It's not that the raw labor doesn't exist, it's that this labor -- esp in STEM -- has other job opportunities and doesn't need to teach. Given the choice, most would leave academia rather than live on scraps once they hit their late 20s/early 30s. And although there isn't coast snobbery, I don't think expecting teaching faculty to relocate to a cheaper country is a realistic solution -- especially if there's no tenure and the pay is below industry average!
> Re:curriculum, office hours, remember, Minerva can actually tell their staff what to do.
Right, but (at least ostensibly) they can't compel their staff to do that for free.
If a staff member is being paid way below what they could make in industry and isn't even on a tenure track, they have absolutely no incentive to work hard. Nor should they work hard, at anything other than getting out of an exploitative relationship with their employer.
It's easier to take advantage of people in the humanities, but then, taking advantage of instructional staff doesn't exactly create a convivial learning environment.
> given cheap enough inputs, easily
I guess that's really the thing -- I think for something like Minerva to really work they need full time, well-paid faculty. And without federal aid, that means they'll probably have trouble competing with regional state universities (without sacrificing quality, which kills to whole Minerva model).
Otherwise high-quality learning environments are impossible to build and maintain.
> but lots of people like teaching as well.
One model could be finding people who have moved on to industry but still want to teach a course or two a semester. It might be possible to make this work.
BUT -- that's not a new model! Lots of colleges and universities take this approach, and it's pretty well-understood by pretty much everyone that this is a non-optimal situation. Even very bright people fail at the "teach after work" thing. It's just not possible to go as deeply as you would like without an hour or two before and after lectures to really prepare for the lecture itself well and then wind down/self-assess.
Higher Ed needs to come to terms with the fact that great -- or even half-decent -- instruction is a full-time job.
> I don't think there's much actual disagreement here,I'm only slightly more optimistic than you, eh?
No, there's no disagreement at all :-). I'm posing possible problems and you're suggesting reasons they're not problems or suggesting solutions. It's a true dialog :-)
> Re:curriculum, office hours, remember, Minerva can actually tell their staff what to do.
Right, but (at least ostensibly) they can't compel their staff to do that for free.
If a staff member is being paid way below what they could make in industry and isn't even on a tenure track, they have absolutely no incentive to work hard. Nor should they work hard, at anything other than getting out of an exploitative relationship with their employer.
It's easier to take advantage of people in the humanities, but then, taking advantage of instructional staff doesn't exactly create a convivial learning environment.
> given cheap enough inputs, easily
I guess that's really the thing -- I think for something like Minerva to really work they need full time, well-paid faculty. And without federal aid, that means they'll probably have trouble competing with regional state universities (without sacrificing quality, which kills to whole Minerva model).
Otherwise high-quality learning environments are impossible to build and maintain.
> but lots of people like teaching as well.
One model could be finding people who have moved on to industry but still want to teach a course or two a semester. It might be possible to make this work.
BUT -- that's not a new model! Lots of colleges and universities take this approach, and it's pretty well-understood by pretty much everyone that this is a non-optimal situation. Even very bright people fail at the "teach after work" thing. It's just not possible to go as deeply as you would like without an hour or two before and after lectures to really prepare for the lecture itself well and then wind down/self-assess.
Higher Ed needs to come to terms with the fact that great -- or even half-decent -- instruction is a full-time job.
> I don't think there's much actual disagreement here,I'm only slightly more optimistic than you, eh?
No, there's no disagreement at all :-). I'm posing possible problems and you're suggesting reasons they're not problems or suggesting solutions. It's a true dialog :-)