Scandals in Australian universities

In Australia, scandals about the management of public universities continue to be covered in the media. A recent one is the use of billions of dollars to pay consulting firms to tell management which staff to sack and courses to cut because they are not making a profit.

Below is a recent episode of an ABC (Australian equivalent of BBC or PBS in USA) show on the topic, Chaos on Campus.

I tend to avoid engaging too much with media lamenting the state of unversities as I find it too disturbing. However, I was asked to reference the show in something I was asked to write and so felt I should watch it. It was painful.

This is definitely a scandal. However, it got me reflecting on something that I think gets virtually no media coverage and when I talk to people outside the university, they are pretty surprised and shocked. Anecdotal evidence from my colleagues is that attendance at lectures is now typically around 10-30 per cent of enrolment. Even before COVID-19, lectures at UQ were all recorded. Faculty have no choice. But only a few per cent of students watch the videos. This is quite demoralising for faculty.

What does this low level of student engagement mean for learning outcomes?

What is happening elsewhere? 

Here are some links from Google AI. 

I did not find them that insightful.

One link is an article from The Guardian in Australia from last year. It highlights how moving things to online and lowering standards is driven by financial incentives. This ties in with the scandals in the video. The values of Australian universities are money, marketing, management, and metrics.

What is your own experience with the level of disengagement? How do you think this is affecting student learning? How are you and your colleagues adapting? Are academic standards being lowered? Any suggestions on ways forward?

Why is the state of universities such an emotional issue for me?

It all about values!

Universities have changed dramatically over the course of my lifetime. Australian universities are receiving increasing media attention due to failures in management and governance. But there is a lot more to the story, particularly at the grassroots level, of the everyday experience of students and faculty. It is all about the four M's: management, marketing, metrics, and money. Learning, understanding, and discovering things for their own sake is alien and marginalised. I have stopped writing posts about this. So why come back to it?

I am often struck how emotional this issue is for me and how hard it is to sometimes talk about it, particularly with those with a different view from me. Writing blog posts (e.g. this one) about it has been a somewhat constructive outlet, rather than exploding in anger at an overpaid and unqualified "manager" or one of their many multiplying minions.

A few weeks ago, I listened to three public lectures by the Australian historian Peter Harrison. [He is my former UQ colleague. We are now both Emeritus. I benefited from excellent seminars he ran at UQ, some of which I blogged about].

The lectures helped me understand what has happened to universities and also why it is a sensitive subject for me. Briefly, it is all about values and virtues.

The lectures are nicely summarised by Peter in the short article, 

How our universities became disenchanted: Secularisation, bureaucracy and the erosion of value

Reading the article rather than this blog post is recommended. I won't try and summarise it, but rather highlight a few points and then make some peripheral commentary.

I agree with Peter's descriptions of the problems we see on the surface (bureaucracy, metrics, and management features significantly). His lectures are a much deeper analysis of underlying cultural changes and shifting worldviews that have occurred over centuries, leading universities to evolve into their current mangled form.

A few things to clarify to avoid potential misunderstanding of Peter's arguments.

Secularisation is defined broadly. It does not just refer to the decline in the public influence of Christianity in the Western world. It is also about Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle, and the associated emphasis on virtues and transcendence. Peter states:

"The intrinsic motivations of teachers, researchers and scholars can be understood in terms of virtues or duties. According to virtue ethics, the “good” of an activity is related to the way it leads to a cultivation and expression of particular virtues. These, in turn, are related to a particular conception of natural human ends or goals. (Aristotle’s understanding of human nature, which informs virtue ethics, proposes that human beings are naturally oriented towards knowledge, and that they are fulfilled as persons to the extent that they pursue those goals and develop the requisite intellectual virtues.)"

The virtue ethics of Aristotle [and Alisdair MacIntyre] conflicts with competing ethical visions, including duty-oriented (deontological) ethics, consequentialist ethics, and particularly utilitarianism. This led to a shift away from intrinsic goods to what things are "good for", i.e., what practical outcomes they produce. For example, is scientific research "good" and have "value" because it cultivates curiousity, awe, and wonder, or because it will lead to technology that will stimulate economic growth?

Peter draws significantly on Max Weber's ideas about secularisation, institutions, and authority. Weber argued that a natural consequence of secularisation was disenchantment (the loss of magic in the world). This is not simply "people believe in science rather than magic". Disenchantment is a loss of a sense of awe, wonder, and mystery.

Now, a few peripheral responses to the lectures.

Is secularisation the dominant force that has created these problems for universities? In question time, Peter was asked whether capitalism was more important. i.e., universities are treated as businesses and students as customers? He agreed that capitalism is a factor but also pointed out how Weber emphasised that capitalism was connected to the secularising effects of the Protestant Reformation.

 I think that two other factors to consider are egalitarianism and opportunism. These flow from universities being "victims" of their own success. Similar issues may also be relevant to private schools, hospitals, and charities. They have often been founded by people of "charisma" [in the sense used by Weber] motivated by virtue ethics. Founders were not concerned with power, status, or money. What they were doing had intrinsic value to them and was "virtuous". In the early stages, these institutions attracted people with similar ideals. The associated energy, creativity, and common vision led to "success." Students learnt things, patients got healed, and poverty was alleviated. But, this success attracted attention and  the institution then had power, money, status, and influence.

