I enjoyed this. Why bother tut-tutting? Just move on.
(Disclaimer: I write for this Substack, but I've never met the author of this post).
Yes from me on knowledge exclusivity.
Yes from me on integrity.
No on feminisation - the causal link was hinted at but not fleshed out.
Reverse causality is very plausible ("feminisation is the canary of devaluation").
University jobs became commoditised and lower status, so men left for other pursuits. This is perfectly compatible with a feminist critique: "regardless of merit, men get more high-status jobs, and male-dominated fields secure higher pay".
Alternatively, administrative bloat is an omitted variable explaining both (a) feminisation of uni workforces and (b) devaluation of the uni product. Again: feminisation as canary.
I wanted to see the other causal claim explored ("feminisation contributes to devaluation").
Not because I have priors. But because the question is worth asking, even if just to reject the claim. No scientific question is off-limits, no matter the perceived offense.
Starting point: men and women are different (with wide distributions around the average). Men are confrontational; women conciliatory. Men focus outward ("understand my world"); women focus inward ("understand myself"). Men rotate shapes (fight the other tribe) and women intuit emotions (avoid fights in theirs). Men make war, women make peace. Etcetera. There are numerous such differences.
Therefore, as sex composition shifts, workplace culture and output will naturally shift. Often this is for the better (I'm glad my 7-year old goes to primary school in 2025, not 1925).
I can think of a few angles to explore vis-a-vis university education. No doubt there are many others.
Here are a handful.
1. Science demands confrontation between people. You do not sharpen ideas by appeasing the ego of the top dog. Agreeing to disagree does not help push along knowledge. Men should do better at science (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will not help science. Feminising uni employment might dull the culture of confrontation in universities as places of research.
2. Learning demands confrontation with oneself. You must whack your prior beliefs with new ideas that might prevail. Handling confusion, failure, and shame constructively is helpful. Women should do better at learning (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will help learning. Feminising uni employment will improve the culture of humility in universities as places of learning.
3. Teaching demands confrontation with the student while empathising with their emotional challenge. The best teachers break you, like men do best, but care for you, like women do best. So does feminisation per se help or hinder university teaching? It's not clear.
The claim that university feminisation is bad is far from self evident. For every man prepared to put a pointed, ego-destroying question to an eminent scholar I've seen another pose a flabby, ego-serving one to bignote himself. For every woman humbly acknowledging the limits of our collective wisdom, I've seen another unwilling to call bullshit on the man pretending to know it all.
Well, for one thing Tim, your reply is actually far more interesting and well thought out than the original article….
I appreciate maybe there is a kernel of a point somewhere in the original diatribe, it’s just so poorly expressed, that the whole thing is almost meaningless. Not to mention likely offensive, hence why there is such a strong negative reaction.
I found the original column clear. Right from the start I understood the basic structure of the argument ("here's a phenomenon, and here are three causes"). And the writer provided signposts along the way ("I talked about X, now I'll talk about Y").
I did not find the feminisation claim subjectively offensive (just unclear). And I also cannot see what is objectively offensive about posing scientific (causal) hypotheses. However I do appreciate some people find some things subjectively offensive even when others do not and none was intended.
Edit: FWIW I understood the rhetorical use of 'Indians' to mean "people who grew up needing and still today need to cut every corner to survive, exemplified by students from India", and it seemed more sympathetic than judgemental, but yes, on a crude screening test that looks for trigger words and stereotypes, I agreed this could certainly be read as racist, therefore offensive.
However I note that on Fresh Cricket Thinking.com the Indian authors use 'Australians' as shorthand for "cricketers that need to tamper with the ball to win", and we need not take offense from that, because it's true, taken in proper context.
The post makes valid points about the state of the university sector and the tertiary education industry, in how many Australian universities function as glorified degree mills, tolerate poor academic standards and treat foreign students as bags of money to be looted.
But the rambling about 'feminisation' is frankly just bizarre. To be fair to the guest author, he does states that he views feminisation as "the canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of devaluation" rather than feminisation being the cause of devaluation.
