately, I fear the faculty market may be quite cool for the next few years. Many universities are actually trying to sack (fire) people due to funding shortfalls. These budget crises are due to post-covid, mismanagement, and the government trying to reduce international student numbers (due to the politics of a housing and cost-of-living crisis).

Australian Research Council

This is pretty much the sole source of funding in physics and chemistry. This is quite different to the USA where there were (pre-Trump) numerous funding agencies (NSF, DOE, DOD, ...).  They are currently reviewing and redesigning all their programs and so we will have to wait to see how this may impact the prospects of scientific refugees from the USA. (They used to have quite good Fellowship schemes for all career stages that were an excellent avenue for foreigners to come here). Some of my colleagues recommend following ARC Tracker on social media to be informed about the latest at ARC.

Thirty years ago, I came back to Australia from the USA. I had a wonderful stint doing science, largely because of generous ARC funding. Unfortunately, the system has declined. But I am sure it is better than being the USA right now.

There are many more things I could write about. Some have featured in previous rants about metrics and managerialism. Things to be aware of before accepting a job include faculty having little voice or power, student absenteeism, corrupt governance, and there is no real tenure or sabbaticals.

Lamenting the destruction of science in the USA

I continue to follow the situation in the USA concerning the future of science with concern. Here are some of the articles I found most informative (and alarming).

Trump Has Cut Science Funding to Its Lowest Level in Decades (New York Times). It has helpful graphics.

On the proposed massive cuts to the NSF budget, the table below [courtesy of Doug Natelson] is informative and disturbing. At the end of the day it is all about people [real live humans and investment in human capital]

APS News | US physics departments expect to shrink graduate programs [I was quite surprised the expect shrinking isn't greater].

From an Update on NSF Priorities

Are you still funding research on misinformation/disinformation?

Per the Presidential Action announced January 20, 2025, NSF will not prioritize research proposals that engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen. NSF will not support research with the goal of combating "misinformation," "disinformation," and "malinformation" that could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advances a preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.

The Economist had a series of articles in the May 24 issue [Science and Technology section] that put the situation concerning research and universities in a broader context. The associated editorial is MAGA’s assault on science is an act of grievous self-harm, featuring the graphic below.

I welcome comments and suggestions of other articles.

Lamenting the disintegration of elite USA universities

Elite universities in the USA have nurtured and enhanced my whole academic life. In 1983, I moved to the USA as an international student, commenced a Ph.D. at Princeton, and then worked at Northwestern and Ohio State. After I returned to Australia in 1994, I visited the USA every year for several weeks for conferences, collaborations, and university visits. Much of my research was shaped by ideas I got from those trips. This blog started through the influence of I2CAM, a wonderful institution funded by the NSF. My movement into chemical physics was facilitated by attending workshops at the Telluride Science Center. I deeply appreciate my colleagues (and their institutions) for their stimulation, support, interest, encouragement, and hospitality. 

My trips to the USA only ended with COVID-19, retirement, family health issues, and my new general aversion to international travel. Currently I would be too scared to travel to the USA, based on what I read in the Travel Section of The Sydney Morning Herald.

Most importantly, what I have learned and done has been built largely on intellectual foundations laid by people in these elite universities.  Other parts of the world have played a role too, but my focus here is the USA due to current political events leading to the impending disintegration of these universities.

I readily acknowledge that these universities have flaws and need reform. On this blog, I occasionally discussed issues, such as the obsession with money, metrics, management, and marketing. Teaching undergraduates and robust scholarship has sometimes become subsidiary. I have critiqued some of the flaky science published in luxury journals by groups from these universities.

Nevertheless, if something is broken you do not fix it by smashing it. Consider a beautiful ancient vase with a large crack. You do not restore the vase by smashing it and hiring your teenage cousin to make a new one.

Reading about what is happening raises multiple questions. What is really happening? Why is it happening? How significant is it? What might it lead to? How should individuals and institutions respond? 

Today when I was on the UQ campus it was serene and the challenges my colleagues are facing, as formidable and important as they are, seem trifling compared to what I imagine is happening on Ivy campuses right now. In passing, I mention that Australia is not completely immune to what is happening in the USA. Universities here that receive some research grant funding from the USA government have had it paused or cancelled.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be an international student at Princeton right now.

On the one hand, I do not feel qualified to comment on what is happening as I am so distant. On the other hand, I do want to try and express some solidarity with and appreciation of institutions and colleagues that have blessed me and the world. I make a few general observations. This is my advice, for what it is worth, to my younger self.