The opportunists then move in. They are attracted to the potential to share in the power, money, status, and influence. The institution then takes on a life of its own, and the ideals and virtue ethics of the founders are squeezed out. In some sense, opportunism might be argued to be a consequence of secularisation. 

[Aside: two old posts considered a similar evolution, motivated by a classic article about the development of businesses.]

One indicator of the "success" of universities is how their graduates join the elite and hold significant influence in society. [Aside: ignoring the problem of distinguishing correlation and causality. Do universities actually train students well or just select those who will succeed anyway?]  Before (around) 1960, (mostly) only the children of the elite got to attend university. Demands arose that more people should have access to this privilege. This led to "massification" and an explosion in the number of students, courses, and institutions. This continues today, globally. Associated with this was more bureaucracy. Furthermore, the "iron triangle" of cost, access, and quality presents a challenge for this egalitarianism. If access increases, so does cost and quality decreases, unless you spend even more. It is wonderful that universities have become more diverse and accessible. On the other hand, I fear that for every underprivileged student admitted whose mind is expanded and life enriched, many more rich, lazy, and entitled students suck the life out of the system.

Metrics are pseudo-rational

Peter rightly discussed how the proliferation of the use of metrics to measure value is problematic, and reflects the "rationalisation" associated with bureaucracy (described by Weber). Even if one embraces the idea that "rational" and "objective" assessment is desirable, my observation is that in practice, metrics are invariably used in an irrational way. For example, managers look at the impact factor of journals, but are blissfully oblivious to the fact that the citation distribution for any journal is so broad and with a long tail that the mean number is meaningless. The underlying problem is that too many of the people doing assessments suffer from some mixture of busyness, intellectual laziness, and arrogance. Too many managers are power hungry and want to make the decisions themselves, and don't trust faculty who actually may understand the intellectual merits and weaknesses of the work being assessed.

The problems are just as great for the sciences as the humanities

On the surface, the humanities are doing worse than the sciences. For example, if you look at declining student numbers, threats of job cuts, political criticism, and status within the university. This is because science is associated with technology which is associated with jobs and economic growth. However, if you look at pure science that is driven by curiousity, awe, and wonder, then one should be concerned. There is an aversion to attacking difficult and risky problems, particularly those that require long-term investment or have been around for a while. The emphasis is on low-lying fruit and the latest fashion. Almost all physics and chemistry research is framed in terms of potential applications, not fundamental understanding. Sometimes I feel some of my colleagues are doing engineering not physics. In a similar vein, biochemists frame research in terms of biomedical applications, not the beauty and wonders of how biological systems work. 

Are universities destined for bureaucratic self-destruction?

Provocatively, Peter considered the potential implications of the arguments of historian and anthropologist Joseph Tainter concerning the collapse of complex societies. On the technical side, this reminded me of a famous result in ecology by Robert May, that as the complexity of a system (the number of components and interactions) increases, it can become unstable.

I don't think universities as institutions will collapse. They are too integrated into the fabric of modern capitalism. What may collapse is the production of well-educated (in the Renaissance sense) graduates and research that is beautiful, original, and awe-inspiring. This leads naturally into the following question.

Is the age of great discoveries over?

Peter briefly raised this issue. On the one hand, we are victims of our own success. It is amazing how much we now know and understand. Hence, it is harder to discover truly new and amazing things. On the other hand, because of emergence we should expect surprises.

There is hope on the margins

Peter did not just lament the current situation but made some concrete suggestions for addressing the problems, even though we are trapped in Weber's "iron cage" of bureaucracy.

• Re-balancing the structures of authority
• Finding a place for values discourse in the universities
• Develop ways of resolving differences with a sense of the rationality of Alisdair MacIntyre in mind

On the first, I note the encouraging work of the ANU Governance Project.

Peter also encouraged people to work on the margins. I also think that this is where the most significant scholarship and stimulus for reform will happen. A nice example is the story that Malcolm Gladwell tells in a podcast episode, The Obscure Virus Club.

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

Basic realities to accept about applying for funding

The advice that follows is directed to young people who are starting out in requesting funding for a project or an annual budget. My advice is based on about thirty years of experience of writing grant applications, reviewing requests, and being involved in making final decisions about applications. My experience has involved national research funding bodies, internal university schemes, charities, and NGOs. Over the years, I have been involved with requests in the range from a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars.

Accept reality

The world is messed up. Systems are broken. They are not the way they should be. Bad decisions are made. Processes are imperfect. I am all for trying to change things. However, when you make a funding application your chances of success are best if you accept the system and engage with it as it is today. Try to change it tomorrow. 

Put yourself in the shoes of the decision-makers.

You may not respect them or think they are particularly competent or well-qualified to make decisions about your funding request. However, put that aside and consider that they may be in an unenviable position. They are working within an imperfect system. They have limited time to read and evaluate a trove of applications, many on topics they do not really understand. They have limited resources to allocate. Most want to evaluate those scarce resources in a fair and equitable manner. In most contexts the ratio of available funds to the total amount of funds requested by all the applicants is somewhere in the ratio of 0.03 to 0.2. This means they need to reject a lot of applications and slim down the budgets of those that are accepted. 

You have to start with small amounts of money and build up.

Trust and success are incremental. You first get a grant for a few thousand dollars. You show that you have used that well to accomplish something. You may have to do that a few times before you get tens of thousands of dollars. You then use that to accomplish something bigger. And so on it goes.

