As an undergrad, I loved higher education. I genuinely believed it was about expanding your knowledge and preparing for a better future. But now that I’m in a Master’s program, that illusion has started to fall apart.
Being on the inside, it’s suddenly clear why universities offer so many degrees that rarely lead to actual jobs: it’s not about student success—it’s about money. Launch a new undergrad program? That’s more students and more government funding. Start a new grad program? Even better—higher tuition and more grant money flowing in.
And it’s not just degrees. Research, too, has become more about sustaining the system than making meaningful progress. I’ve worked with both professors and industry professionals, and nearly everyone I’ve met in industry has a deep frustration with academic research. It’s often inefficient, poorly managed, and wasteful—things that would never fly in the private sector.
I’ve personally seen grant money squandered on unnecessary equipment, fancy dinners, and pointless travel. I’ve seen experiments run with little planning and data mismanaged to the point of being useless. The goal isn’t innovation anymore—it’s survival. Publish anything, just publish. Because the number of publications is what keeps the funding alive. Quality takes a back seat to quantity.
Groundbreaking research has become the exception, not the norm. The system rewards output over impact, appearances over substance. And for someone who once believed in the power of higher education to truly change lives and society for the better, it’s disheartening to see what it’s become.
Comments
Ok
Is there a question here?
I mean, it’s ok the be disillusioned for sure, but almost none of what you said is true, sorry.
The point of a degree is not to land you a job.
Adding an undergrad program does not lead to more government funding (lol) – let alone a grad one (more grant money? Uh? How?). Universities compete against each other, and surely they change programs to be more attractive, but none of that leads per se to more money. More headaches, maybe.
As per industry, as someone who also work with industry, I can say that they know how to be way more wasteful than academia, where you need to justify every single spent penny thrice. Fancy dinners? Right, we can’t even buy sandwiches for a faculty meeting. NSF barely lets you do necessary equipment and travel – and that’s before the current situation.
And more broadly, the point of industrial R&D and university research is different. All of the innovations of the last decades (or century) come first from basic research that only universities do (think mRNA vaccines) and support. Industry thinks way more about short term results than academia does, when allowed to do so.
I’m sorry you had bad experiences, and they’re surely valid. Go into industry if you think that’s better, most people do. Some people are happier there, some people are not. I know way more ex-industry people now in academia that would never make the switch back due to too much toxicity in the private sector than the other way around.
All in all, I would suggest that being in a Master degree is not really enough to allow you to make the sweeping judgments you made here, some of which are just plain wrong.
Eat more fibre.
Nothing in this post is either shocking or surprising to us in academia. I agree that “the goal isn’t innovation anymore–it’s survival.” Higher education in the United States is in a “correction” phase. Enrollment and funding would never increase infinitely. At some point, higher education in the United States would encounter significant decreases in funding and enrollment. The question is whether or not the correction will send American colleges and universities back to pre-World War II levels.
Most universities value impact more than the number of papers you publish. Impact is output. One paper at PNAS or CNS or even their subjournals is much better than a few LPUs at smaller journals.
Anyway, comparing industry characteristics with academia is comparing apples with oranges. The goals are different.
Groundbreaking research is the exception when the low hanging fruit have been picked.
Corporate squanders its wealth on hyperinflated upper management salaries. Your point being?
This perspective is entirely dependent on the school you’re at and the department within it. I got paid to do my masters and PhD, didn’t cost me a penny.
> so many degree that rarely lead to actual jobs
I’d like to see an evidence supporting this claim, especially when compared with people without a degree
> higher tuition
Hm, that’s not really the case for most of the eu, where fees are low in general
> professors and industry professionals
Which field are we actually talking about? Is it really applicable to higher education as a whole?
> wasteful – things that would never fly in the private sector
If only that was true! Inefficient, disingenuous banks had to be bought with taxpayer money to prevent the whole economy crashing in 2008. Tons of cash is wasted in startups that go nowhere. American healthcare system is much more expensive that in theEU countries and the US population as a whole is worse off. Last but not least, universities should be not just preparing students for job market, but also preparing them to be critically thinking and independent citizens
> making meaningful progress
How exactly does meaningful progress looks in history or social geography? And btw the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID‑19 vaccine was developed at the Oxford University
> Groundbreaking research has become an exception
By the very definition the groundbreaking research is an exception not the norm