PSA Takes Its Liberalism with a Dash of Neo

This latest explication of the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) model for the provision of higher education (HE) responds to a common charge pressed by individuals and organizations like Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SFNDHE), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the California Faculty Association (CFA), that seek to address substantial problems in the higher education institutional (HEI) model of universities and colleges. As the Plaintiffs in this case, they tend to respond as SFNDHE did when offered links to exposition of PSA:

Who’s Ready to Take Risks for the Rewards of PSA?

Dr Lisa Corrigan of the University of Arkansas is doing what is expected of an academic. She is using her experience and expertise to engage with periods of deep social change. She has a vision of what higher education (HE) should be, including how it is meant to impact and be impacted by people. Given that HE is an important pillar of modern societies, the affected people are arguably every member of society. The battleground of social change in question is located in West Virginia, where its flagship R1 university has cut 28 programs from across its 355 majors and 143 of its 6,000+ full and part-time faculty. She is not alone in condemning what the consultants and administrators call, “rightsizing” the higher education institution (HEI). A wide audience has been following the case of West Virginia University (WVU), with many joining the local chorus of condemnation that includes: students, faculty, politicians, unions, taxpayers, even a notable from my neck of the woods, author Margret Atwood.

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 2)

The first installment of this three-part series presents reasons to be cautious in forming higher education (HE) internationalization relationships with China. Much of the evidence is based on my seven years of living in China, while studying its (higher) education system, teaching at levels from middle school to university, owning a private education business, and hosting 100s of hours of Philosophy Club (an open face-to-face forum for philosophical discussion of myriad topics raised by attendees).

In a nutshell, the reasons for recommending caution are that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not subscribe to fundamental values which instruct HE pedagogy and policy in the West – e.g., Anglo-American, European, and Australian. These differences in values should not be tolerated or compromised and under the CCP there are no feasible means by which they can be changed through domestic action or international cooperation. Part one also presents the PSA model as a way for the West to reduce the current substantial reliance on HE export to China and thereby escape the actual and potential value compromises associated with such internationalization.

This second post considers a defense of China as an internationalization partner. The defense comes from, Fei Xiaotong (费孝通), who having lived through the early emergence of modern China was to become a notable social anthropologist and political apologist. In the second stage of his career, up to his death in 2005 at the age of ninety-four, Fei advocated for what he called, “harmony within diversity.” During this time, he disparaged the Western approach to international and national (hereafter, (inter)national) harmonization, while offering what he claimed to be a superior approach grounded in Chinese philosophy, politics, policy, and practice.

Internationalization: Chinese Communist Party & Western Education (Part 1)

This is the first post in a three-part series that explores why nations such as the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Norway, Finland, France, Demark, Germany, and the like – what will hereafter be referred to as the “West” – should be very cautious about forming higher education (HE) relationships with China. At the same time, it explains how, compared to the higher education institution (HEI) model of universities and colleges, PSA can better serve internationalization goals while protecting the Western ethos of HE. Initial discussion emphasizes socio-political considerations and then turns to economic, while both sections engage academics.

Parts two and three of this series respond to social anthropologist Fei Xiaotong’s (费孝通) cultural self-awareness strategy for (inter)national harmonization and his claim that (Communist) China offers a better model for internationalization than does the West.

Historical Roots of the PSA Model – Part 3

First in Bologna and then in Paris, this series has looked at the 12^th and 13^th century origins of the modern higher education institutions (HEIs) we refer to as universities and colleges. Described as a process of confluence and conflict, the heritage was casually framed within power analyses common to sociology. Then, as today, there were macro economic and political forces that acted to transform and maintain the functions of higher education (HE), while individuals and groups jockeyed for favourable position within the system social milieu. We have seen that the modern conception and expression of a university are derived from the Latin, universitas, which in its original academic form were groups of teachers and students united in pursuit of intimately related and mutually beneficial goals that had manifest and latent impact on HE and society at large (Merton, 1957). We have also seen how the introduction of endowed colleges and salaried lectureships inserted a wedge of powerful papal and royal interests into the teacher-student relationship. As a result, our inheritance was not a university of masters and scholars, but of bloated buildings, budgets, and bureaucracies.

Historical Roots of the PSA Model – Part 2

In revealing the historical roots of PSA, part one of this series looked to the emergence of higher education in 12^th century Italy, where, “Emphatically, Bologna was a student university…” (Haskins, 1923). The final installment of the series looks at its professional pedigree in the 19^th and 20^th centuries; while this second post looks to Paris, France, for the medieval choreography of confluence and conflict that produced modern higher education institutions (HEIs). With power dynamics adjusted through economic and political maneuvering, Paris adds momentum to the shift in higher education (HE) from individuals to institutions – a shift that PSA aims to reverse.

Historical Roots of the PSA Model – Part 1

When people first learn of PSA, they tend to view it as something without precedent. It is not. Like most “new” ideas, it is merely a mix of what came before. This first of a three-part series identifies one such precedent – Medieval higher education in Bologna, Italy. Part two examines emergence of the same in Paris, France. While part three explains how the 18^th century introduction of professions and professional societies instructs PSA. Together, they provide historical grounding for the PSA model of higher education (HE).

[NOTE: See Part 2 and Part 3 of the series.]

Financial Liberation of Higher Education

 

I have updated some of the key numbers that support the PSA model. I decided to post my calculation document in raw form. The numbers speak for themselves, but I’ll provide some elaboration.

All calculations are based on the 2016-17 academic year and are in constant 2017-18 USD. Data has been averaged across 2 and 4-year public institutions and is presented in full time equivalent (FTE) measures. The data sources are the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the College Board (CB). Calculations do not include weighting for 2-year vs. 4-year institutions or undergraduate vs. graduate level of study.

