It’s going to be hard going back to work in January

I’m relieved to not have any teaching obligations this term. I’ve been doing weekly homework problems/quizzes using the university standard Canvas tool, and I’ve always been pretty liberal with that: if students want to work together on the problems, that’s all to the good. Communicating and helping each other is useful for learning.

But I’m getting all these emails now about a feature that was added. AI. There’s a box on the screen to invoke Google Lens and Homework Helper, so I could be putting all the effort into composing a problem set, and the students could solve it by pushing a button. The university has been putting in something called Honorlock to disable AI access in problem sets, which seems to working inconsistently.

I’m not alone in resenting all these shortcuts that are being placed in our teaching.

It’s a sentiment that pervades listservs, Reddit forums and other places where classroom professionals vent their frustrations. “I’m not some sort of sorcerer, I cannot magically force my students to put the effort in,” complains one Reddit user in the r/professor subreddit. “Not when the crack-cocaine of LLMs is just right next to them on the table.” And for the most part, professors are on their own; most institutions have not established blanket policies about AI use, which means that teachers create and enforce their own. Becca Andrews, a writer who teaches journalism at Western Kentucky State University, had “a wake-up call” when she had to fail a student who used an LLM to write a significant amount of a final project. She’s since reworked classes to include more in-person writing and workshopping, and notes that her students — most of whom have jobs — seem grateful to have that time to complete assignments. Andrews also talks to her students about AI’s drawbacks, like its documented impact on critical-thinking faculties: “I tell them that their brains are still cooking, so it’s doubly important to think of their minds as a muscle and work on developing it.”

Last spring’s bleakest read on the landscape was New York Magazine’s article, “Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College,” which included a number of deeply unsettling revelations from reporter James D. Walsh — not just about how widespread AI dependence has already become, but about the speed with which it is changing what education means on an empirical level. (One example Walsh cites: a professor who “caught students in her Ethics and Technology class using AI to respond to the prompt ‘Briefly introduce yourself and say what you’re hoping to get out of this class.’”) The piece is bookended with the story of a Columbia student who invented a tool that allowed engineers to cheat on coding interviews, who recorded himself using the tool in interviews with companies, and was subsequently put on academic leave. During that time, he invented another app that makes it easy to cheat on everything. He raised $5.3 million in venture capital.

I’m left wondering, who is asking for these widgets to be installed in our classes? Are there salespeople for software like Canvas who enthusiastically sell these features for cheating to university administrators who think more AI slop benefits learning? Why, if I’m trying to teach genetics, do I have to wrestle around garbage shortcuts imposed on me by the university that short circuit learning?

Several years ago, I was happy to embrace these new tools, and found it freeing to be doings exams and homework online — it meant 4 lecture hours in the semester that weren’t dedicated to proctoring students hunched over exams. No more. When I get back into a class in the Spring, I’m going to be resurrecting blue books.

Oh, and since I was wondering who kept shoveling this counterproductive crap into my classes, I’ve got one answer.

It’s not coincidental that the biggest booster of LLMs as a blanket good is a man who, like many a Silicon Valley wunderkind who preceded him, dropped out of college, invented an app and hopped aboard the venture-capital train. As a leading booster of AI, Sam Altman has been particularly vocal in encouraging students to adopt AI tools and prioritize “the meta ability to learn” over sustained study of any one subject. If that sounds like a line of bull, that’s because it is. And it’s galling that the opinion of someone who dropped out of college — because why would you keep learning when there’s money to be made and businesses to found? — is constantly sought out for comment on what tools students should and shouldn’t be using. Altman has brushed off educators’ concerns about the drawbacks of AI use in academia and has even suggested that the definition of cheating needs to evolve.

An insufferable student

I would never want to teach in Texas…I wouldn’t even want to live in such a place. As an example, here’s a case of a dogmatic student objecting to the instruction in a class that mentions gender. This is from a right-wing twitter account where the tweeter approves of the student.