You may think you deserve to receive several $100Ks and jump this process. However, it is highly unlikely to happen. You need to prove yourself.

In different words, any year do not ask for significantly more than you were budgeted last year. 

Every budget line item must be carefully justified.

Is each item really essential for successful completion of the project? We would all like to have a better computer, more technical support, a personal assistant, lots of international travel to exotic locales, release from other responsibilities, ...

But is each item necessary? Is each item consistent with your level of seniority and experience? Or is there a cheaper option? Could someone else fund it?

These issues are not just about good use of resources but also your credibility as someone who is a team player willing to accept institutional realities and limited resources.

The greater the requested budget the greater the scrutiny of the application.

Hence, asking for less money actually increases your chance of success. If your budget is 2 or 3 times the budget of competing applications the funding agency will almost always think that it is better to fund 2 or 3 groups rather than just one. 

Check your attitude.

You should have confidence that what you are doing is important and worth funding. However, that is not the same as making snide comments about competitors, stroking your ego, overselling the significance of what you are doing, or expressing grievances about perceived past slights and criticisms of your work. Exhibiting such attitudes only hurt your chances of success.

How can funders promote significant breakthroughs?

 Is real scientific progress slowing? Are funders of research, whether governments, corporations, or philanthropies, getting a good return on their investment? Along with many others (based largely on intuition and anecdote) I believe that the system is broken, and at many different levels. What are possible ways forward? How might current systems of funding be reformed?

The Economist recently published a fascinating column (in the Finance and Economics section!), How to escape scientific stagnation. It reviews a number of recent papers by economists that wrestle with questions such as those above.

Philanthropists... funding of basic research has nearly doubled in the past decade. All these efforts aim to help science get back its risk-loving mojo.

In a working paper published last year, Chiara Franzoni and Paula Stephan look at a number of measures of risk, based on analyses of text and the variability of citations. These suggest science’s reward structure discourages academics from taking chances.

Another approach in vogue is to fund “people not projects”. A study in 2011 compared researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, where they are granted considerable flexibility over their research agendas and lots of time to carry out investigations, with similarly accomplished ones funded by a standard NIH programme. The study found that researchers at the institute took more risks. As a result, they produced nearly twice as much highly cited work, as well as a third more “flops” (articles with fewer citations than their previously least-cited work). 

Despite the uncertainty about exactly how best to fund scientific research, economists are confident of two things. The first is that a one-size-fits-all approach is not the right answer,... DARPA models, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s curiosity-driven method, and even handing out grants by lottery, as the New Zealand Health Research Council has tried, all have their uses.

The second is that this burst of experimentation must continue. The boss of the NSF, Sethuraman Panchanathan, agrees. He is looking to reassess projects whose reviews are highly variable—a possible indication of unorthodoxy. He is also interested in a Willy Wonka-style funding mechanism called the “Golden Ticket”, which would allow a single reviewer to champion a project even if his or her peers do not agree.  ...many venture-capital partnerships employ similar policies, because they prioritise the upside of long-shot projects rather than seeking to minimise failure. 

The study that I would like to see done is along the following lines. Identify at what age and what type of institution and what type of funding environment, the biggest breakthroughs happen. I suggest that you will find in the U.S.A, that it was done by young faculty at the top 20 institutions in an era when they did not have to worry much about getting grants. If so, then I think most of the money should be given to them!

 

Systemic flaws that are undermining good science

Everyone likes to be right. But, sometimes I really wish I was wrong, particularly about problems I see in the world. I wish I was wrong about science being broken. Some of these issues I discuss in the final chapter of Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction, due to the relevance of these problems to the future of the field.

Similar concerns were discussed with greater clarity, way back in 2014, by four scientists who are much more experienced and distinguished than I am. 

Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws 

Bruce Alberts, Marc W. Kirschner, Shirley Tilghman, and Harold Varmus

Positions the different authors have held include President of the US Academy of Sciences, President of Princeton University, and Director of the National Institutes of Health.

Although the article focuses on biomedical research I think the three words "medicine, biomedical, and biology" could be replaced respectively with "technology, materials science, and condensed matter physics" almost everywhere in the article. 

Here are a few quotes.

The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.

... the remarkable outpouring of innovative research from American laboratories—high-throughput DNA sequencing, sophisticated imaging, structural biology, designer chemistry, and computational biology—has led to impressive advances in medicine and fueled a vibrant pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector. In the context of such progress, it is remarkable that even the most successful scientists and most promising trainees are increasingly pessimistic about the future of their chosen career.

... hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries.

The system now favors those who can guarantee results rather than those with potentially path-breaking ideas that, by definition, cannot promise success. Young investigators are discouraged from departing too far from their postdoctoral work, when they should instead be posing new questions and inventing new approaches. Seasoned investigators are inclined to stick to their tried-and-true formulas for success rather than explore new fields. 

One manifestation of this shift to short-term thinking is the inflated value that is now accorded to studies that claim a close link to medical practice. Human biology has always been a central part of the US biomedical effort... Many surprising discoveries, powerful research tools, and important medical benefits have arisen from efforts to decipher complex biological phenomena in model organisms. In a climate that discourages such work by emphasizing short-term goals, scientific progress will inevitably be slowed, and revolutionary findings will be deferred.

As competition for jobs and promotions increases, the inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work. 

The development of original ideas that lead to important scientific discoveries takes time for thinking, reading, and talking with peers. Today, time for reflection is a disappearing luxury for the scientific community. 

...administrative tasks are taking up an ever-increasing fraction of the day and present serious obstacles to concentration on the scientific mission itself. 

The following is particularly true of luxury journals. 

Professional editors are increasingly serving in roles played in the past by working scientists and can undermine the enterprise when they base judgments about publication on newsworthiness rather than scientific quality. 

Even after they have landed a research position in academia or research institutes, new investigators wait an average of 4–5 y to receive federal funding for their work compared with 1 y in 1980 (2). Two stark statistics tell much of the tale—the average age at which PhD recipients assume their first tenure-track job is 37 y, and they are approaching 42 y when they are awarded their first NIH grant.

Although it varies across fields and individuals, I get the impression that most scientists do their best work in the rough age range of 35-45. Currently, people are spending most of these years looking for a permanent job and then applying for grants, rather than actually doing science.

The graph below shows just how much the system changed in just thirty years. NIH grants became "gentrified". In different words, all the grants now go to "old farts" doing the same old thing, rather than to "young turks" who want to try new things and have a real impact.

Percentage of NIH R01 Principal Investigators aged 36 and younger and aged 66 and older, 1980–2010

The authors did make some concrete proposals and in a follow-up article, they discuss a broader meeting held to discuss the issues.

Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise

To what extent progress has been made in the biomedical community in the past eight years I do not know.

Emergence matters (in a nutshell)

Emergence is one of the most important concepts in the sciences: from physics to biology to sociology. Most of the big questions in science involve emergence. Yet there is no consensus about what emergence is, how to define it, or why it matters. This is my attempt to clarify some of the important issues and questions. For reasons of brevity, I give no references and only a few examples. They can come later. Here I am trying to take a path that is intermediate between the precision of philosophers and the looseness of condensed matter physicists' discussion of emergence. My goals are clarity and brevity.

Characteristics of emergent phenomena

Consider a system that is composed of many interacting parts. If the properties of the system are compared with the properties of the individual parts, a property of the whole system is an emergent property if it has the following characteristics.

1. Novelty 

An emergent property of the system is a property that is not present in the individual parts of the system.

2. Modification of parts 

An emergent property of the system is associated with a modification of the properties of and the relationships between the parts of the system. 

3. Universality

An emergent property is universal in the sense that it is independent of many of the details of the parts. As a consequence, there are many systems that can have the emergent property.

4. Irreducibility

An emergent property cannot be reduced to properties of the parts.

5. Limited predictability

An emergent property is difficult to predict solely from knowledge of the properties of the parts and how they interact with one another.

Here are a few issues to consider about the five characteristics above. 

First, “emergent property” could possibly be replaced with emergent phenomenon, object, or state.

Second, for each of the five characteristics is it necessary and/or sufficient for the system property to be emergent?

Third, one of the most contested characteristics concerns predictability. “Difficult to predict” is sometimes replaced with “impossible”, “almost impossible”, “extremely difficult”, or “possible in principle, but impossible in practice.” After an emergent property has been observed sometimes it can be understood in terms of the properties of the parts. An example is the BCS theory of superconductivity, which provided a posteriori, rather than a priori, understanding. A keyword in the statement above is “solely”.

Examples of properties of a system that are not emergent are volume, mass, charge, and number of atoms. These are additive properties. The property of the system is simply the sum of the properties of the parts.

Scales and hierarchies

Central to emergence is the idea of different scales. Emergent properties only occur when scales become larger. Scales that are simply defined, and might be called extrinsic, are the number of parts, length scale, and time scale. A more subtle scale, which might be called intrinsic, is a scale associated with the emergent property. This emergent scale is intermediate between that of the parts and that of the whole system.

Emergent scales lead naturally to hierarchies, such as those associated with different scientific disciplines, as shown below. Hierarchies also occur within individual disciplines.

At each level there are distinct phenomena, concepts, theories, and scientific methods.

Another important scale is that of complexity. Generally, as one goes up the hierarchy one says that the level of complexity increases. Giving a precise version of such statements is not simple.

Complexity

Simple rules can lead to complex behaviour. This is nicely illustrated by cellular automata. It is also seen in other systems with emergent properties. For example, the laws describing the properties of electrons and ions in a crystal or a large molecule are quite simple (Schrodinger’s equation plus Coulomb’s law). Yet from these simple rules, complex phenomena emerge: all of chemistry and condensed matter physics!

There is no agreed universal measure for the complexity of a system or with many components. One possibility is the Kolmogorov measure. Using such measures to elucidate emergence, such as how complexity changes with other scales, is an important challenge.

Other issues

There are a host of other issues and topics that enter discussions about emergence. Some of these are of a more philosophical nature. Here I just list them: robustness, quality vs. quantity, objective vs. subjective, universality vs. particularity, ontology vs. epistemology, discontinuities, incommensurability, theory reduction, asymptotic singularities, top-down causation, supervenience, differentiation and integration (not calculus) of system parts, reductionism, foundationalism, fundamentalism, strong versus weak emergence, and criteria for theory acceptance.

Discussion of some of these issues can be quite abstract but to make the discussion above more precise they may need to be considered. 

