Not that positive.
I read the comments.
Less positivity. Some lamented how academia was becoming a playground only for the socially elite. Some decried market logic.
What bothers me is that the brainless construct called market, as if it was the Oracle of Delphi, is simply and without any criticism accepted to be the rightful force that drives ultimately all value judgements and decisions in all areas including what counts as valuable profession and what contributes to society's progress.
I'll be honest: In my personal value system, anthropology, human sciences, ecological sciences rank quite high, right there with earth science and physics (my own training), but also including non-neocon macro-economics, while I see little use in all those many law schools and business schools. Sorry, Jenifer.
What is new information? The neocons tell us that the market should decide in which direction all economic activity, including learning, research, and teaching should be directed. The market (model) is a big stochastic machine that operates as the "invisible hand" which assigns value by trial and error, and controls the flow of economic activity by allocating money here and pulling it out there. The word free market is misleading because it is constraint to not go against the interests of few owners and members of the so-called meritocracy. But especially with regards to academic research, learning and discovery of new knowledge, most people are lead to accept the idea that freedom means to give the market all control about the direction we are supposed to be searching for new information and improvements in all aspects of living. It means that we put the control to a blind, barely understood "thing out there" which can give rise to all kinds of value judgments about professions. So for example, anthropology may be considered more or less a worthless market glut, while what law schools and business schools produce is seen as The information to tap the sources of wealth production. (Easy - it serves those in control). The problem is, this system is by principle bound to have tunnel vision. If all the sensors of a complex system (which includes our minds) are biased and focused only towards preselected potential sources of new information, and accept from those only what it expects according to its own biases, then what it gains as new information is very likely to be actually just old information, which is no information at all. That system begins to optimize its efficiency to the death. As they like to say: "The market has already accounted for it" (what it perceives that is). In other words, it is by design that we are just drifting and may not even know when we go over the cliff - While a few anthropologists may be trying very hard to prevent this from happening.
Some were chiding the article writer for her career choice as an Anthropologist.
A commenter named Bulldog710 had this to say about the freshly made Ph.D Anthropologist article writer: