This article and most of the comments ignore the social power dynamics and status quo institutional structures of academic science (Science 2): university administrators, power-broker faculty researchers, funding agencies (til recently), publishing companies, higher-ed consultants, etc. There are thousands of potential reforms that would bring Science 2 closer to Science 1 and generally make science life better. Those reforms are articulated by competent scientists and higher ed journalists every day. If you want to know why science reform isn't happening, ask which powerful interests are benefiting from the existing structures.
Power makes people stupid: powerful people can't imagine a world other than the one that brought them their power. They will say, "That's the way the world is." Let's encourage students to continue to imagine other possible worlds in order to challenge the status quo.
I've never really understood the sentiment that "articulation of a problem = solving that problem." Articulation seems to me to be Step 0 in solving a problem, there needs to be people on the ground advocating for why this new ideological framework is "better" than the status quo and actively convincing decision makers or acquiring decision making positions. Otherwise any amount of highly articulate complaints are just sophistry.
I think calling problem articulation "just sophistry" is overly reductionist. People who make the effort to articulate the problems (e.g., some Chronicle of Higher Ed writers) offer thoughtful readers other possibilities for consideration. Then, in the rare case that a powerful decision-maker perceives a tension in the status quo, there exist well articulated potential actions to resolve the tension. This is why think-tanks write white papers. The narrative that "people on the ground" is a necessary condition for reform dissuades thoughtful problem articulation. "People on the ground" is one way to influence decision-makers, but it is not necessary. Watch CSPAN when a septuagenarian Senator references his/her granddaughter's comment as influencing his/her vote.
I think a senator being influenced by a grand child is a good mental case study in productive dissemination of an ideology. There are many people in leadership roles who may sometimes be on the lookout for strategies to tackle problems, but the only way those strategies become actionable is if someone nearby 1) has had the idea communicated to them and 2) is able to rhetorically sway those commanding the decision making process (the is an instant victory if sufficient decision making position has been captured by allies). Ultimately the ideas themselves only gain material action with a dissemination network with a connection to the people making decisions.
I see. For you, "people on the ground" includes a grand child's comment. In my experience, "people on the ground" has implied "don't try to do anything on your own," which dissuades action and consequently promotes the status quo's persistence. When you say "dissemination network," I hear you saying a group of people is necessary. But a group is not necessary. A group is one possible way. But powerful people are influenced by far less than a group of people every day. See also: lobbyists. "Start a popular ideological movement" and "become a lobbyist" warrant very different life choices.
Unfortunately there are many popular ideological movements with little to no penetration in the structures that actually swing material conditions. That disconnect between the holders of an ideology and the existing power centers leads to intense cognitive dissonance. Generally organizing is helpful in achieving anything political (i.e. affecting distribution of resources). I feel like it'd be very hard to form a popular ideological movement without any form of collectiveness, as if a movement is one individual writing for themselves to read, it doesn't seem like it's popular.
The concept of lobbying itself has been basically shattered in our modern world with businesses having a near infinite amount of resources to exploit it. I don't think there's anything implicitly unreasonable about conveying your understanding of the importance, impact, and potential consequences of major choices onto key decision makers.
Most political lobbying pertains to matters that are completely out of the radar of news media. In fact if the topic you're lobbying on is in the news you are probably failing.
They tend to be intensely practical and specific, rather than hot morally heated topics. Like building infrastructure, securing a government contract, or amending/removing a new regulation from your sector of business (e.g. making sure a new law on tobacco exempts cigar manufacturers).
Established institutions become like organisms with feedback loops who like to maintain status quo akin to homeostasis. Any changes to the status quo is seen as a threat and is dealt with accordingly.
Power makes people stupid: powerful people can't imagine a world other than the one that brought them their power. They will say, "That's the way the world is." Let's encourage students to continue to imagine other possible worlds in order to challenge the status quo.