I don’t disagree with AK’s gaming thesis - let me state that more plainly: I do agree very much with said thesis re: gaming and midwits - but he leaves out the most important gaming aspect of all.
Leftist tenured professors controlling who gets tenure in their department.
Creating an inexorable move towards more tenured, ever more leftist professors.
Such that I’m far less convinced that what’s going on at this point is “gaming”, as I think most of them now are indeed midwits who believe their (often-insane) hard leftism.
Which does mean I agree with AK’s Brokenist conclusion, since only by blowing up the current method of deciding who gets tenure, and either eliminating tenure or *somehow* replacing it with a system where mostly (classically) liberal folks get to make those decisions is there *any* chance of meaningful reform.
I agree the system for evaluating academics is gamed. I worked for a federal research lab and our employee rating system changed many times in my 30+ years, seemingly for exactly the reason you stated. Be that as it may, I'm skeptical it wasn't gamed in 1950, though maybe the gaming was more of a good ol' boy network and less metrics. I'm also skeptical that gaming the system accounts for much of the problems in academia.
That said, I'm curious what you think of this interview of the president of ASU. At ASU he seems to have addressed many of the problems in academia that you have complained about in the past. Maybe you even agree?
'Sonny Bono's Law', as told by the newly elected congressman to Chris Matthews on 'Hardball': "There are people out there who will game any system." That was his explanation to Matthews--after telling several self-deprecating jokes about his unique background contrasting to most politicians--as to why there should be more people like him in congress.
13 And I applied my heart to inquire and to search with wisdom all that was done under the heaven. It is a sore task that God has given to the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.
14 I saw all the deeds that were done under the sun, and behold, everything is vanity and frustration.
15 What is crooked will not be able to be straightened, and what is missing will not be able to be counted.
16 I spoke to myself, saying, "I acquired and increased great wisdom, more than all who were before me over Jerusalem"; and my heart saw much wisdom and knowledge.
17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I know that this too is a frustration.
18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge, increases pain.
This is what I like to think explains the tangled jungle that is Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, but the reality is it's probably a product of lobbying by healthcare lawyers, AARP, healthcare companies, plus some careerist fiefdom-building at DHHS.
Given who are most often the perpetrators in my state - the ability to evade scrutiny because the dominant or once-dominant culture find it either difficult or impolite to peer into immigrant subcultures - I find it impossible to talk about that sort of fraud without adducing immigration. And thus I would tend to blame judges, and Congress.
Things may be game-able and yet more or less gamed.
I actually didn't mean fraud, specifically. I meant what a pain it is for hospitals and other organizations to get reimbursed for legitimate services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. It's a bit of a nightmare.
Never forget that a very large percentage of the truly gifted don't even notice gaming possibilities. They may not care. They have way less incentive, even when it becomes a disincentive, to try to game the system because their skill set and talents are different.
For midwits to rise they NEED to game the system. It doesn't take many "climber" midwits to ruin the system by gaming it,
You consistently have good takes on any topic that involves human behavior and incentives—in fact better than most “professional economists”, because you worked in actual organizations that aren’t academic. Some of the personal revelations I’ve read from really really smart people (including Tyler Cowen) are borne of deep naïveté about what it’s like to work within an actual functioning managerial system. Anyway, thank you!
Administrators seem to place a premium on imitating "peer and aspirant institutions," which would presumably lead to a great deal of conformity in performance metrics (and, thus, the rise of midwits gaming those metrics). Do you think unimaginative practices like this can survive the harsh economic pressures that are starting to hurt the academy? I would like to believe those pressures will cause innovation, but right now administrators don't seem to notice the tension between acknowledging "higher ed is failing" and embracing the policy "let's imitate the rest of higher ed."
Also, is your argument sort of an application/modification of Goodhart's Law - that all performance metrics will be gamed, and so become bad metrics, but gaming them takes time, and so you can have good metrics as long as you change them regularly?
Way back in 1991, I was sitting in my Ph.D. advisor's office when a Nobel laureate's post-doc poked her head in the door. She said she'd been offered a tenure track position at another university but she'd have to teach and she'd never taught a class in her life. What should she do?
My advisor said, completely seriously, "It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how much money you bring into the University."
That was the day I decided I could not go into academia.
My observation from the outside over the last 35 years is that my then-advisor was absolutely right. The academic system has been rigged for some time so that scholarship is a byproduct at best of how you win the game.