CAUGHT ON TAPE: TEXAS A&M STUDENT KICKED OUT OF CLASS AFTER OBJECTING TO TRANSGENDER INDOCTRINATION… and A&M President defends “LGBTQ Studies.”

I’m referring @TAMU to the Trump Administration for investigation… and asking Gov @GregAbbott_TX to fire the A&M officials involved and to instruct his Regents at all public universities to immediately end all DEI and LGBTQ indoctrination.

Hidden camera video and audio, letters to the Trump Administration and Governor Abbott, as well as some of the course materials my office has obtained, are in 🧵 below.

If you don’t want to listen to the video, the instructor starts by briefly reviewing some basic concepts in gender and sexuality, and one student pipes up to say that she thinks the course content is illegal, because according to our president, there’s only two genders, and that he would be freezing agency’s funding programs that promote gender ideology and that it also goes against people’s religious beliefs, two arguments that I would never ever want to hear in the classroom. Authoritarian pronouncements from a dictator and religious beliefs are never a sound basis for reasonable understanding.

This student chooses to argue with the instructor, and incidentally reveals that she has no understanding of material that had been discussed in a previous class.

Can you explain to us how teaching us about gender identity and transgenderism and that there’s more sexes than…

“My gender isn’t illegal,” the teacher interrupts.

Huh?

“My gender isn’t illegal,” she repeats.

Gender? What do you mean?

Your gender is not illegal? According to President Trump’s executive order, it…

“If you are uncomfortable in this class, you do have the right to leave. What we are doing is not illegal, and if you would make the claim that it is you need to talk to the department head, or the head of undergraduates.”

The student then refuses to participate, and says she has an appointment with the university president to complain about this course.

She does more than that. She meets with the Texas A&M president and asks that the instructor be fired.


Audio of student asking Texas A&M President to fire the professor who kicked her out and who was blatantly indoctrinating students in transgender ideology.

A&M President snaps back at student: “THAT’S NOT HAPPENING!”

Exactly right. You don’t fire faculty because opinionated students disagree with course content, even if the student claims that it was indoctrination. Teaching is a matter of explaining concepts that students don’t initially understand; reciting ideas that students already know and only regurgitating their opinions is not teaching, it’s memorizing dogma.

Unfortunately, after giving a brief lesson in reality to the student, the president of Texas A&M later issued a statement.

I learned this afternoon that key leaders in the College of Arts and Sciences approved plans to continue teaching course content that was not consistent with the course’s published description. As a result, I directed the provost to remove the dean and department head from their administrative positions, effective immediately. Our students use the published information in the course catalog to make important decisions about the courses they take in pursuit of their degrees. If we allow different course content to be taught from what is advertised, we let our students down. When it comes to our academic offerings, we must keep our word to our students and to the state of Texas.

The excuse is now that the course catalog does not include a summary of all the concepts an instructor might introduce in a course. Uh-oh. My genetics course doesn’t have a catalog entry that mentions that I teach about the fallacies of genetic determinism, racism, and historical development of the chromosome theory of inheritance, so I guess my class faces the threat of being declared anathema…except that my university administration isn’t packed with dogmatic assholes on a crusade to purge science.

I’d say that Texas professors need to get the hell out of that shithole state, but they already know it. Professors want to leave Texas because of tense political climate, survey says.

Many Texas professors are looking for jobs in different states, citing a climate of fear and anxiety on their college campuses due to increased political interference, according to a recent survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors.

The survey interviewed nearly 4,000 faculty across the southern U.S., including more than 1,100 from Texas. About a quarter of the Texas professors said they have applied for higher education jobs in other states in the last two years, and more than 25% said they soon intend to start searching for out-of-state positions. Of those who aren’t thinking of leaving, more than one-fifth said they don’t plan to stay in higher education in the long-term.

“Morale is down,” said one Texas faculty member at a public four-year university in a written response. “Friends have lost contracts for no discernable [sic] reason. We live in fear of using the wrong word. We self-censor. We do not have academic freedom.”

