What should we be watching for next?

[saraha]

Because of this forum, I was well prepared for the pandemic and all of the election stuff.. Now, I don't know if I have been hyper vigilant so long I don't know how to relax or if there is really another shoe waiting to drop. What is everyone else thinking/feeling?

[Amethyst]

Global warming. 

[TravelingChris]

Just was watching a show about the 6 mile wide asteroid or comet  that slammed into earth and ended the dinosaur age and totally changed the world. 

I pay attention to various news and noticed Covid in very late Dec/ early Jan even before Wuhan shutdown.  Figured that all the antifa riots would eventually cause some sort of pushback-  though since I am not reading   QAnon messages nor am 8 part of ProudBoys, etc, I had no foreknowledge or early knowledge of Jan. 6th Capitol riot.  

But the reason I put the dinosaur story first is we never know what we don't know.  And I just put my trust in God and as a person w GAD, 8 found that after menopause, my anxiety levels have dropped so much that I don't even know if I can still be diagnosed with that ( Generalized Anxiety Disorder)

 

[TravelingChris]

12 minutes ago, Amethyst said:

Global warming. 

I am not worried about that at all.  First of all, they changed it to climate change because it really hasn't been getting warmer, st least not in a global scale.  And tge term climate change is stupid since the climate is always changing.  And unlike so many peoples in earlier significant climate changes ( 1500's in America, 10k years ago the Sahara desert was not a desert and every 10k years is when we usually have a big climate change so we are due for another one regardless of what people are doing),  I think we are in much better shape to deal w it technologically and believe that technology and science keeps coming up w amazing inventions and discoveries and so am very hopeful about it.  

[itsheresomewhere]

Pay attention to your local government and state.  Depending on where you are some are trying to sneak in a few bills that have added crap ( more than they usually do....).  Unfortunately, people are just not paying attention to these as most are still watching COVID news and not seeing some the head scratching stuff some are trying to sneak into things.  

[Melissa Louise]

38 minutes ago, Amethyst said:

Global warming. 

Yep, continuing extreme weather events. 

[Ethel Mertz]

Economic issues. Covid mutations. Extreme weather events.

[bookbard]

Always being on 'high alert' isn't hugely healthy. If you can turn that energy into something practical that can help. There's been a huge outpouring of community will here in the last few years. Lots of grassroots organisations starting to fix up local issues at a local level, from mental health to traffic problems. The reality is that the climate emergency is going to be for the rest of our lives. It'll mean constant extreme weather events - fire, flood, storms, heatwaves. For us, it's ensuring we have access to water during droughts, not just for our family but our community - so working out community water storage will be a goal. The same with electricity, local, community based, renewable will be more reliable. Right now, our community is utterly cut off. There's no way in or out - but we're all fine, because we have each other, and everyone is helping out. 

[Ethel Mertz]

I've found that doing things in the community (food banks come to mind) helps a lot. As well as helping out neighbors and building community... 

On a family level, we grow some of our veggies year round, keep a stocked pantry, and try to stay healthy. 

[Tanaqui]

TravelingChris, literally everything you said is wrong. You've been consuming propaganda from the fossil fuel companies.

[TravelingChris]

18 minutes ago, kand said:

You may be in an area where you haven’t been hit hard by the effects of climate change, but my area has, and I have new things I have to be prepared for that I didn’t used to be. I’ve lived here my whole life, and never once worried about forest fires growing up, despite being surrounded by forest,  but now it’s a real concern and it makes me think twice about having bought a house where we did. Never did I have to wear masks to protect from wildfire smoke, but we’ve now had to two of the last three summers. Our winters are now wetter as well and we have to worry about landslides with that. 

As I said, climate change has been happening on a several cyclical times.  One cycle is 10,000 years.  Another cycle is like 120,000 years ( not quite sure of what exact number because it has been a number of years since I last watched the Teaching Company, nor Great Courses, course that talked about these cycles in a few lessons).  

It has been 10,000 years since the last big climate change.   It is due to change sometime orobabkybin the next 200 to 309 years including now. 

Also very minor changes, like what you are describing about what happened in your lifetime are often replicates of some period within the last 129 years or so.  Like we had an equally active period of big hurricanes from the 40's to the early 60s. I believe ( I know for sure the 50s were involved but not as sure I am recalling the exact starting or end dates - like it could be 45'65 or maybe 42-64. Etc)..