Two notable calculations:

a)   Maintaining the current number of FTEF and an annual practice expense of $200,000, the PSA model can provide HE for 34% of the total revenue in the HEI model.

b) At 34% of total revenue, PSA can provide not only a sustainable, respectable living for all FTEF, but tuition-free HE to 11,239,067 FTESs for a 10% increase in FTESs.

As always, I invite feedback and collaboration.

Full Time Equivalents

Full Time Equivalents		Student Ratio
Faculty (FTEF)	680,510	15.5
Graduate Assistants (FTEGA)	98,599	107.2
Other Staff (FTEOS)	1,162,004	9.1
Students (FTES)	10,565,751	N/A

[FTEF entails instruction, research and public service. All graduate assistants are considered part time. Figures are for 2 and 4-year public HEIs combined. Source: Snyder, et al., 2019, pg. 262 and 283.]

PSA sample practice expenses

Amount	Item
$10,000	Salary of academic practitioner (gross)
$3200	Other salaries, wages, and commissions (teaching assistant)
$2000	Rent (office and lecture services, facilities, and equipment)
$200	Advertising
$100	Printing and shipping
$200	Office supplies and equipment (computer, phone, business cards, etc.)
$200	Website hosting, maintenance, internet fees
$50	General business insurance
$150	Health insurance
$200	Retirement
$500	Society membership and other professional fees (accountant, professional development courses, etc.)
$16,800	Total

Practice expenses are based on professional prerogative and so in reality will display considerable variety. These numbers - $16,800/month or $201,600/annum - are for a solo practice with office assistance and facilities, face-to-face teaching facilities, and a teaching/graduate assistant. These numbers are consistent across cities in North America. It is also important to note that under these calculations the mean, median and mode of income distribution are the same, with a range of zero – so, every academic earns the identified practice scenario income.

PSA practice funded by select current HEI model sources

Source	Per FTES	Total FTES	Per FTEF
Revenue
Total Revenue	$37,797	$399,353,690,547	$586,844
Appropriations & Non-operating Grants	$10,523	$111,183,397,773	$168,382
Tuition & Other Fees	$7,666	$80,997,047,166	$119,024
Expense
Instructional	$10,832	$114,448,214,832	$168,120
Instructional, Research, Public Service, and Academic Support	$18,959	$200,316,073,209	$294,361
Instructional, Research, Public Service, Academic and Student Support	$21,036	$222,261,138,036	$326,609

[Formula used in calculations: (Source per FTES) x (Total FTES) ÷ (Total FTEF) = Per FTEF (Practice Funding/Revenue). Source: Snyder, et al., 2019, pg.386, 387, 394.]

With this sort of financial liberation in higher education amazing things are possible. Maintaining the total revenue per FTES and a practice expense pf $200,000/annum, the number of faculty could increase by 66% or 449,143 FTEF – or as PSA prefers, FTE Academics. With an academic-student ratio of 1:15.5 that would also mean a 66% or 6,961,719 increase in FTES. Graduate assistance would increase by 1145% or 1,031,054 FTEGA. The flexibility in PSA finance also means there is room for more liberal student expansion and retention numbers, along with tuition and expense-free HE.

Higher Education Is Not A Game

[NOTE: The following is not a crisis call nor is it meant as an indictment of the integrity of the profession or any particular individual with in it. Instead, it is observation meant to raise consciousness and present PSA’s correction of the gaming problem in higher education systems around the world.]

The Nature of Higher Education Gaming

Gaming the higher education (HE) system is a form of cheating and cheating is a problem for all education systems, at all levels. Along with other known and yet to be conceived means, gaming occurs when: 1) Students exchange homework, use crib notes during exams, and engage in contract cheating such as hiring ghost writers for essays or “gunmen” (as they are called in China) to impersonate and take tests for them or even take the entire course or degree. 2) Teachers artificially inflate class averages, create inappropriately easy assignments or tests, take bribes to inflate individual grades, take bribes to accept students to athletic programs, and engage in acts of fraud and plagiarism in research publication. 3) Higher education institutions (HEIs) accept bribes to admit un(der)qualified students, lie about key stats that affect institutional placement on university ranking systems, admit un(der)qualified students who might contribute to collegiate sports, put pressure on faculty to (for instance) artificially reduce class failure rates.

China Higher Education: A PSA Translation

This is a first attempt to apply the PSA model to Chinese higher education (HE). As with all translations, there is room for revision to achieve greater accuracy and precision. Further, the current western model dominates our conception of how HE is provided and gives central place to higher education institutions (HEIs) in the form of colleges and universities. The PSA model does not and so such preconceptions must be set aside in order to appreciate the translation.

By the Numbers - Key Data for the PSA Model

I have been updating some of the numbers that support the PSA model. I decided to post my calculation document in raw form. The numbers speak for themselves, but I’ll provide a little elaboration.

 All calculations are based on 2015 data for the public sector of US higher education (HE) and are given in averages and full time equivalent (FTE) measures, unless otherwise stated. The data sources are the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the College Board (CB). Calculations do not include weighting for 2-year vs. 4-year institutions or undergraduate vs. graduate level of study.

PSA: Man + Machine + Model

In their bestselling book, The Second Machine Age (2MA), MIT Professors Brynjolfsson and McAfee, invite “more novel and radical ideas – more ‘out-of-the-box thinking’ – to deal with the consequences of technological progress.” (pg.245-246)

We’re interested I hearing which ideas you like best, and others you would like to suggest. Contact us at www.SecondMachineAge.com to share your insights. (pg.247)

Here is my offering, from an area of interest to me – the global crisis in higher education.