“The result is a system that places a premium on conformity.”
Any system that values conformity often prioritizes predictability and cohesion over individual innovation. While this structure can minimize conflict and ensure smooth daily operations, it frequently comes at the cost of creativity, critical thinking, and organic growth, creating environments where people may censor their genuine ideas to fit in.
Such a system is destined to fail.
Why Conformist Systems Fail
Stagnation: Lack of diverse input halts innovation.
I think what's missing is why some institutions endure. Harvard is no longer a seminary. The US government bears little relation to it's 18th/19th century form. We can launder names and prestige as we re-found institutions.
This is very close to correct when it comes to the academy: I don't think the truly gifted are weeded out, at least not in the sciences, but a large population of midwits are indeed "weeded in."
Gaming works best when it is stable and predictable. Government bureaucrats like to lock in yesterday's status quo because they know how to game it, and being in government, they have the power to do so.
Whereas free markets change the status quo too often for anyone to succeed by gaming it; those who try end up gaming yesterday's status quo and risk being left behind.
Freedom == flexibility == survival of those who don't wallow in mud holes which dry up and lock them in the middle of the road.
I wonder though how this interacts with the question of regulation. It's a truism that ever changing regulations make long term planning difficult and are therefore a sort of drag on innovation. Are these two countervailing forces, or is there another way to think about the issue?
To put it another way, how problematic is it that people learn how to game the rules of the market itself, and is that a good reason to have shifting rules for it?
It seems axiomatic, but gaming grows insidiously to the point it's difficult to mend. American primaries are an example, and people shrug it off as "that's just the way it is." The gamers, in any system, are loath to change what they've gamed, forcing an outside agent or event to fix it.
I don’t disagree with AK’s gaming thesis - let me state that more plainly: I do agree very much with said thesis re: gaming and midwits - but he leaves out the most important gaming aspect of all.
Leftist tenured professors controlling who gets tenure in their department.
Creating an inexorable move towards more tenured, ever more leftist professors.
Such that I’m far less convinced that what’s going on at this point is “gaming”, as I think most of them now are indeed midwits who believe their (often-insane) hard leftism.
Which does mean I agree with AK’s Brokenist conclusion, since only by blowing up the current method of deciding who gets tenure, and either eliminating tenure or *somehow* replacing it with a system where mostly (classically) liberal folks get to make those decisions is there *any* chance of meaningful reform.
I agree the system for evaluating academics is gamed. I worked for a federal research lab and our employee rating system changed many times in my 30+ years, seemingly for exactly the reason you stated. Be that as it may, I'm skeptical it wasn't gamed in 1950, though maybe the gaming was more of a good ol' boy network and less metrics. I'm also skeptical that gaming the system accounts for much of the problems in academia.
That said, I'm curious what you think of this interview of the president of ASU. At ASU he seems to have addressed many of the problems in academia that you have complained about in the past. Maybe you even agree?
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/a-new-kind-of-university/
While you are at it, maybe you can address what's in this podcast about two-year schools.
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/15/nx-s1-5856534/community-colleges-are-kind-of-underrated
'Sonny Bono's Law', as told by the newly elected congressman to Chris Matthews on 'Hardball': "There are people out there who will game any system." That was his explanation to Matthews--after telling several self-deprecating jokes about his unique background contrasting to most politicians--as to why there should be more people like him in congress.
13 And I applied my heart to inquire and to search with wisdom all that was done under the heaven. It is a sore task that God has given to the sons of men with which to occupy themselves.
14 I saw all the deeds that were done under the sun, and behold, everything is vanity and frustration.
15 What is crooked will not be able to be straightened, and what is missing will not be able to be counted.
16 I spoke to myself, saying, "I acquired and increased great wisdom, more than all who were before me over Jerusalem"; and my heart saw much wisdom and knowledge.
17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I know that this too is a frustration.
18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge, increases pain.
Ecclesiastes, Koholet
This is what I like to think explains the tangled jungle that is Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, but the reality is it's probably a product of lobbying by healthcare lawyers, AARP, healthcare companies, plus some careerist fiefdom-building at DHHS.
All of the above and more.
Given who are most often the perpetrators in my state - the ability to evade scrutiny because the dominant or once-dominant culture find it either difficult or impolite to peer into immigrant subcultures - I find it impossible to talk about that sort of fraud without adducing immigration. And thus I would tend to blame judges, and Congress.