As to forest fires, for a long period if time they were suppressed even though many  types of forests need fire to be healthy in the long run.  I know turbines in  both tge Southwest including CA and the Southeast need them and probablyi some others if not many other types do too.  And if you supress forest fires and don't do regular controlled burns of most of the forest, you end up w horrendous, gigantic fires like the Yellowstone fire.  Also some states have very bad forest management practices like CA.  As to rain amounts, we have lived here 12 years in July.  There has been a historic drought and 2019 and 3020 we had enough rainfall to be categorized a temperate rain forest ( probably not this year)...,It all depends on 9cean currents in the Pacific mai

 

[bookbard]

Don't focus on weather - that isn't a good indicator. Look at the percentage of carbon in the atmosphere. It has never jumped so much in such a short time. Ever. This is due to what we are putting into the atmosphere. 

At the same time, we are in the middle of a huge extinction event, due to humans destroying and polluting the environment. Again this has happened in a very short period of time.

What we're experiencing in the world may seem normal to you - but that's because you're inside the pot. It isn't normal if you look at the science. 

But honestly? I don't think anyone really 'believes' this is normal. It's just a lot easier to pretend it isn't happening because it's so very, very upsetting and disturbing. Unfortunately, that prevents positive change from occurring. 

[Carrie12345]

10 hours ago, saraha said:

Because of this forum, I was well prepared for the pandemic and all of the election stuff.. Now, I don't know if I have been hyper vigilant so long I don't know how to relax or if there is really another shoe waiting to drop. What is everyone else thinking/feeling?

I’ll go with nobody knows what’s going to happen *next, but something is always going to happen. I am kind of incapable of relaxing. Instead, I try to focus on being adaptable.  It’s one thing if the world I’d going to end tomorrow, but it’s more likely that we’ll continue to live through things we have to adapt to and/or work against.

If I were to make a list it’d be, in no particular order, continuing income inequality, white supremacy, climate change, more viruses, our old and fragile electrical grid, pollution, war, educational failings, health professional shortages, and soil degradation.

I don’t hide under my covers *every day, though. 😉 

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Yep, continuing extreme weather events. 

Yup. 

I'm in Florida, and they changed the start of Hurricane season to reflect this. Starts 2 weeks earlier this year. Sea level changes are an issue in some areas of the country/world. 

This may be a time to research what is happening locally - if you are in Kansas hurricanes are less of an issue, lol. But in some places, water is going to be a huge issue. Or cost of energy, etc. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by ktgrok

[mommyoffive]

Something is going to happen next, that is life.  I don't know what is going to happen next.  I think it is going to be different for everyone.  A weather event, a family crisis, an event that effects the entire country.  

I think the best thing is going to get yourself and your family prepared.  Have an e-fund, have emergency supplies at home, and loose idea of what you should do in an emergency.  Fire, tornado, or job loss. 

[Not_a_Number]

13 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I am not worried about that at all.  First of all, they changed it to climate change because it really hasn't been getting warmer, st least not in a global scale.  And tge term climate change is stupid since the climate is always changing.  And unlike so many peoples in earlier significant climate changes ( 1500's in America, 10k years ago the Sahara desert was not a desert and every 10k years is when we usually have a big climate change so we are due for another one regardless of what people are doing),  I think we are in much better shape to deal w it technologically and believe that technology and science keeps coming up w amazing inventions and discoveries and so am very hopeful about it.  

Well, I dunno what it is you’re reading, but between not knowing about January 6th and this take, you might need some new news sources...

[Not_a_Number]

Honestly, I’m watching for large-scale political instability caused by a mix of climate change, the unforeseen effects of people moving out of rural areas, and increased scarcity. I don’t know what that’s going to look like, but it worries me.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[elegantlion]

The bubble of higher education bursting. Not sure what it's going to look like in the end. My opinion is that Covid has upped the timeline of processes in the works anyway. Whole universities are being restructured. If you care and have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education, it's a good place to see the shifts happening. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, elegantlion said:

The bubble of higher education bursting. Not sure what it's going to look like in the end. My opinion is that Covid has upped the timeline of processes in the works anyway. Whole universities are being restructured. If you care and have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education, it's a good place to see the shifts happening. 

What do you think will happen in the short term?