The top reason faculty cited in the survey for wanting to change jobs was the state’s broad political climate. In Texas, faculty have criticized new state laws banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs in universities; requiring university governing boards to establish policies on granting and revoking tenure; and limiting faculty’s role in crafting courses and hiring colleagues. Other reasons included salary and academic freedom concerns, the survey found.

Unfortunately, it’s not just Texas. Thanks to federal policies that mirror those of Texas, professors in 50 states want to get the hell out of this country.

I’m supposed to be on sabbatical!

Fall semester begins next week. That means that we’re having all kinds of meetings this week.

I just got back from a morning of meetings. Tomorrow will be worse: I’ll be in meetings all day long.

But wait, you say, aren’t you on sabbatical? I am, but it’s a one semester leave, I have to get back in the saddle in January, and they present a lot of new stuff at the start of fall term, including some significant changes to the Morris Core Curriculum, so I had to show up this week so that I’m not clueless for spring term.

It was not fun. I found myself thinking that Aristotle never had to count credits, but I’m feeling like I’m supposed to be an accountant, with 7 (or is it 8?) categories that students have to work through in order to graduate. We also were given a 10-page assortment of information that we must include in our syllabi…which has me wondering, if every single class every term has to include all this same stuff, isn’t that a massive duplication of effort? And are any students going to bother to read all this repetitive material, most of which has nothing to do with the content of my courses? Twenty five years ago, when I started here, every syllabus had a paragraph or two of boilerplate at the end, with a link to where the student can get more details.

Now the curriculum is a collection of fiddly little details and every syllabus has a massive addendum that dwarfs the actual description of course content.

Good thing I just have one more day of administrative noise, and then 15+ weeks of blissful spider research which might reduce my cranky surliness a bit.

But don’t count on it.

Mix Harvard and the NY Times to get perfect mush

Harvard privilege + NY Times centrism gets this kind of crap published: I Teach Computer Science, and That Is All. It’s an op-ed by a clueless Harvard professor explaining that while it’s deplorable that Trump is dismantling the educational system in the US, the fault lies with those professors who bring their politics to work.

Nothing justifies the unwarranted attacks by the Trump administration on universities as a whole and on my institution in particular. I am proud of Harvard’s leadership for resisting the impossible demands made of it. I also believe these attacks are enabled by the lack of popular support for universities. We academics should look at how we contributed to this erosion of trust by allowing the blurring of the lines between scholarship and activism.

In recent years the mantra of bringing your whole self to work has replaced the old notion that you should leave it all at the door. This movement has had some positive outcomes. Ensuring everyone feels included and has access to mentors and role models can be crucial to attracting and retaining talent.

Some have taken it too far, letting the personal and political overtake the professional, which has led to pressure on businesses to take positions in matters outside their domain. Makers of business software weighed in on elections. Google employees staged a sit-in over Gaza. Right-wing activists began a boycott of Bud Light after it was featured in a transgender influencer’s promotional social media post. The result is that people who disagree with one another find it hard to work at the same company or buy the same products, increasing the problem of polarization.

Oh, yeah, the real problem here isn’t Republican politics, it’s that Google employees thought genocide was bad and Budweiser briefly featured a trans person in an ad. That’s polarizing! We can’t can’t confront and conflict with terrible ideas and actions, that’s not the university’s job. (Except…it is.)

It wouldn’t be a NY Times op-ed without a healthy dose of both-siderism.

On the extreme right, the same idea has taken hold in government, where the very notion of a nonpartisan public servant is threatened, and those deemed insufficiently loyal have been fired. Both versions, on the left and the right, are toxic.

On the one hand, having a trans woman in an ad; on the other, boycotts, death threats, and Kid Rock shooting up beer cans with an assault rifle. Both equally evil! On one hand, Google employees peacefully protesting their employers’ policies; on the other, Israel bombing and killing civilians. We’re supposed to be confused about these two entirely equivalent actions. I have to conclude that any idiot can become a Harvard professor, and the NY Times will happily publish any waffle they shit out.

