In many study tracks (majors), there are courses that are known to be purposely difficult to filter out the unprepared students. But does it go too far?
Ooohhhhh, your last sentence would bring howls of protest from many academics. Thinking of one's students as customers does a disservice to the noble service of education, dontcha know. I never bought into that, in large part because as an adjunct, I wasn't an insider in academia either.
One of the people who went through the Physics program at SJSU at the same time as I did (83-89) is an adjunct professor, and among the 4 community colleges he teaches at, he clears about $60K with no benefits. And in the Silicon Valley that is basically "live under an overpass" income.
A few years ago, I was looking to hire an Application Scientist, a role for a fresh out PhD in Chemistry or Biology. The number of applicants was over 300, all of them pretty smart. The demand for PhDs in academia is completely swamped by candidates, and programs are doing a disservice to the candidates who are roped into the programs.
I am not sure there is a path to make this any better.
But, we do need more medical doctors. Perhaps we should create more teaching hospitals, and increase the pipeline of new doctors. Of course, this will also require that the AMA and other professional groups to stop protecting the earning power of doctors. The compensation of our medical staff (not the nurses) is way out of wack with the rest of the world, where being a doctor means a comfortable living, but not generational wealth that seems to be the norm here.
Yes, the AMA is a huge gatekeeper in several ways. The shift of decision-making power away from doctors and toward insurance gatekeepers (who sometimes don't even have a college degree, let alone any medical expertise) has also driven many people away from medicine. I dealt with this occasionally in my work as a massage therapist, and it was rage-inducing for me. It must be a thousand times worse for physicians.
Ooohhhhh, your last sentence would bring howls of protest from many academics. Thinking of one's students as customers does a disservice to the noble service of education, dontcha know. I never bought into that, in large part because as an adjunct, I wasn't an insider in academia either.
One of the people who went through the Physics program at SJSU at the same time as I did (83-89) is an adjunct professor, and among the 4 community colleges he teaches at, he clears about $60K with no benefits. And in the Silicon Valley that is basically "live under an overpass" income.
A few years ago, I was looking to hire an Application Scientist, a role for a fresh out PhD in Chemistry or Biology. The number of applicants was over 300, all of them pretty smart. The demand for PhDs in academia is completely swamped by candidates, and programs are doing a disservice to the candidates who are roped into the programs.
I am not sure there is a path to make this any better.
But, we do need more medical doctors. Perhaps we should create more teaching hospitals, and increase the pipeline of new doctors. Of course, this will also require that the AMA and other professional groups to stop protecting the earning power of doctors. The compensation of our medical staff (not the nurses) is way out of wack with the rest of the world, where being a doctor means a comfortable living, but not generational wealth that seems to be the norm here.
Yes, the AMA is a huge gatekeeper in several ways. The shift of decision-making power away from doctors and toward insurance gatekeepers (who sometimes don't even have a college degree, let alone any medical expertise) has also driven many people away from medicine. I dealt with this occasionally in my work as a massage therapist, and it was rage-inducing for me. It must be a thousand times worse for physicians.