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, elegantlion said:

The bubble of higher education bursting. Not sure what it's going to look like in the end. My opinion is that Covid has upped the timeline of processes in the works anyway. Whole universities are being restructured. If you care and have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education, it's a good place to see the shifts happening. 

Yep. DH and I sat through a College Advisor (tm) pitch at DDs request yesterday and I came away feeling like a) we can do a better job in house, b) they have no clue how to help kids navigate the ‘activities’ deficit covid has created and c) Higher Ed is gonna have to put up or shut up WRT job placement, course availability, and value.

[Farrar]

Just another voice saying that extreme weather events tied to climate change - and any subsequent fallout politically and socially - is the main thing I'm concerned about for the future. Even if someone here has been snowed into thinking that somehow this is not human-driven, please accept that it's a major force that is happening and could be extremely dangerous to humankind long term and that as people who alter our environment all the time, that the solutions may be human-driven. They may have to be when weather is killing us.

The randomized, uncertain nature of climate change is one of the hardest things to plan for. It's not like that pandemic or the election in that it's just looming in the near future as a particular thing to overcome - it's the slow reshaping of the world we live in at uneven intervals... for the rest of our lives.

[TexasProud]

Inflation

Immigration Crisis- especially for Texas and other states affected. The humanitarian responsibility. 

[Ausmumof3]

Fwiw I suspect there’s one more wave of Covid coming in the US.  Hopefully enough of the vulnerable are vaccinated so it isn’t as deadly.  
 

Most epidemiologists seem to think we should expect more pandemics in the nearer future with increased global travel and increased interaction between humans and wildlife.  

[Pawz4me]

55 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Honestly, I’m watching for large-scale political instability caused by a mix of climate change, the unforeseen effects of people moving out of rural areas, and increased scarcity. I don’t know what that’s going to look like, but it worries me.

I'd add income inequality and attempted voter suppression to your list of potential causes of large scale political instability.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Honestly, I’m watching for large-scale political instability caused by a mix of climate change, the unforeseen effects of people moving out of rural areas, and increased scarcity. I don’t know what that’s going to look like, but it worries me.

Yes global political instability due to all these things plus realignment/increased tensions due to ongoing ripple effects post-COVID.  (If we get to post Covid...)

Edited March 22, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

9 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

As I said, climate change has been happening on a several cyclical times.  One cycle is 10,000 years.  Another cycle is like 120,000 years ( not quite sure of what exact number because it has been a number of years since I last watched the Teaching Company, nor Great Courses, course that talked about these cycles in a few lessons).  

It has been 10,000 years since the last big climate change.   It is due to change sometime orobabkybin the next 200 to 309 years including now. 

Also very minor changes, like what you are describing about what happened in your lifetime are often replicates of some period within the last 129 years or so.  Like we had an equally active period of big hurricanes from the 40's to the early 60s. I believe ( I know for sure the 50s were involved but not as sure I am recalling the exact starting or end dates - like it could be 45'65 or maybe 42-64. Etc)..

As to forest fires, for a long period if time they were suppressed even though many  types of forests need fire to be healthy in the long run.  I know turbines in  both tge Southwest including CA and the Southeast need them and probablyi some others if not many other types do too.  And if you supress forest fires and don't do regular controlled burns of most of the forest, you end up w horrendous, gigantic fires like the Yellowstone fire.  Also some states have very bad forest management practices like CA.  As to rain amounts, we have lived here 12 years in July.  There has been a historic drought and 2019 and 3020 we had enough rainfall to be categorized a temperate rain forest ( probably not this year)...,It all depends on 9cean currents in the Pacific mai

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
 

theres some interesting stuff here on trying to separate out what’s natural climate variation and what is man made.   I agree with you that forest/bush fires are equal parts due to lack of management - unfortunately we have taken land that we don’t yet know how to care for correctly.  Flooding also is worse due to land clearing etc.

 

In terms of short term climate change impacts I suspect getting insurance in certain areas (possibly ours) will become increasingly difficult or impossible.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

I'd add income inequality and attempted voter suppression to your list of potential causes of large scale political instability.

I think voter suppression is actually the result of people migrating to cities. Income inequality is a good point, though.

[elegantlion]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

What do you think will happen in the short term?

