Well, why even spend money to go to college if youāre not going to come out of it making even more money? Donāt you know what it means to āinvestā in our childrenās futures?
/s 
Thanks, thatās a good roundup, prompted me to subscribe. 
Iāll cross-post in the good news thread as well:
He makes some important points, like a major part of the problem is the cost and the tiered system (elite liberals arts, private schools, state schools, community colleges, etc). But I think he also reinforces the right wing talking points about āliberalsā dominating the universityā¦
Maybe, Profesor Llewellyn-Jones, itās because women are regularly denigrated in the history professor, especially in fields like the ancient world, long considered a manās purview?
Itās Fridayā¦ here goesā¦
My daughter saw this and sent it to me. If I use my academic title around her itās usually followed swiftly by a blunt clarification from the peanut gallery. 
A mathematician too, no lessā¦
Academics were doctors before medics dammit
Yes, but weāre still not considered āreal doctorsā by most peopleā¦ 
Because for most people, that means MDā¦
Hmm. Frustratingly long and kind of all over the place, and also kind of weird as a standalone piece, since it reads like the intro to a collection of essays. Good discussion so far in the comments though, with the authors chiming in. Itās still all pretty opaque to me, and I didnt emerge with any better ways of thinking about the end of any particular disciplines.
What did you think?
I guess I get where theyāre coming from - maybe itās time to re-think the disciplines and the university system in general, starting from an ends perspective. I think it might be the intro to their book, too or at least from itā¦ For my own field, I donāt really see how history can ever be ādoneā because, you know, shit keeps happening (whether we like it or not) and that does need to be understood in a systematic way, both to grok how we got here, and to understand where particular choices can lead. For me, that seems to be rather obvious a reason to keep funding historical research. How else can we make actual improvements to our institutions and structures that should serve us both in the short and long termā¦
But it does sort of also come off as a bit of ājustify yourselfā kind of mindset, as if the goal of understanding the world in a more holistic way isnāt a viable end in itselfā¦
Kind of a bit of a mess, for sureā¦ but maybe there is something work thinking about in there, too? Itās abundantly clear that the current system of higher ed has real problems that need to be addressed and not just from the shift to the neo-liberal model of education (where everything is designed to serve a profit motive). I have long thought that maybe rethinking our assumptions about higher ed might be helpful for all involvedā¦ itās a generational project, though, isnāt it? After all the modern research university did not appear in a day, fully formedā¦
I have not read through the comments yet, so Iāll do that and see what they sayā¦
Yes, to me too. I donāt think all those words and all that categorizing manage to brush away that fundamental reason for experts in any discipline seeking further knowledge.
And yet, as you say, rethinking academia structurally may well be in order, since it does have roots in social orders that in so many ways differ from those of today.
I donāt know though that asking members of any discipline to think about how their discipline should end is useful. Things keep changing on their own as it is, often in response to pressures from bad actors, but also from the effects of new knowlege.
I dunno. That whole thing seemed as much an excuse for an idea for another hot new essay collection as it does anything especially useful. 
Yeah, one of the authors makes that point in the comments, that the push to end history as we know it, specifically is from outside pressure, rather than inside pressureā¦
Isnāt that part of the problem at hand - that need to publish or perish has over-ridden more thoughtful scholarship? And of course, all of that is always in the service of career advancement vs. understanding the world in a more comprehensive wayā¦
It also strikes me that they do seem to downplay the structural attacks on the humanities in general, at least in this essay. Maybe their book would get into that a bit moreā¦ I wonder if some of this is just a kind of capitulation?
Iām honestly still a little baffled by the degree Iām going to have come December. Juris Doctor. It is, technically, a doctorate, but in name only. Itās considered equivalent to a Masterās degree in other fields, which apparently is why people with a JD do not typically use the honorific Doctor. Iāve heard of a few people doing it, but theyāre always criticized and/or made fun of for it. Then thereās the LLM, which is a Master of Laws degree, and is actually a degree youād typically get after your JD, which is super confusing. And then you can even go on to get a JSD, which is a true doctoral degree in law, which would allow you to call yourself Doctor. But very few people ever actually get that degree.