But his assertion that 'feminisation of male spaces is associated with devaluation' is based off selective evidence, and contradicted by other examples. He points to certain industries where the growth of female employment coincided with a devaluation of quality and prestige, but it's just as easy to point to other industries where growth in female employment didn't lead to a devaluation of quality and prestige.
Did the growth of female employment in the healthcare sector coincide with a decline in the quality and standards of doctors and surgeons? Did the growth of female employment in STEM related research fields coincide with a decline in the quality of research relating to the natural sciences and high technology?
I think most people would agree with the view that there hasn't been a devaluation of quality and prestige in these professions as these professions became more feminized.
And besides that, his ramblings about 'feminisation' don't really seem to have any logical link to the other main themes of the essay, the impacts of technology and immigration on the university sector. It seems like some unusual side tangent that could have been cut out completely, and the rest of the essay still would have made all of its relevant points. Completely irrelevant in relation to the rest of the essay
Oh, and some of his remarks and notions about what he refers to as 'Indians' are bizarre and crude.
Emphasis on the point of what he views as 'Indians' because he's sort of made an assumption that the people he's referring to are all from India, rather than any of the other countries of the Indian Subcontinent, whether they be Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan or Pakistani.
He didn't really know for certain where these people were from, he just made an assumption based off conjecture. 'They have brown skin, oh they must all be 'Indians'
This habit of making assumptions without evidence wouldn't be particularly important if it didn't bleed out into his ramblings, such as his off-handed remark that "Indians often have a different cultural value on cheating, coming from a highly competitive society with limited resources, cheating is a means to an end".
It's a crude assertion, based more off vulgar stereotypes than actual sociological or anthropological evidence.
Well, that’s a few minutes of my life I won’t get back. What a disappointingly low-quality and rambling post that struggles for coherence.
There’s no doubt that universities face serious challenges, but this critique reads like something lifted from a Jordan Peterson lecture—leaning heavily on racist and misogynistic undertones. Is the implication really that only white men are fit to teach at universities? That’s certainly the message it seems to convey.
I know Dr Murray added a caveat that he may not endorse the post’s message, and encouraged readers to see through to the frustration with Australian universities. But frankly, the author appears to have some other frustrations they should probably address first.
Dr Murray, if you can't see the logical problems in your guest poster's comments, I'm afraid it leads me to worry about the rigour of your own work. Yes indeed certain types of work have become more open to women than they used to be, but that is often because they became LESS well paid. Mr Quincy seems to assume that women librarians, lecturers, whatever, are intrinsically less capable and less intellectual than men - why? on what basis? Similarly, has he thought that why he has Uni tutors who are not fluent in English is because Australian Unis are paying so little to tutors and the work is so precarious that anyone fluent in English, whether male or female, is likely to be able to get a better paying job somewhere else? Surely it is the rise of the overpaid managerial class in universities at the expense of investment in teaching staff which is more the problem than so called feminisation!
**The Shift from Individualism to Victimhood Across the Political Spectrum**
It seems that the promotion of individualism and self-reliance has given way to a culture of victimhood on both sides of the political aisle. While victimhood has long been a component of left-wing ideologies, it reached new heights in the 2010s with the rise of wokeism. I had hoped that this trend would fade, ushering in a second neoliberal revolution in the 2020s with a renewed emphasis on self-reliance.
Unfortunately, as wokeism declines, it is being replaced by a new form of right-wing victimhood, where males are increasingly portrayed as victims of society. As a young man, I find this development deeply concerning. Those who once would have been dismissed as "losers" are now gaining traction by embracing victimhood narratives.
Even more troubling is the repurposing of far-left feminist rhetoric by these male victimhood peddlers for their own benefit. This shift reflects a broader cultural trend away from personal responsibility and resilience, towards a mindset that seeks validation through perceived grievances.
In this climate, it is more important than ever to advocate for a return to the principles of individualism and self-reliance, which have historically driven progress and innovation.
And to add to that, I have young adult male and female children (early 20's) who have both avoided Uni because of similar feedback from friends. Absolutely no interest in attending even though their entry scores are more than required.