Large scale, I honestly don't know. In my state/region, we're seeing restructuring of departments (not necessarily a bad thing), yet to the detriment of the humanities. Retired faculty are not being replaced, for example my advisor is retiring and her position is not being filled. She was the only scholar in about a 250 mile radius taking on graduate students in her field of expertise (medieval history) when I applied in late 2017. My university has an expanding medieval studies minor and graduate focus, yet they won't have a medieval historian. 

I would encourage those who will be having college students in the next few years to keep watch on schools they're interested in attending. The department that was, may not be so in the next few years. 

KU (Kansas) is possibly cutting a large number of TA positions. Another report I read from there is that department chairs won't have the budget to cover those lost TA positions with additional faculty or even adjuncts. 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, elegantlion said:

Large scale, I honestly don't know. In my state/region, we're seeing restructuring of departments (not necessarily a bad thing), yet to the detriment of the humanities. Retired faculty are not being replaced, for example my advisor is retiring and her position is not being filled. She was the only scholar in about a 250 mile radius taking on graduate students in her field of expertise (medieval history) when I applied in late 2017. My university has an expanding medieval studies minor and graduate focus, yet they won't have a medieval historian. 

I would encourage those who will be having college students in the next few years to keep watch on schools they're interested in attending. The department that was, may not be so in the next few years. 

KU (Kansas) is possibly cutting a large number of TA positions. Another report I read from there is that department chairs won't have the budget to cover those lost TA positions with additional faculty or even adjuncts. 

 

 

I foresee a shift, not necessarily a bad one, from big name, research-only faculty w/minimal undergrad interaction to more dual hatted faculty, people who are expected to teach undergrads/grads AND research, also fewer obscure majors. I would love to see fewer administrative staff tho.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I foresee a shift, not necessarily a bad one, from big name, research-only faculty w/minimal undergrad interaction to more dual hatted faculty, people who are expected to teach undergrads/grads AND research, also fewer obscure majors. I would love to see fewer administrative staff tho.

I think if you shift to teaching being a major component of the job, serious researchers will take more private-sector jobs. Not clearly a win.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think if you shift to teaching being a major component of the job, serious researchers will take more private-sector jobs. Not clearly a win.

Not necessarily a bad one either. Colleges are schools. They need teachers. Research opportunities on campus for students are a bonus funded by federal dollars. Paid opportunities for students as interns and employees are, arguably, better. Expected contributions of unpaid labor are the bane of low-wealth students.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Not necessarily a bad one either. Colleges are schools. They need teachers. Research opportunities on campus for students are a bonus funded by federal dollars. Paid opportunities for students as interns and employees are, arguably, better. Expected contributions of unpaid labor are the bane of low-wealth students.

US universities are world leaders in research for a reason. You can decide it’s a bad bargain, but I’d guess this will have unforeseen repercussions.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

US universities are world leaders in research for a reason. You can decide it’s a bad bargain, but I’d guess this will have unforeseen repercussions.

Research, particularly basic research, is largely funded by the feds through universities. It doesn’t have to be that way and may not be going forward. We fund this research at the university and allow it to be monetized by the private sector, sold to overseas states for cheap, and marked up for profit to US consumers. Yes, I think this model is ripe for reevaluation.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Research, particularly basic research, is largely funded by the feds through universities. It doesn’t have to be that way and may not be going forward. We fund this research at the university and allow it to be monetized by the private sector, sold to overseas states for cheap, and marked up for profit to US consumers. Yes, I think this model is ripe for reevaluation.

I think the chance of research that doesn't have applications RIGHT NOW being funded as well by private companies is much lower. You want long-ranging research, you need to fund it in a way that's divorced from profit, which is where universities come in. Yes, giants like Google and Microsoft fund this kind of research to some extent, but it's probably not nearly enough as an investment in the future. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think the chance of research that doesn't have applications RIGHT NOW being funded as well by private companies is much lower. You want long-ranging research, you need to fund it in a way that's divorced from profit, which is where universities come in. Yes, giants like Google and Microsoft fund this kind of research to some extent, but it's probably not nearly enough as an investment in the future. 

Never said that. I said the existing model is NOT serving students and is ripe for reevaluation. Basic research funding could also include a requirement for actual student instruction. People who want to SOLELY research can/should find another place to do it other than as a nominal ‘teacher’ at an educational institution. The high administrative overhead associated with non-teaching staff is bleeding parents dry and robbing students of earned income opportunities.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

Never said that. I said the existing model is NOT serving students and is ripe for reevaluation. Basic research funding could also include a requirement for actual student instruction. People who want to SOLELY research can/should find another place to do it other than as a nominal ‘teacher’ at an educational institution. The high administrative overhead associated with non-teaching staff is bleeding parents fry.

