I think that what's needed is a separation of concerns. Instead of a monolithic institution that is responsible for research, student enlightenment, self-discovery, vocational training, athletic competition, etc, we could move towards a micro-institution architecture and scale the different micro-institutions according to demand. Importantly, we wouldn't cross-subsidize the institutions, so if someone only wanted self-discovery for example, they could just pay for that and get a cheaper price than someone who wanted both self-discovery and vocational training. People could also decide how much of each they need according to their circumstances.

The article only mentions tuition once - which is the original sin of US universities.

I have generally found that US Americans don't really understand the incredible value that these institutions bring to the overall culture and economy. Thus the broader population has a will to critique but no will to improve the situation.

In an interesting collision, I saw this article, _The University after AI_, at the same time I was reading The Atlantic article ( https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7453440 pdf downloadable) . It covers much the same ground from an academic economic framework, describing the University of a platform/market maker connecting 15 different entities (student, faculty, employers, donors, researcher, ...).

And proposed some restructured institutions, but also saying that solutions were likely to be greenfield rather than changing existing model with the intwined revenue streams and battle inherent in change.

Solving the problems is like doing a kata in martial arts: It’s not the result, it’s the steps you take that change your mind.

That’s what I told students, when I taught physics for several years during my PhD.

Even back then you could look up solution templates for most of the problems: There are only so many educative small problems that first semester students can solve.

On the other hand: No one studies physics just for a degree and money. So maybe that problem is not as present there, as it is elsewhere.

China doesn't have this problem.

It certainly must be an interesting time to be in the academic world as a professor dealing with all these issues.

the article describes a larger, more general problem that happens when a society can no longer deal with, or export it's contradictions, of which we have an ever growing mountain of absurditys, overseen by an entrenched army of incompetent assholes and idiots, ready to performativly weild there specific NO power, while meticulously observing the theatric rituals assosiated with there positions.

I was wondering what crises this was referring to. It's paywalled, but if the first couple paragraphs are sufficient it sounds like: students using AI and not learning, researchers using AI and feeling like they no longer have value themselves.

Any society should aim to have the most educated population it can afford to have. Them getting a better earning through it can be a nice side effect of that, but it is a side effect. The main price is that living among educated people beats living among the dumb and uneducated, especially in a democracy.

The US would have no problem affording that education, if it just considered taxing the richest members of its society a reasonable amount, as it did in the past.

Self inflicted wounds from people so out of touch and wrapped up in their own warped worlds they never bothered to take a pulse on what value creation and service to students meant.