Protect your mental health. You and your colleagues and your institutional are encountering an existential crisis, perhaps like none encountered before. Don't live in denial. But also don't let this consume you and destroy you as a person or a community. Limit your intake of news and how much you think about it and discuss it. Practise the basics: exercise; eat, drink, and sleep well; get help sooner than later; limit screen time; rest.

Expect the unexpected. Expect more surprises, pain, uncertainty, instability, intra-institutional conflict, and disappointments. 

Get the big picture. This is about a lot more than federal funding for universities. There are broader issues about what a university is actually for. What do you want to preserve and protect? What are you willing to compromise on? Beyond the university, many significant issues are at stake concerning politics, democracy, economics, pluralism, culture, and the law. This is an opportunity, albeit a scary one, to think about and learn about these issues.

Make the effort to have conversations across the divides. Try to  have civil and respectful discussions with people with different perspectives on how individuals and institutions should respond to the current situation. Talk to colleagues in the humanities and social sciences. Talk to those with different political perspectives, both inside and outside the university.

Read widely. History is instructive but not determinative. I recommend two very short books that I think are relevant and helpful.

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder.

The Power of the Powerless, by Vaclav Havel, first published in 1978 in the context of living in communist totalitarian Czechoslovakia. I have a Penguin Vintage edition which includes a beautiful introduction by Timothy Snyder, written in 2018, for a 40th Anniversary edition. 

I thank Charles Ringma for bringing both books to my attention.

What do you think? I would love to hear from people in US universities who are living through this.

An authoritarian government takes over universities: one case history

Adventures of a Bystander, by Peter Drucker, contains the following account. Drucker was a faculty member at Frankfurt University in 1933.

“[S]everal weeks after the Nazis had come to power, was the first Nazi-led faculty meeting at the University. Frankfurt was the first university the Nazis tackled, precisely because it was the most self-confidently liberal of major German universities, with a faculty that prided itself on its allegiance to scholarship, freedom of conscience, and democracy. The Nazis knew that control of Frankfurt University would mean control of German academia altogether. So did everyone at the University. 

Above all, Frankfurt had a science faculty distinguished both by its scholarship and by its liberal convictions; and outstanding among the Frankfurt scientists was a biochemist of Nobel Prize caliber and impeccable liberal credentials. When the appointment of a Nazi commissar for Frankfurt was announced around February 25 of that year and when not only every teacher but also every graduate assistant at the University was summoned to a faculty meeting to hear his new master, everybody knew that a trial of strength was at hand. … 

The new Nazi commissar wasted no time on the amenities…. [He] pointed his finger at one department chairman after another and said: ‘You either do what I tell you or we’ll put you into a concentration camp.’ 

There was dead silence when he finished; everybody waited for the distinguished biochemist. The great liberal got up, cleared his throat, and said: ‘Very interesting, Mr. Commissar, and in some respects very illuminating. But one point I didn’t get too clearly. Will there be more money for research in physiology?’ The meeting broke up shortly thereafter with the commissar assuring the scholars that indeed there would be plenty of money for ‘racially pure science’.”

I became aware of this chilling story through Peter Woit's blog who got it from a blog post by Adam Przeworski

Who should get to attend elite universities in the USA?

Equitable access to good education is a desirable goal. Yet it rarely happens and debate about how to achieve it can be diluted by focusing on access to elite institutions and on "culture war" rhetoric.

This week The Economist had a leader (editorial) about admission policies for universities in the USA. Below I reproduce some of the leader, highlighting some points I found poignant.

A diversity of backgrounds in elite institutions is a desirable goal. In pursuing it, though, how much violence should be done to other liberal principles—fairness, meritocracy, the treatment of people as individuals and not avatars for their group identities? At present, the size of racial preferences is large and hard to defend. The child of two college-educated Nigerian immigrants probably has more advantages in life than the child of an Asian taxi driver or a white child born into Appalachian poverty. Such backgrounds all add to diversity. But, under the current regime, the first is heavily more favoured than the others.

Racial preferences are not, however, the most galling thing about the ultra-selective universities that anoint America’s elite. ...A startling 43% of white students admitted to Harvard enjoy some kind of non-academic admissions preference: being an athlete, the child of an alumnus, or a member of the dean’s list of special applicants (such as the offspring of powerful people or big donors). 