I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying. As for whether the current model serves students well... well, again, US universities attract students from the world over. There are real benefits to having top researchers in educational institutions.

[easypeasy]

I can't even properly explain the anxiety this thread is causing me, hahaha!

I'm just gonna keep a well-stocked pantry (I'll never fear running out of tp again, haha!), keep bottled water on a rotating cycle, batteries, flashlights, etc.

I'm gonna wash my hands a lot. For 20+ whole seconds. I'm going to always keep travel-sized hand sanitizer in my purse and a full-sized bottle in my vehicle. I now buy hand sanitizer in bulk and will always have extra on hand. I'll also always have a giant bottle of hand soap on hand in case of emergency (we ran dangerously low back in April/May '20).

I'm going to wear a mask if there's any bug running rampant in my area and don't even care if people look at me funny. Will also always wear a mask on an airplane in future, because I often come home with some cold bug after a flight - but haven't since wearing a mask on a flight.

I'm going to keep n95 masks ON HAND always and forever and ever, amen.

And I'm going to volunteer my time with organizations that help those in need and stay busy. I'm always working on being as environmentally conscious as I can (which has been hard during Covid - SO much waste!!).

And, mostly, ignore the news until something is urgent.

The past 5 years have done a number on me - always waiting for the next shoe to drop. Right now, I'm going to breathe, enjoy being double-vaccinated, hug some people I haven't seen in ages, and try to relax for the first time in what seems like forever.

I'll deal with the next thing... when it has to be dealt with. lol

I admire those of you who are proactive, though! I'm just gonna ostrich-in-the-sand a little bit for now.

Edited March 22, 2021 by easypeasy

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don’t think you’re engaging with what I’m saying. As for whether the current model serves students well... well, again, US universities attract students from the world over. There are real benefits to having top researchers in educational institutions.

I am engaging with what you’re saying. I simply disagree that the big name schools that draw students represent the entirety or even the majority of American higher education. The workhorses here are community colleges, not big research institutions.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

Here's the basic issue. If you require a lot of student interaction of researchers, you then can't expect as much research to be done. Teaching is EXHAUSTING. The terms I taught two classes at graduate school, I could barely get anything done on my thesis, it was so draining. Yes, I'm sure it was physically possible for me to teach even more classes (4 or 5, say), but I would have not had the juice to do any research at all. If you look at the amount of research coming out of liberal arts colleges, you'll see that the professors have way less output. 

So, if you insist that research faculty teach more than one or two classes a semester, which certainly SOUNDS very reasonable... you will almost certainly cause an exodus to the private sector. You'll have to think long and hard about whether you actually want this. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I am engaging with what you’re saying. I simply disagree that the big name schools that draw students represent the entirety or even the majority of American higher education. The workhorses here and community colleges, not big research institutions.

And are professors at community colleges actually not expected to have student interaction? 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And are professors at community colleges actually not expected to have student interaction? 

Yes, they do. They are not the people NOT teaching. Largely researchers don’t and those are the people you seem hellbent on protecting from student interaction. There’s plenty of room between teaching 4-5 classes and teaching NONE. I am not terribly concerned with non-teaching faculty freeing up space for teaching faculty when students are struggling to have enough course sections to graduate in a timely way.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes, they do. They are not the people NOT teaching. Largely researchers don’t and those are the people you seem hellbent on protecting from student interaction. There’s plenty of room between teaching 4-5 classes and teaching NONE.

Do most research faculty teach no classes? I think the standard amount is teaching 2 or 3 a year. Which is, yes, cushy, but also probably what people need to focus on research. 

ETA: it looks like the number is actually larger than I thought... more like 4-5 a year on average. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kand said:

As an anecdotal note, my professors who were there primarily as researchers and only taught because they had to were the worst teachers. One in particular had no business at all teaching students. I don’t have any commentary on what should have happened with him instead, just saying. 

I can tell you that at Stanford, where basically ALL the professors were tenured and were only teaching because they had to, the quality of the classes varied really widely. But I agree that if people are mostly hired for their research, there's no reason to expect them to be amazing teachers. Teaching is its own kind of job. 