Emergence is relevant to practical matters such as scientific strategy, priorities, allocation of resources, and our dispositions as scientists. Too often views on these issues are implicit and not reflected upon. 

The practical matter of scientific strategy

When studying a system, the first choice that must be made is what scale or scales to focus on. For example, in materials science, the options range from the atomic scale to the macroscopic. This choice determines the tools and methods, both experimental and theoretical, that can be used to study the system. In different words, the scientist is making a choice of ontology: the object they choose to study. This then determines epistemology: the concepts, theories, and organising principles a scientist may use or hope to discover. Effective theories and toy models enter here. 

When systems have been studied by a range of methods and at a range of scales, a challenge is the synthesis of the results of these studies. Value-laden judgements are made about the priority, importance, and validity of such attempts at synthesis. Often synthesis is relegated to a few sentences in the introductions and conclusions of papers.

For known systems and emergent properties, there is the possibility of creating new methods and probes to investigate them at appropriate scales.

New systems can be created and investigated in the hope of discovering new emergent properties (e.g., new states of matter) or more modestly, that manifest an emergent property that is more amenable to scientific study or technological application.

As emergent properties involve multiple scales they are often of interest to and amenable to study by more than one scientific discipline. This creates opportunities and challenges for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Individual scientists must and do make decisions about the relative priority of the different strategies outlined above. Research groups, departments, institutions, professional societies, and funding agencies must and do also make decisions about such priorities. The decision outcomes are also emergent properties of a system with multiple scales from that of the individual scientist to global politics. I claim that too often these weighty decisions are made implicitly, rather than explicitly following debate and deliberation.

The disposition of the scientist

All scientists are human. In our professional life, we have hopes, aspirations, values, fears, attitudes, expectations, and prejudices. These are shaped by multiple influences from the personal to the cultural to the institutional. We should reflect on the past century of our study of emergent systems from physics to biology to sociology. If we honestly evaluate our successes and failures I think this may lead us to have certain dispositions that are interrelated.

Humility. There is so much we do not understand. Furthermore, we fail abjectly at predicting emergent properties. This is not surprising. Unpredictability is one of the characteristics of emergent properties. There is a hubris associated with grand initiatives such as “the theory of everything”, the Human Genome Project, “materials by design”, and macroeconomic modelling. 

Expect surprises. There are many exciting discoveries waiting. They will be found by curiosity and serendipity.

Wonder. Emergent phenomena are incredibly rich and beautiful to behold, from physics to biology to sociology. Furthermore, the past century has seen amazing levels of understanding. But this is a “big picture” and “coarse-grained” understanding, not the description that the reductionists lust for and claim possible. 

Realistic expectations. Given the considerations above I think we should have modest expectations of the levels of understanding possible, and what research programs, from that of individual scientists to billion-dollar initiatives, can achieve. We need to stop the hype. Modest expectations are particularly appropriate with respect to our ability to control emergent properties.

The holy grail

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

Karl Marx

Understanding complex systems with emergent properties is an ambitious scientific challenge. This enterprise has intrinsic intellectual merits. But a whole other dimension and challenge is to use this understanding to modify, manipulate, and control the properties of systems with emergent properties. This enticing prospect appeals to technologists, activists, and governments. Such promises feature prominently in grant applications, press releases, and reports from funding agencies. Diverse examples of this control goal include chemical modification of known superconductors to produce room-temperature superconductivity, drug design, social activism, the leadership of business corporations, and governments attempting to manage the economy. 

However, we should honestly reflect on decades of “scientifically informed” and “evidence-based” initiatives in materials science, medicine, poverty alleviation, government economic policy, business management, and political activism. Unfortunately, the fruit from these initiatives is disappointing, particularly compared to what has often been promised.

My goal is not to promote despair but rather to prevent it.  With more realistic expectations, based on reality rather than fantasy, we are more likely to make significant progress in finding ways to make some progress (albeit modest but worthwhile) in learning how to manipulate these complex systems.

This post contains many claims that require discussion, refinement or abandonment. I welcome suggestions on how to improve these ideas.

Increased competition for admission to USA PhD programs?

 We live in different times. There is some anecdotal evidence that this year admissions to leading graduate schools in the USA have become a lot more competitive, particularly for international applicants. Doug Natelson has discussed the issue, highlighting that it is important for unsuccessful applicants to know that these are exceptional times and their lack of success does not reflect on their ability and potential, but rather on structural issues.

I have a few questions for readers.

A. Is it your experience (whether as an applicant, recommender, or decider) that it is more competitive this year? Have you seen any articles about this?

B. If so, which of the following factors are particularly causing this crunch? (Doug mentions some of these factors.)

1. Fewer current Ph.D. students are graduating because of delays or lack of job opportunities due to the pandemic. This leaves less money for new students.

2. Universities are nervous about making offers to international students because of pandemic-related travel restrictions and uncertainty. There is a preference for domestic students.

3. Some universities are undergoing budget cuts or are very uncertain about their financial stability. This has flowed on to reduced admissions.

4. There are more applicants because of limited alternative job opportunities.

5. Other factors?

It will help all concerned if we can have a more accurate picture of what is going on. I raise the issue because I was surprised and disappointed that I encouraged a student to apply and wrote a glowing reference (neither of which I do very often) but he did not succeed. 