If we get rid of exams, there is nothing to cheat, and zero value in simply showing up… because there is no paper at the end. Professional institutes can independently test for knowledge before awarding qualification to a profession. This can be done also by employers. After the first job, the value of your exam results quickly diminishes… so get rid of them and apply a rigorous application process at the sharp end: applying for a job.
New subscriber and very disappointed with this article that seems to be based on sexist and racist stereotypes and (biased) personal experiences rather that evidence. While I may or may not agree with the premise that university education is being devalued, I would have expected some evidence to support the claim and evidence to support the supposed causal factors.
My personal view is that demand vs supply is the major driver in any perceived decrease in the value of a university education. As university education has become more widely available, the value in the market has decreased. What was once scarce is now a commodity, and now the young people with real-world experience are the scarce resource, regardless of race or sex!
This is a pretty dumb post. Women’s income has risen a lot. Crudely taking university value as derived from earning potential feminization just shows that women’s earning potential is rising and will surpass men.
This is a really bizarre and frankly disturbing piece of writing. Very unserious treatment of its subject, I don't even trust that the writer has a real grip on the facts because he comes off so deranged. This reads like a school shooter manifesto.
I'm a new subscriber to this newsletter but I will be unsubscribing now.
Overall, this sounds like an echo of the 'should we allow women to study?' discourse of a somewhat-hundred years ago, with the occasional influx of 'I am not racist, but...' ('the Indian problem'—oh, the language!) and a bold nostalgic sentiment as to the times that never really were.
Old man yelling at a cloud.
If a major university enrols anyone with a pulse for the obscene money paid, regardless of capacity or willingness to learn, that's the problem, and that's it.
This is a disappointing post. Not sure what the point of it is. Everyone can give anecdotes. Trying to understand something rigorously requires some actual research and data. On the whole the post has a deep victim complex thats seeks causes everywhere except those that run universities (see the endless cycle of restructuring) and governments that provide the framework for them.
I enjoyed this. Why bother tut-tutting? Just move on.
(Disclaimer: I write for this Substack, but I've never met the author of this post).
Yes from me on knowledge exclusivity.
Yes from me on integrity.
No on feminisation - the causal link was hinted at but not fleshed out.
Reverse causality is very plausible ("feminisation is the canary of devaluation").
University jobs became commoditised and lower status, so men left for other pursuits. This is perfectly compatible with a feminist critique: "regardless of merit, men get more high-status jobs, and male-dominated fields secure higher pay".
Alternatively, administrative bloat is an omitted variable explaining both (a) feminisation of uni workforces and (b) devaluation of the uni product. Again: feminisation as canary.
I wanted to see the other causal claim explored ("feminisation contributes to devaluation").
Not because I have priors. But because the question is worth asking, even if just to reject the claim. No scientific question is off-limits, no matter the perceived offense.
Starting point: men and women are different (with wide distributions around the average). Men are confrontational; women conciliatory. Men focus outward ("understand my world"); women focus inward ("understand myself"). Men rotate shapes (fight the other tribe) and women intuit emotions (avoid fights in theirs). Men make war, women make peace. Etcetera. There are numerous such differences.
Therefore, as sex composition shifts, workplace culture and output will naturally shift. Often this is for the better (I'm glad my 7-year old goes to primary school in 2025, not 1925).
I can think of a few angles to explore vis-a-vis university education. No doubt there are many others.
Here are a handful.
1. Science demands confrontation between people. You do not sharpen ideas by appeasing the ego of the top dog. Agreeing to disagree does not help push along knowledge. Men should do better at science (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will not help science. Feminising uni employment might dull the culture of confrontation in universities as places of research.
2. Learning demands confrontation with oneself. You must whack your prior beliefs with new ideas that might prevail. Handling confusion, failure, and shame constructively is helpful. Women should do better at learning (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will help learning. Feminising uni employment will improve the culture of humility in universities as places of learning.
3. Teaching demands confrontation with the student while empathising with their emotional challenge. The best teachers break you, like men do best, but care for you, like women do best. So does feminisation per se help or hinder university teaching? It's not clear.
The claim that university feminisation is bad is far from self evident. For every man prepared to put a pointed, ego-destroying question to an eminent scholar I've seen another pose a flabby, ego-serving one to bignote himself. For every woman humbly acknowledging the limits of our collective wisdom, I've seen another unwilling to call bullshit on the man pretending to know it all.