And this is how he teaches.

You might think I can avoid politics in the classroom only because I am a computer scientist. This is not the case. Faculty members who are determined enough can inject politics into any topic, and after all, computer science has brought huge and significant changes to society. The interaction of computer science and policy sometimes arises in my classes, and I make sure to present multiple perspectives. When I teach cryptography, a topic at the heart of the tension between privacy and security, I share with my students writings by former National Security Agency officials as well as “The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto.”

In fact, I believe that the lessons students learn from computer science (and science in general) can make them better citizens. Trying and failing to solve hard problems teaches students that there is such a thing as an objective truth and our first attempts to find it are often wrong.

Oh. So he’s the guy who has been teaching that imaginary pseudophilosophical claptrap about there being no such thing as truth. Now everyone can stop picking on post-modernism and go after the Harvard computer scientists instead. He teaches cryptography, a subject that he considers himself an expert in, but he can’t say anything about the dangers of crypto, because that would be political, and professors shouldn’t have political opinions.

OK, I don’t know much about crypto, but then he gives examples I’m more familiar with.

All academics are experts on narrow topics. Even when they intersect with the real world, our expertise in the facts does not give us authority over politics. Scientific research shows that vaccines work and climate change is real, but it cannot dictate whether vaccines should be mandated or fossil fuels restricted. Those are decisions for the public, with the scientific evidence being one factor. When academics claim authority over policy, the result is not an increased effect on policy but decreased trust in academia.

That is insane. College professors do not have direct power, so the idea that they “dictate” anything is nonsensical — all we can do is inform and encourage people to use their knowledge wisely. Vaccines WORK, hell yes they do, and we can confront our students with the data and evidence and experiments that show that they are effective and save citizens’ lives, and further we can show that bad policy, like that perpetrated by that grand fraud, Robert F. Kennedy jr., will not work and will kill people, so for a biology professor to sit on their hands and refrain from stating the truth is a criminal neglect of their responsibilities. Hush now with that science and facts and history — it’ll make people distrust academia, because we keep saying that your misconceptions and errors are wrong.

But that is our job.

The author, Boaz Barak, is an Israeli, and serves on Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias (he seems to avoid saying where he stands on anti-Palestinian bias) so he’s a hypocrite. He’s happy to denounce all those academic activists who are eroding the public’s trust in the universities by taking a stance on the politics he disagrees with, but he himself thinks that his politics are great and good, and that no one should be offended by them.

I might disagree with his politics, but I don’t think he should be fired for holding them. I think he should be fired for being a colossal hypocritical dumbass who can’t think his way out of a soggy paper bag.

The dirty little secret of universities everywhere

The students don’t have any significant voice in the management of the university, oh heck no. It’s definitely not the faculty, either — they are allowed to contribute to strictly defined internal academic domains, but that’s it. The people who have real control over the resources of the university are the board of regents (at the University of Minnesota) or the board of trustees, as they are called at Columbia University. These are the people who actually call the shots, and generally they don’t participate in academic life at all.

The ultimate decision-maker at colleges and universities is the board of trustees. And these boards, as the explosive events of the past year demonstrate, have serious problems, both in how they are constituted and how they lead. Those committed to the distinctive strengths of the university as a maker, teacher and custodian of knowledge, both old and new, must at long last try to grasp why these boards are failing and figure out how to fix them.

Trustees (sometimes called governors, regents, visitors or “members of the corporation”) have a lofty function: to ensure the financial health and stability of the institution, partly through their own donations. This fiduciary responsibility has extended to the recruitment, appointment and retention of the school president, and sometimes of other senior administrators, usually (as at Columbia) with little substantive faculty consultation required by the norms of shared governance. Trustees play an increasingly active role in academic decisions through the levers of cost, donor power and financial austerity. In our fraught times, these levers are in increasing use, especially by the Trump-driven Republican party, to target disciplines, departments and individual professors. Many boards have become political wolves in the guise of fiduciary sheep.