Please do share what you do know.

Where might condensed matter physics be heading?

Will there be big new discoveries? Will old problems be solved?  

I have finished my draft of, "An endless frontier" the last chapter of Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction.

I aim to give a balanced perspective that is optimistic but realistic. Have I? Obviously, this is highly subjective.

I am interested in general feedback, particularly on whether your aunt or uncle or an eager undergraduate would find this interesting and engaging.

Besides your own research area :), are there particular topics that you think are ripe for exploration?

Perhaps, a cartoon about predicting the future. Maybe one of these two?

Will there be big new discoveries in condensed matter physics?

 There are two aspects to this question concerning the future of condensed matter physics. First, are there big things to be discovered? If yes, will they be discovered?

I believe the first answer is yes for two reasons. First, the past hundred years have given us a continual stream of discoveries, many of them unexpected. Every time that things get a little boring, pretty soon there is something exciting and new. Second, condensed matter physics is all about emergent phenomena in materials. Emergent phenomena are extremely hard to anticipate or predict. Because of the combinatorics of chemistry, the list of possible materials to study is endless. CMP presents an endless frontier to explore. However, just because such a frontier exists does not mean that it will be explored. Successful explorers require courage, creativity, resources, time, and freedom.

I am concerned that the wild frontiers of condensed matter may not be explored. It is worth reflecting on who were some of the pioneers of CMP and the character of their institutional environments.  Consider Kammerlingh Onnes, Landau, Kapitsa, Anderson, de Gennes, and Leggett. Some common elements of the context (institutional, historical, political) in which they made their discoveries were time, stability, job security, mental space, and intellectual freedom. For example, Anderson spent almost three decades at Bell Labs in its heyday. Thanks to the monopoly of Bell in providing telephone services in the USA, the parent company had a very secure and stable income, providing it the ability to provide substantial financial and institutional support for basic research.

These pioneers played a long game. They had the freedom to fail, to choose research topics, and to change directions. They did not follow fashion and were fiercely independent thinkers. Andrew Zangwill highlights this about Anderson in his biography. They largely had the resources they needed and did not have to worry or fight for funding. Their daily life was very different from that of a researcher today. Their mental space was not filled with an endless stream of distractions such as emails, grant proposals, conferences, reporting, reviewing, committees, metrics, ... Most of their time and mental energy was simply focused on curiosity-driven research. 

Today, there is intense competition for funding, institutional status, and career benefits associated with obtaining it, and a pressure to produce in the short term "outputs" (papers) and "impact" (citations) and "national benefit" (technological, commercial, security, and social). This naturally leads to researchers working on "safe" projects in fashionable areas that they are confident will produce results in the short term.

I hope that I am wrong. But, I fear that great discoveries may be missed.

Where is materials research heading?

One way to answer this question is to look at the reports prepared every decade by the National Academies in the USA. I have recently been looking through the 2019 report, Frontiers of Materials Research: A Decadal Survey.

There are several reasons why I like to look at these reports. A previous post mentioned a similar 2007 report prepared for the USA Department of Energy.

I can learn a lot about materials science and engineering. See, for example, the figure below.

The reports help put condensed matter physics in the broader context of research in materials science and engineering. 

[Previously, I have argued that CMP is a particular approach to materials research and is distinct from materials physics. Although there is a significant overlap in the materials studied and some of the methods used, the driving questions are distinctly different].

The reports provide choice quotes for grant applications. Here is one from pages 24-25.

Key Finding: Basic research in fundamental science directions, meaning work that neither anticipates nor seeks a specific outcome, is the deep well that both satisfies our need to understand our universe and feeds the technological advances that drive the modern world. It lays the groundwork for future advances in materials science as in other fields of science and technology. Discoveries without immediate obvious application often represent great technical challenges for further development (e.g., high-Tc superconductivity, carbon nanotubes) but can also lead to very important advances, often years in the future. 

Key Recommendation: It is critically important that fundamental research remains a central component of the funding portfolio of government agencies that support materials research. Paradigm-changing advances often come from unexpected lines of work.

Here is one from page 6.

Key Finding: Quantum materials science and engineering, which can include superconductors, semiconductors, magnets, and two-dimensional and topological materials, represents a vibrant area of fundamental research. New understanding and advances in materials science hold the promise of enabling transformational future applications, in computing, data storage, communications, sensing, and other emerging areas of technology. This includes new computing directions outside Moore’s law, such as quantum computing and neuromorphic computing, critical for low-energy alternatives to traditional processors. Two of NSF’s “10 big ideas” specifically identify support of quantum materials (see The Quantum Leap: Leading the Next Quantum Revolution and Midscale Research Infrastructure).

The reports are based on the consensus of a range of experts. Hence, they arguably more objective than survey articles written in luxury journals by individuals hyping their field.

But, right now the reason I am reading this report is that I am writing the last chapter of Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction, and need to address the question of where CMP is heading. Some earlier preliminary thoughts are here.

Here are a few of my thoughts about this report. I would love to hear the perspectives of others. 

First, I should give some important caveats. I have only skimmed the report. It was written by people who know much more than I. Writing a report that is based on a diverse community of interests and perspectives is extremely difficult. The main audience for such reports is not scientists themselves but rather funding agencies and policymakers.