Nice column. Thanks.
Well, for one thing Tim, your reply is actually far more interesting and well thought out than the original article….
I appreciate maybe there is a kernel of a point somewhere in the original diatribe, it’s just so poorly expressed, that the whole thing is almost meaningless. Not to mention likely offensive, hence why there is such a strong negative reaction.
Thanks.
I found the original column clear. Right from the start I understood the basic structure of the argument ("here's a phenomenon, and here are three causes"). And the writer provided signposts along the way ("I talked about X, now I'll talk about Y").
I did not find the feminisation claim subjectively offensive (just unclear). And I also cannot see what is objectively offensive about posing scientific (causal) hypotheses. However I do appreciate some people find some things subjectively offensive even when others do not and none was intended.
Edit: FWIW I understood the rhetorical use of 'Indians' to mean "people who grew up needing and still today need to cut every corner to survive, exemplified by students from India", and it seemed more sympathetic than judgemental, but yes, on a crude screening test that looks for trigger words and stereotypes, I agreed this could certainly be read as racist, therefore offensive.
However I note that on Fresh Cricket Thinking.com the Indian authors use 'Australians' as shorthand for "cricketers that need to tamper with the ball to win", and we need not take offense from that, because it's true, taken in proper context.
The post makes valid points about the state of the university sector and the tertiary education industry, in how many Australian universities function as glorified degree mills, tolerate poor academic standards and treat foreign students as bags of money to be looted.
But the rambling about 'feminisation' is frankly just bizarre. To be fair to the guest author, he does states that he views feminisation as "the canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of devaluation" rather than feminisation being the cause of devaluation.
But his assertion that 'feminisation of male spaces is associated with devaluation' is based off selective evidence, and contradicted by other examples. He points to certain industries where the growth of female employment coincided with a devaluation of quality and prestige, but it's just as easy to point to other industries where growth in female employment didn't lead to a devaluation of quality and prestige.
Did the growth of female employment in the healthcare sector coincide with a decline in the quality and standards of doctors and surgeons? Did the growth of female employment in STEM related research fields coincide with a decline in the quality of research relating to the natural sciences and high technology?
I think most people would agree with the view that there hasn't been a devaluation of quality and prestige in these professions as these professions became more feminized.
And besides that, his ramblings about 'feminisation' don't really seem to have any logical link to the other main themes of the essay, the impacts of technology and immigration on the university sector. It seems like some unusual side tangent that could have been cut out completely, and the rest of the essay still would have made all of its relevant points. Completely irrelevant in relation to the rest of the essay
Oh, and some of his remarks and notions about what he refers to as 'Indians' are bizarre and crude.
Emphasis on the point of what he views as 'Indians' because he's sort of made an assumption that the people he's referring to are all from India, rather than any of the other countries of the Indian Subcontinent, whether they be Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan or Pakistani.
He didn't really know for certain where these people were from, he just made an assumption based off conjecture. 'They have brown skin, oh they must all be 'Indians'
This habit of making assumptions without evidence wouldn't be particularly important if it didn't bleed out into his ramblings, such as his off-handed remark that "Indians often have a different cultural value on cheating, coming from a highly competitive society with limited resources, cheating is a means to an end".
It's a crude assertion, based more off vulgar stereotypes than actual sociological or anthropological evidence.
Well, that’s a few minutes of my life I won’t get back. What a disappointingly low-quality and rambling post that struggles for coherence.
There’s no doubt that universities face serious challenges, but this critique reads like something lifted from a Jordan Peterson lecture—leaning heavily on racist and misogynistic undertones. Is the implication really that only white men are fit to teach at universities? That’s certainly the message it seems to convey.
I know Dr Murray added a caveat that he may not endorse the post’s message, and encouraged readers to see through to the frustration with Australian universities. But frankly, the author appears to have some other frustrations they should probably address first.