Boards of trustees are essentially private clubs, which follow their own, always confidential, norms to determine who is asked to join, who controls key committees, and who is gently persuaded to resign when they do not meet the criteria of the most influential trustees. (In some private institutions, presidents may have a say in who gets selected as trustees, but presidents themselves are appointed by trustees.) At public universities, these boards are directly tied to the powers of state legislatures and administrators and thus are at the mercy of state politics in key matters. At private universities, the club is dominated by heavy hitters in business, law and technology; the number of alumni, academics and students is vanishingly small. These business-oriented trustees (a majority being white and male) treat their board meetings as golf parties; they schmooze, network and discuss deals while going through the motions of discussing university policies and priorities.

I think I’ve met a regent at the University of Minnesota maybe twice. They generally aren’t at all interested in professors, and students even less. As the linked article explains, this is a real problem: there is a deep gulf between what universities do, and who gets to pull the strings. They’re mostly CEOs, lawyers, hospital administrators, bankers, retired politicians, that sort of thing.

Who becomes a trustee? At Columbia there are 21, all of them from business, law and technology, with the exception of a former journalist. Although they are in charge of an academic institution, none of them is an academic. None has ever led a classroom or a lab meeting or medical rounds with interns. None has gone through the process of tenure, where their teaching, publication record and service are rigorously assessed by colleagues in the field both from within the institution and outside it. None has ever had their work peer-reviewed by anonymous readers or panels of experts. None has ever published in academic or scientific journals or presses and had their ideas debated in the public sphere. None has ever framed a hypothesis and tested it on the basis of evidence they have collected. None, in short, has sought truth and had their search confirmed by objective scholars and scientists.

The University of Minnesota isn’t quite that bad, but almost; I think we’ve got one emeritus faculty on there. In general, though, they are moneyed people with deep financial interests, not scholarly experience. Here in Minnesota they are all volunteers, and are not paid for their services, which does make me wonder why they are doing this at all. It’s a mystery. I don’t like being managed by rich people with mysterious motives, but that’s where we’re at. Especially when they mostly look conservative and Republican.

This is a problem everywhere.

The Columbia board is by no means unique. The same situation prevails, with few exceptions, across the Ivy League and its peer institutions (exemplary is the University of Chicago). As far as public universities are concerned, though there are some variations among several of the flagships, such as the regents of the universities of California, Michigan and Wisconsin, they are typically composed of lawyers, politicians and businessmen, and generally appointed by governors of individual states. Their accountability is hard to locate in their charter documents, and their near-autonomous powers are wide-ranging. In these regards, they are very much like their private counterparts./p>

There is a fantasy solution proposed. Balance the CEOs on boards with professors and students, to realign the values of the university.

The most urgent need today, as the Columbia case shows, is to create a new social contract on boards of trustees, who have become too craven to be watchdogs and too self-interested to be trusted. This change will require hard community-based activism that balances lawyers, hedge fund managers and tech bros with professors, schoolteachers, researchers, scientists and students. For public institutions, this may require legal support, as well as a powerful alliance between communities and state governors. Without such changes in boards of trustees, the current capture of colleges and universities by an unholy alliance of wealthy alumni, rightwing billionaires and bureaucrats is likely to become entrenched.

Creating this new social contract will require two crucial steps. The first is to bring the full force of public scrutiny to bear on boards, their membership, their accountability and the checks on their powers. The second is to demand that all academic governing boards both reflect and defend the fundamental values of universities in a liberal democracy: freedom of academic speech, opinion and inquiry; procedural transparency; and demographic diversity.

Nice. Although I had to laugh: the regents/trustees have all the power and complete autonomy, so how do we convince them to surrender some of their power to the people they govern? Shall we ask them nicely? I guess we could demand, but all they have to do is say “no.”

Elsevier strikes again!