The Summary begins with "The past decade has seen extraordinary advances in materials research" (page 3). Chapter 2 describes "significant advances" from the past decade. There is no doubt there have been many advances. It is great to read about them. Section 2.4 concerns Quantum Materials and Strongly Correlated Systems. Most of the advances described there are incremental advances from discoveries made before 2010, such as topological insulators. This haunts me with a nagging concern that CMP has not seen a big discovery in the past decade. For quantum materials is superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene the leading candidate? Other suggestions?

A lot of attention is given to the potential of computational materials science, including when combined with data science methods (e.g. machine learning), topological matter, and quantum information processing in solid-state devices. However, I remain skeptical about the hype associated with these subjects, particularly with regard to technological applications. Big data need big theory too.

Significant attention is given to the relevance of materials research to USA defense, national security, and economic competitiveness. I wonder if this is because the report is being pitched to a MAGA government. Although I agree on the relevance, for many of us that is not the motivation for our interest in materials.

Update. In a comment below, David Sholl pointed out that NSF is not happy with the report. The background given there is also worth reading.

The Classics matter

Some people might expect me to be enthused that the Australian government recently announced that the tuition costs for university degrees in the humanities and social sciences would increase and the costs of undergraduate degrees in mathematics and sciences has decreased. This is based on three unquestioned assumptions and values. First, university is a job-training program. Second, all these extra mathematics and science graduates will get employment in the area that they study. Third, there is no need to address the massive other problems that Australian universities are facing, further accentuated by covid-19.

The central purpose of a university education is to learn to think.

Why study the classics? Recently, I read the following letter to The Economist written by Robert Machado, a PhD student in classics at Cambridge.

As a teacher and researcher in classics, I care profoundly about the subject’s purpose (Johnson, May 2nd). Too many of my colleagues rely on the guff that it teaches grammatical rigour or fall back onto vague assertions about the origins of Western civilisation. Although it is good to have a knowledge of ancient societies, the study of classics or indeed any ancient peoples offers one important transferable skill. When studying any ancient civilisation, one quickly brushes up against the reality that 99.9% of the information one would like to have is already lost. This forces any student or researcher to reflect hard on what data can be used. We must carefully analyse and argue over every scrap, while avoiding the temptation to come to conclusions that the data do not justify. In an age where we are faced with a glut of data, knowing what they can or cannot be used to say is vital.

Rodney Stark was a well-established sociology professor at the University of Washington when he made the bold move to work on the history of early Christianity, making use of methods and concepts from sociology. In the Preface to his book, The Rise of Christianity, he notes

my effort to reconstruct the rise of Christianity has been a cherished hobby - a justification for reading books and articles that now fill an entire wall of my study. It would be impossible to express adequately how much pleasure I have gained from these authors. I am convinced that the students of antiquity are on average the most careful researchers and the most graceful writers in the world of scholarship. 

Parenthetically, I note that Stark's work and attitude provides a model of how to successfully break into a new field.

The 90% University

A helpful starting point for me when considering universities after the pandemic is the cover story of The Economist, from two weeks ago, The 90% Economy. They were reflecting on the world economy will change in the coming years, suggesting three key characteristics.

 1. the economy will be more fragile 
 2. there will be less innovation 
 3. there will be even greater inequality 

The reason that it is called the 90% economy is because in the next few years rather than growing a few percent each year it will decrease in size by about 10%. 
Now on one level that doesn't sound too bad, but the problem is that it is not a uniform decrease across every sector, company, and individual. The changes will be quite heterogeneous. Rather, there will be significant gaps, that because of the interconnectedness of everything there will be problems. 

Just like the economy going back to ``normal'' universities will continue to have students, continue to do teaching, continue to graduate people but things, won't be quite the same, in some quite significant ways. It is not just a matter of possible 10-20 percent budget cuts.

1. Universities will be more fragile

Less stability and predictability is particularly bad for universities. Key ingredients for universities to achieve their real purpose are time and stability. Significant research, teaching, and learning all require time to build up knowledge, explore different possibilities, make mistakes, and not be distracted by crises, whether personal, institutional, or societal. Economic uncertainty is just one of many dimensions to the forthcoming fragility.

2. There will be less innovation in universities

Research is all about innovation, discovering new things, and exploring new ideas.  Drawing on The Economist article. More virtual meetings, less international travel, and fewer face-to-face meetings mean less brainstorming. Less random meetings and informal interactions will mean fewer new ideas. There will also be less money available for discretionary funding for new initiatives and fewer startup funds for new faculty, even if hiring freezes end.
After any crisis, people are more cautious and more risk-averse. A problem before the pandemic was that science was increasingly being done in a very risk-averse manner. People, particularly those without tenure, focus on low-lying fruit, working on problems that they are pretty sure they can solve in a year or less. Even senior people can only get funding if they have a ``track record'' in an area. This means they will just keep doing the same thing and not move into new areas. 
In reviewing his scientific life, Tony Leggett recently made the following comments.