Things may be game-able and yet more or less gamed.
I actually didn't mean fraud, specifically. I meant what a pain it is for hospitals and other organizations to get reimbursed for legitimate services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. It's a bit of a nightmare.
Never forget that a very large percentage of the truly gifted don't even notice gaming possibilities. They may not care. They have way less incentive, even when it becomes a disincentive, to try to game the system because their skill set and talents are different.
For midwits to rise they NEED to game the system. It doesn't take many "climber" midwits to ruin the system by gaming it,
You consistently have good takes on any topic that involves human behavior and incentives—in fact better than most “professional economists”, because you worked in actual organizations that aren’t academic. Some of the personal revelations I’ve read from really really smart people (including Tyler Cowen) are borne of deep naïveté about what it’s like to work within an actual functioning managerial system. Anyway, thank you!
Administrators seem to place a premium on imitating "peer and aspirant institutions," which would presumably lead to a great deal of conformity in performance metrics (and, thus, the rise of midwits gaming those metrics). Do you think unimaginative practices like this can survive the harsh economic pressures that are starting to hurt the academy? I would like to believe those pressures will cause innovation, but right now administrators don't seem to notice the tension between acknowledging "higher ed is failing" and embracing the policy "let's imitate the rest of higher ed."
Also, is your argument sort of an application/modification of Goodhart's Law - that all performance metrics will be gamed, and so become bad metrics, but gaming them takes time, and so you can have good metrics as long as you change them regularly?
Most academic administrators don't even seem to rise to the level of midwit.
What do you believe are the rules and practices within universities that place a premium on conformity?
The most obvious one is the tenure system: how it is determined who gets tenure.
Way back in 1991, I was sitting in my Ph.D. advisor's office when a Nobel laureate's post-doc poked her head in the door. She said she'd been offered a tenure track position at another university but she'd have to teach and she'd never taught a class in her life. What should she do?
My advisor said, completely seriously, "It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how much money you bring into the University."
That was the day I decided I could not go into academia.
My observation from the outside over the last 35 years is that my then-advisor was absolutely right. The academic system has been rigged for some time so that scholarship is a byproduct at best of how you win the game.
“The result is a system that places a premium on conformity.”
Any system that values conformity often prioritizes predictability and cohesion over individual innovation. While this structure can minimize conflict and ensure smooth daily operations, it frequently comes at the cost of creativity, critical thinking, and organic growth, creating environments where people may censor their genuine ideas to fit in.
Such a system is destined to fail.
Why Conformist Systems Fail
Stagnation: Lack of diverse input halts innovation.
Blind Spots: Groupthink blocks critical risk assessment.
Delayed Response: Red tape slows down crisis management.
Talent Drain: Top performers leave restrictive environments.
Hidden Frustration: Enforced compliance breeds quiet resentment.
I think what's missing is why some institutions endure. Harvard is no longer a seminary. The US government bears little relation to it's 18th/19th century form. We can launder names and prestige as we re-found institutions.
So how does it get blown up? What to do in the meantime? What are the main features of the new design?
This is very close to correct when it comes to the academy: I don't think the truly gifted are weeded out, at least not in the sciences, but a large population of midwits are indeed "weeded in."
Gaming works best when it is stable and predictable. Government bureaucrats like to lock in yesterday's status quo because they know how to game it, and being in government, they have the power to do so.
Whereas free markets change the status quo too often for anyone to succeed by gaming it; those who try end up gaming yesterday's status quo and risk being left behind.
Freedom == flexibility == survival of those who don't wallow in mud holes which dry up and lock them in the middle of the road.
I wonder though how this interacts with the question of regulation. It's a truism that ever changing regulations make long term planning difficult and are therefore a sort of drag on innovation. Are these two countervailing forces, or is there another way to think about the issue?
To put it another way, how problematic is it that people learn how to game the rules of the market itself, and is that a good reason to have shifting rules for it?
Most of the regulations shouldn’t exist. Regulations and rules are not the same things.
My impression of regulatory regimes is that they always evolve for the benefit of the regulators, not society.
It seems axiomatic, but gaming grows insidiously to the point it's difficult to mend. American primaries are an example, and people shrug it off as "that's just the way it is." The gamers, in any system, are loath to change what they've gamed, forcing an outside agent or event to fix it.