There’s been a mass resignation of the editors at The Journal of Human Evolution. The reason? Elsevier has, as usual, mismanaged the journal and done everything they could to maximize profit at the expense of quality. In particular, they decided that human editors were too expensive, so they’re trying to do the job with AI.

In fall of 2023, for example, without consulting or informing the editors, Elsevier initiated the use of AI during production, creating article proofs devoid of capitalization of all proper nouns (e.g., formally recognized epochs, site names, countries, cities, genera, etc.) as well italics for genera and species. These AI changes reversed the accepted versions of papers that had already been properly formatted by the handling editors. This was highly embarrassing for the journal and resolution took six months and was achieved only through the persistent efforts of the editors. AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts to change meaning and formatting and require extensive author and editor oversight during proof stage.

They also proposed cutting the pay for the editor-in-chief in half.

Keep in mind that Elsevier charges authors a $3990 processing fee for each submission. I guess they needed to improve the economics of their piratical mode of operation a little more.

One more day

I’m almost finished. A lot of papers have been graded, and all that’s left now is an online final exam for my intro bio course, which has a deadline of 1:00 tomorrow. Now I wait for those finals to be submitted, and then…a few hours of grading, and all is complete.

Also tomorrow I have some end-of-term stuff to wrap up. I’m getting a new computer in the lab, I have to meet a few students who I’ll be working with next semester, I have to do some maintenance on the fly lines we’ll be working with in genetics next term, and then the aforementioned final grading…then I guess I’ll slack off for a day.

Oh, and maybe some spider breeding.

They let just anyone in

The Royal Society is one of the oldest, most respected, and most exclusive scientific societies in the world. Imagine my surprise to learn that Elon Musk is a member.

This brings us, then, to the case of Elon Musk, who was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2018 on the basis of his technological achievements, notably in space travel and electrical vehicle development. Unfortunately, since that time, his interests have extended to using social media for political propaganda, while at the same time battling what he sees as “woke mind virus” and attacks on free speech. Whereas previously he seemed to agree with mainstream scientific opinion on issues such as climate change and medicine, over the past year or two, he’s started promoting alternative ideas.

They thought Elon Musk was inventing new technology with his mighty brain, rather than simply buying large teams of engineers with his mighty bank account? Tsk.

That account comes from a former FRS who has resigned at this tainting of the society. She is asking that he be stricken from the rolls, and lists multiple reasons why he brings shame on a distinguished scientific organization.

Scientific misconduct
Ethics & management of Neuralink
Promoting vaccine hesitation
Downplaying the climate emergency
Spreading deep fakes and misinformation on X

The Royal Society has done nothing; I guess once enrolled, forever enrolled, and no amount of anti-science ignorance or the promotion of atrocities will change that (that’s to be expected, given the history of the British Empire.) The society did contact a lawyer to make sure it was OK to keep a known professional troll in their ranks.

I gather that at this point the Royal Society Council opted to consult a top lawyer to determine whether Musk’s behaviour breached their Code of Conduct. The problem with this course of action is that if you are uncertain about doing something that seems morally right but may have consequences, then it is easy to find a lawyer who will advise against doing it. That’s just how lawyers work. They’re paid to rescue people from ethical impulses that may get them into trouble. And, sure enough, the lawyer determined that Musk hadn’t breached the Code of Conduct. If you want to see if you agree, you can find the Code of Conduct here.

The Society has promised to look more deeply at the Musk case, but don’t expect much.

I’ve been told that in the light of the evolving situation, the Royal Society Council will look again at the case of Elon Musk. In conversations I have had with them, they emphasise that they must adhere to their own procedures, which are specified in the Statutes, and which involve a whole series of stages of legal scrutiny, committee evaluation, discussion with the Fellow in question, and ultimately a vote from the Fellowship, before a Fellow or Foreign Member could be expelled. While I agree that if you have a set of rules you should stick to them, I find the fact that nobody has been expelled for over 150 years telling. It does suggest that the Statutes are worded so that it is virtually impossible to do anything about Fellows who breach the Code of Conduct. In effect the Statutes serve a purpose of protecting the Royal Society from ever having to take action against one of its Fellows.