Dr Murray, if you can't see the logical problems in your guest poster's comments, I'm afraid it leads me to worry about the rigour of your own work. Yes indeed certain types of work have become more open to women than they used to be, but that is often because they became LESS well paid. Mr Quincy seems to assume that women librarians, lecturers, whatever, are intrinsically less capable and less intellectual than men - why? on what basis? Similarly, has he thought that why he has Uni tutors who are not fluent in English is because Australian Unis are paying so little to tutors and the work is so precarious that anyone fluent in English, whether male or female, is likely to be able to get a better paying job somewhere else? Surely it is the rise of the overpaid managerial class in universities at the expense of investment in teaching staff which is more the problem than so called feminisation!
Thanks for the post. A refreshing change from house price chit chat.
The pearl clutching in the comments is even more entertaining than the post itself
!
**The Shift from Individualism to Victimhood Across the Political Spectrum**
It seems that the promotion of individualism and self-reliance has given way to a culture of victimhood on both sides of the political aisle. While victimhood has long been a component of left-wing ideologies, it reached new heights in the 2010s with the rise of wokeism. I had hoped that this trend would fade, ushering in a second neoliberal revolution in the 2020s with a renewed emphasis on self-reliance.
Unfortunately, as wokeism declines, it is being replaced by a new form of right-wing victimhood, where males are increasingly portrayed as victims of society. As a young man, I find this development deeply concerning. Those who once would have been dismissed as "losers" are now gaining traction by embracing victimhood narratives.
Even more troubling is the repurposing of far-left feminist rhetoric by these male victimhood peddlers for their own benefit. This shift reflects a broader cultural trend away from personal responsibility and resilience, towards a mindset that seeks validation through perceived grievances.
In this climate, it is more important than ever to advocate for a return to the principles of individualism and self-reliance, which have historically driven progress and innovation.
And to add to that, I have young adult male and female children (early 20's) who have both avoided Uni because of similar feedback from friends. Absolutely no interest in attending even though their entry scores are more than required.
Perhaps in the age of AI, there is another way…
If we get rid of exams, there is nothing to cheat, and zero value in simply showing up… because there is no paper at the end. Professional institutes can independently test for knowledge before awarding qualification to a profession. This can be done also by employers. After the first job, the value of your exam results quickly diminishes… so get rid of them and apply a rigorous application process at the sharp end: applying for a job.
https://michael-haines.medium.com/beyond-exams-a-new-model-for-learning-in-the-age-of-ai-0ce568b5cf94
New subscriber and very disappointed with this article that seems to be based on sexist and racist stereotypes and (biased) personal experiences rather that evidence. While I may or may not agree with the premise that university education is being devalued, I would have expected some evidence to support the claim and evidence to support the supposed causal factors.
My personal view is that demand vs supply is the major driver in any perceived decrease in the value of a university education. As university education has become more widely available, the value in the market has decreased. What was once scarce is now a commodity, and now the young people with real-world experience are the scarce resource, regardless of race or sex!
Thanks for everyone making the comments I came to make. Unsubscribe
What a dumb post.
This is a pretty dumb post. Women’s income has risen a lot. Crudely taking university value as derived from earning potential feminization just shows that women’s earning potential is rising and will surpass men.
This is a really bizarre and frankly disturbing piece of writing. Very unserious treatment of its subject, I don't even trust that the writer has a real grip on the facts because he comes off so deranged. This reads like a school shooter manifesto.
I'm a new subscriber to this newsletter but I will be unsubscribing now.
'I see feminisation in QUT... as lack of order'.
Overall, this sounds like an echo of the 'should we allow women to study?' discourse of a somewhat-hundred years ago, with the occasional influx of 'I am not racist, but...' ('the Indian problem'—oh, the language!) and a bold nostalgic sentiment as to the times that never really were.
Old man yelling at a cloud.
If a major university enrols anyone with a pulse for the obscene money paid, regardless of capacity or willingness to learn, that's the problem, and that's it.
This is a disappointing post. Not sure what the point of it is. Everyone can give anecdotes. Trying to understand something rigorously requires some actual research and data. On the whole the post has a deep victim complex thats seeks causes everywhere except those that run universities (see the endless cycle of restructuring) and governments that provide the framework for them.
This is just so sad, but very true.