A cynic could argue that racial balancing works as a virtue-signalling veneer atop a grotesquely unfair system. A study published in 2017 found that most of Harvard’s undergraduates hailed from families in the top 10% of the income distribution. Princeton had more students from the top 1% than the bottom 60%. When this is the case, it seems unfair that it is often minority students—not the trust-funders—who have their credentials questioned. University presidents and administrators who preen about all their diverse classes might look at how Britain—a country of kings, queens, knights and lords—has fostered a university system that is less riven with ancestral privilege.

...Legacy admissions should be ended. Colleges claiming that alumni donations would wither without them should look to Caltech, MIT and Johns Hopkins— ....[who all] ditched the practice..

In some ways, the question of who gets into a handful of elite universities is a distraction from the deeper causes of social immobility in America. Schooling in poorer neighbourhoods was dismal even before covid-19. The long school closures demanded by teachers’ unions wiped out two decades of progress in test scores for nine-year-olds, with hard-up, black and Hispanic children worst affected. Efforts to help the needy should start before birth and be sustained throughout childhood. Nothing the Supreme Court says about the consideration of race in college admissions will affect the more basic problem, that too few Americans from poorer families are sufficiently well-nurtured or well-taught to be ready to apply to college. However the court rules, that is a debate America needs to have.

On a related note, Malcolm Gladwell has a fascinating podcast episode, Outliers, Revisited  that brings out some of the issues including, how privileged parents game the system for their children.

Are USA universities in crisis?

I have only slowly come to realise the crisis facing US universities. A tipping point was the release this week in movie theatres of the documentary The Ivory Tower. Seeing that people are willing to pay money to watch a negative documentary suggests there is a ground swell of public concern.



A few other things that showed me the extent of the problem are the following.

The article, Universities on the Defensive, by Hunter Rawlings  a former President of Cornell, and currently the President of the Association of American Universities, a consortium of 60 of the leading North American universities.

The Seattle Times recently ran a front page story about the problems of mushrooming student debt and eight myths about why college costs so much.

My UQ economics colleague John Quiggin has a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education discussing how inequalities in the US system reflect the broader inequality in society.

The table below, taken from another interesting article, Navigating Culture Shock in The Chronicle of Higher Education contrasts the relative resources of Stanford and nearby San Jose State University.

What does this have to do with Australia?
Recently, the government introduced major reforms of Australian universities, aimed at making them more like the US system. This seems to be based on two simplistic notions:

1. because the US has the best universities in the world if we copy some of the features of the US system [making it very expensive for students] then we are going to end up with some world-class universities.

2. deregulation and "free markets" always produce better outcomes.

Four reasons why the USA has the best universities

Why does the USA have the best universities? It is not just that they have more money, as is claimed, for example here.

Hunter Rawlings is a former President of Cornell, and currently the President of the Association of American Universities, a consortium of 60 of the leading North American universities.
He recently gave a fascinating talk Universities on the Defensive. He states

Our colleges and universities became the best in the world for four essential reasons: 

1) They have consistently been uncompromising bastions of academic freedom and autonomy; 

2) they are a crazily unplanned mix of public and private, religious and secular, small and large, low-cost and expensive institutions, all competing with each other for students and faculty, and for philanthropic and research support; 

3) our major universities combined research and teaching to produce superior graduate programs, and with the substantial help of the federal government, built great research programs, particularly in science; 

4) our good liberal-arts colleges patiently pursued great education the old-fashioned way: individual instruction, careful attention to reading and writing and mentoring, passion for intellectual inquiry, premium on original thought. ..... education of the whole person for citizenship in a culture.  

He points out how 2. particularly presents problems for "top down" management, such as pursued by China.

How do Australian universities rate on the above four ingredients?
I would say pretty poorly. In particular, they are fairly homogeneous, all competing to be the same thing,  and largely driven by Federal government policy. For example, the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s, including the abolition of tenure, changed them forever. This "neo-liberalism" has particularly undermined point 4. above.

Rawlings is skeptical about metrics.

Albert Einstein apparently kept a sign in his office that read, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” This aphorism applies all too well to our current rage for “accountability.” As Derek Bok  [a former President of Harvard] points out in his recent book Higher Education in America,  

“Some of the essential aspects of academic institutions — in particular the quality of the education they provide — are largely intangible, and their results are difficult to measure.” 

Frankly, this is an obvious point to make, but all of us have to make it, and often, in today’s commodifying world. Quantity is much easier to measure than quality, so entire disciplines and entire academic pursuits are devalued under the current ideology, which puts its premium on productivity and efficiency, and above all else, on money, as the measure.

I found reading Rawling's article quite refreshing. The message seems quite different from what I think I hear from Australian university leaders. But, perhaps I am mis-interpreting their messages.