Indeed, when I look back on ... a 60-year career in physics, I think I have been fortunate in many ways. I have had a marvelous constellation of graduate students and postdocs, from all corners of the globe... But if I had to pick out one thing that made all the difference, particularly in the early stages, it would be the tolerant and relaxed environment that I experienced at Sussex when starting there in the late 1960s. When I recall this and then look around at the current environment for people at the postgraduate, postdoc or junior faculty level, I feel quite concerned ... I get the impression that many of them feel that there will be no hope of obtaining the kind of postdoctoral/faculty/tenured position .. unless they have not only published three or four papers but published them in high-impact journals... I fear that one almost ineluctable outcome is that there is a strong temptation to focus all one’s energy on problems that can be reasonably guaranteed to yield results within the relevant time frame, typically two or three years. And almost by definition, these are not the really worthwhile problems! ...  the best advice I can give to any younger colleagues who seek my opinion is deliberately to put aside some fraction (30%, 25%, even 20%) of their research time for problems that they not only are not sure they can solve within the two- or three-year deadline but are not even sure that they (or anyone) can solve at all.

A similar conclusion can be drawn from a brilliant podcast, The Obscure Virus Club, by Malcolm Gladwell.

3. There will be more inequality, both within universities and between universities

This is part of the social tragedy that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, particularly during and after a crisis, such as a pandemic. The poor do not have the resources to adapt and survive. If you live in a slum you can't practice social distancing. If you don't have access to clean running water or disinfectant it is hard to practice personal hygiene.  If you lose your job you can't use your savings to go and get training for a new job. In contrast, if you are wealthy and have significant cash reserves you can wait things out, see your competitors fail, and snap up cheap investments. Similarly, with universities, it's hard for me to believe that institutions such as Harvard with massive endowments won't come out of the pandemic relatively stronger. Weak institutions will fold. Others will really struggle to survive and go through periods of stagnation.

There will also be inequality within institutions related to access, gender, and seniority. Because of the background of an economic downturn it will be harder for students from poorer backgrounds to afford tuition or access scholarships. Furthermore, poor job prospects will make the financial cost and risks of student loans not seem worthwhile. There will also be a push within universities to increase the number of adjunct faculty (i.e. people on short-term teaching contracts with no benefits). People with tenure who are well established will do fine because they also have a good strong social and professional networks. In a more online environment, it's harder to build those professional networks and so disparities may increase. The Economist article mentions a study that found the productivity of female economics faculty, as measured by the production of research papers, fell relatively to male ones, since the pandemic. That's arguably because women are more likely to have to take care of homeschooling and entertainment of bored children during the lockdown.

All this is a bit depressing. However, with a crisis, there are always opportunities. There will be plenty of opportunism (where people exploit a situation without regard to moral considerations and the impact on others). But, there will also be opportunities for the wealthy, powerful, and privileged to do good and facilitate much-needed changes in universities. For example, large philanthropies and wealthy universities can make long-term investments that others won't or can't. Well-established faculty can provide support/cover to junior faculty, students, and postdocs. In the longer term of decades, these will likely be the institutions and individuals at the forefront of what universities really should be about: thinking, writing, teaching, and learning, at the deepest level.

Universities after the pandemic

There is a growing discussion of what changes might result from the pandemic: changes in societies, in institutions, and to us as individuals.

What will happen to universities? Will they change for the better or for the worse?

First, I want to acknowledge that there's a lot of heterogeneity, due to the diversity of institutions and their different contexts. The effect of the pandemic on Harvard, on the University of Queensland, and on a small state university in Sri Lanka, could be vastly different.

Any change produces both challenges and opportunities. There are many immediate questions: which universities will survive financially? How many staff will be sacked?  To what extent will universities move to online learning, or to some hybrid? A few years from now will we be back to largely face-to-face teaching?

Although important, we should also ask be asking bigger questions.

An epidemic provides a mirror on society: its values, its strengths, and its weaknesses. This idea is emphasized by Frank Snowden, a historian at Yale University. Last year he published “Epidemics and Society: From the Black Death to the Present,” and there is an insightful interview with him in The New Yorker.
David Brooks in the New York Times also picks up on this idea.

Thus, it's worth thinking about how universities respond to the pandemic may tell us something about them. What do you think?

The Chronicle of Higher Education had an interesting series, How will the pandemic change higher education? (in the USA). They asked about a dozen different faculty, administrators, and analysts. It's worth looking at the article as they present a range of perspectives on a range of issues, some pessimistic and some optimistic. One scary suggestion is that the crisis will be used by managers as a pretext for various cost-savings, such as moving to more online learning and an even greater increase of adjunct faculty (i.e. in the USA this means faculty on short-term and part-time contracts and with few benefits). Will the humanities die or experience a resurgence? Will grades be abandoned? Will research become less esoteric? Will students' personal needs be better addressed? Will universities give up on risky expansion plans and expensive fancy buildings?

I would welcome responses to some of these articles.

There are questions about the mechanics of universities such as financial sustainability, modes of teaching, and virtual graduation ceremonies. These are important. However, these mechanics are really means to an end. One can do all the mechanics: recruiting, enrolling students, offering courses, assessment, and graduation, without actually achieving anything. Doing these things does not mean students actually get an education.

 I would like to see more discussion of big questions about what universities are actually for and how can they do those things better, not just in the next few years but also in the longer term. We need to keep coming back to what universities are all about: thinking! Teaching is about students learning how to think and the discipline of learning to think in the manner of certain disciplines. Learning to think like an economist, learning to think like a historian, or learning to think like a physicist or an engineer. Secondly, universities are about research. Again this means thinking, discovering new things, and synthesizing ideas.

What do you think might be significant changes that will occur in the coming years in your own context?