The question is whether we want to be investing in research or not, and if we do, whether we want these people to be at universities or somewhere else. 

[easypeasy]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The question is whether we want to be investing in research or not, and if we do, whether we want these people to be at universities or somewhere else. 

My own opinion is that we need researchers AT universities so that students can work alongside them and learn the process. However, I wish we could let the researchers research and actually hire TEACHERS at universities to teach. Hire many of them, too. If a researcher happens to love teaching and wants to also teach - great! The variation between teaching quality is so wildly uneven, it's a disservice to students who are paying premium dollars & my daughter was stuck with more than one "brilliant researcher" who loathed teaching and was passively/actively aggressive to the students. But, their research was sacred ground, so there was no one to complain to. Let someone else have those guys' classes! Please! And let the students who need the research experience deal with the mad, genius professors.

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, kand said:

As an anecdotal note, my professors who were there primarily as researchers and only taught because they had to were the worst teachers. One in particular had no business at all teaching students. I don’t have any commentary on what should have happened with him instead, just saying. 

This. The whole system is ripe for reevaluation IMO. This article from the chronicle last year lays out the arms race at research institutions. A competing piece the same year suggested lower course loads should be promoted as a means to improve teaching/course quality but there’s no evidence that’s been the case. I’d rather have better paid and better quality instructors from community colleges be brought up to four year institutions than researchers who belong in the private sector and disdain any work with plebes. That’s what I’m talking about, reevaluating who gets to be based at higher Ed institutions and why they’re there. I’m not questioning the value of research. I’m questioning its value for the students the universities exist to serve and educate. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-great-disappearing-teaching-load/

Edited March 22, 2021 by Sneezyone

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, elegantlion said:

KU (Kansas) is possibly cutting a large number of TA positions. Another report I read from there is that department chairs won't have the budget to cover those lost TA positions with additional faculty or even adjuncts. 

 

 

There is also a huge battle there over whether to strip tenure from everyone. I have several friends who profess there and it is ugly.

KU is having serious, serious cash flow issues. The state legislature has steadily cut funding to universities in Kansas and  covid brought many institutions there to their knees.

[prairiewindmomma]

I agree that the greatest challenge we face is climate change/instability and the turmoil that will continue to bring. Droughts and floods and storms have always caused political change (history, y’all!) and we have no reason to believe that will change.

Beyond that, I think we will continue to see an increase in people who are essentially unemployable in an increasingly technical world. As machines makes the labor market more efficient, we are going to have continued displacement in the labor market. Large numbers of unemployed persons are generally threatening to the stability of a government as well. 
 

 

[Not_a_Number]

45 minutes ago, easypeasy said:

My own opinion is that we need researchers AT universities so that students can work alongside them and learn the process. However, I wish we could let the researchers research and actually hire TEACHERS at universities to teach. Hire many of them, too. If a researcher happens to love teaching and wants to also teach - great! The variation between teaching quality is so wildly uneven, it's a disservice to students who are paying premium dollars & my daughter was stuck with more than one "brilliant researcher" who loathed teaching and was passively/actively aggressive to the students. But, their research was sacred ground, so there was no one to complain to. Let someone else have those guys' classes! Please! And let the students who need the research experience deal with the mad, genius professors.

Well, we already do have a class of people who are there to teach and not to research -- they are called adjuncts. And I were going to work on university reform, I'd want to make sure that those people actually had a decent job with reasonable pay and job security. 

I agree that the "brilliant researcher" type who refuses to teach well isn't doing anyone any favors, lol. I've had those professors myself, and they were simply awful. But I think if you move towards having tenured researchers teach MORE, then that type isn't going to get any better at teaching -- they'll just go elsewhere. Or, because some of them are such oddballs, they won't be able to find work at all. 

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think voter suppression is actually the result of people migrating to cities. Income inequality is a good point, though.

In what sense? We see widespread voter suppression in rural areas as well, you know. If your suggestion is that there just aren't enough voting places because people are unexpectedly in cities more now, that's just blatantly false. I'm not sure what you're getting at here, honestly.

[Tanaqui]

Dragging this on topic, quite aside from climate change - still number one for the 30th year running, as far as I am concerned! - I'm also generally concerned about loss of clean water and topsoil and about the increased rise of the far-right worldwide. That last one really took me by surprise when I first noticed it.