Sounds like most other human cliques.

Posturing buffoon

Trump wants to destroy the Department of Education. Can he actually do that?

Technically, yes.

However, “It would take an act of Congress to take it out,” Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, told Vox. “It would take an act of Congress to radically restructure it. And so the question is whether or not there’d be appetite on the Hill for abolishing the department.”

That’s not such an easy prospect, even though the Republicans look set to take narrow control of the Senate and the House. That’s because abolishing the department “would require 60 votes unless the Republicans abolish the filibuster,” Jal Mehta, professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Vox.

So probably not. If it gets to the point that Trump’s whims of all sorts can be implemented, we’ll be so screwed that we’ll be praying for the Canadians to invade. If he did manage to get his wish, I don’t think he’s aware of the consequences.

Closing the department “would wreak havoc across the country,” Valant said. “It would cause terrible pain. It would cause terrible pain in parts of the country represented by congressional Republicans too.”

Much of that pain would likely fall on the country’s most vulnerable students: poor students, students in rural areas, and students with disabilities. That’s because the department’s civil rights powers help it to support state education systems in providing specialized resources to those students.

As usual, the Republican electorate was too stupid to realize that they were hurting themselves. Or maybe they think it was worth it to hurt their citizens who are handicapped, or gay, or trans, because while it is taking money away from them, it’s taking that money specifically from people they hate.

Even if the DOE isn’t abolished, they can worm their way into it and wreck all kinds of policies. For instance…

Trump officials could also attempt changes to the department’s higher education practices. The department is one of several state and nongovernmental institutions involved in college accreditation, for example — and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) has threatened to weaponize the accreditation process against universities he believes to be too “woke.”

I’m at a university that I would generally class as “woke,” and that’s a good thing. I have so many students who I wouldn’t get to know if we were anti-woke, which generally involves only supporting straight white Christian men.

My personal experience matches this observation

Everyone who has gone to grad school knows this, but we also recognize that this study was executed by grad students who just wanted to get through the next few years.

A study of Swedish PhD candidates has shown the vast toll that doctoral studies can take on mental health. The survey adds robust data to discussions about the mental-health crisis in academia. Studies and anecdotal evidence have long shown that PhD students can experience immense pressure to publish and to find funding and jobs in a brutally competitive landscape.

The analysis looked at the rates at which all Swedish PhD students were prescribed psychiatric drugs and were hospitalized for mental-health problems. It found that, on average, the longer they were doing doctoral studies, the more they needed to access such services. By the fifth year of studies, the likelihood that PhD candidates needed mental-health medications had increased by 40%, compared with the year before study (see ‘PhD pressures’).

I’ll admit that I had a relatively easy time in grad school — I had a good, supportive advisor, and I got through the whole program in five years, and also got support for 3 more years after completion. I knew of other faculty who were absolute monsters, neglectful and cruel, though, and even with a good advisor I felt the pressure of that rising curve. It’s interesting how quickly the curve drops after the fifth year. I wonder whether that’s because they had adapted to cynicism and despair, or because they’d found positions. Grad school ends, you know, and it ends with a sudden increase in the intensity of the experience, culminating in a defense that cleanly completes the process. I remember the relief of finally finishing.

I do wonder how grad school compares to the life of normies, though. I suspect that that transition from trainee to the workforce is difficult for everyone. Except med students?

The study found that uptake in medication varied across academic fields. Those in natural sciences saw a 100% increase by the fifth year compared with pre-PhD levels, whereas those in the humanities and social sciences saw 40% and 50% increases, respectively. Medical students didn’t see any uptick in prescriptions.

That last sentence is just weird. I’ve known med students, and the stresses are enormous. Is it that the med students have access to the dispensary and the good drugs, or that there is so much pressure on them to conceal their stress?