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.

PSA Facilitates the Work of Professors

Though I long for serious critical dialogue on PSA, I have yet to receive it. So, in proper academic form, as a philosopher, I must independently generate criticisms. Here is one potential criticism of my alternative model for HE: The Professional Society of Academics (PSA) cannot facilitate the full spectrum of work performed by professors. 

False. In fact, it can do so better than the traditional HEI model or the emerging tech-models (e.g., MOOCs). Moreover, PSA can provide greater control over and better compensation for this work, while it opens the doors to as many individuals as want to be professors.

Meranze of UCLA Calls For A New Social Contract

This is in response to a recent post by a fellow advocate for HE reform, Michael Meranze of UCLA.

Hi Michael,

I wonder, what is the disposition of Conservatives and Liberals toward professions? Equally inimical, I suppose? Trump can treat HE the way he does – as can any government – because the current HE model substantially depends on public money. I gather you would like to increase this dependence, since you would like to see increased public funding for this model.

You say, “A new social contract that preserves access, funds quality, and ensures academic and intellectual autonomy must be developed and fought for.” I have developed such a social contract. And as I can, I have fought for it.

The PSA Tax Relief Master Plan for California HE

The Reclaim California Higher Education (RCHE) Master Plan maintains that an additional $48 in annual taxes per median household would be enough to fix the system. The organization claims that this additional tax revenue would make all college and university education tuition-free and restore state funding to the 2001 level of 1.17% of AGI.

For several reasons, I think this “$48 fix” is broken. As an alternative, I will present the financials for what might be called, the PSA HE Tax Relief Master Plan.

My model – the Professional Society of Academics (PSA) – does not require additional tax money, but rather far less public money than is currently spent on HE. Of course, even if PSA were implemented, the government would not reduce taxes or give out refund checks; but nor would they be legislating new taxes, as RCHE recommends. And anyhow, one of the benefits of PSA is that the tax money it saves and earns the state can be used to improve the finance of other valued social goods such as healthcare or primary/secondary education.

But just for amusement let’s look at what that tax relief might look like under the PSA Master Plan. First, I’ll show what it costs to establish and operate a baseline academic practice under my model. Then, on a national scale I’ll look at existing sources of funding to see what can be accomplished with far less money, not more. Finally, I’ll apply the PSA finances to the California circumstance and estimate the scale of tax relief.