Speaking about Universities. A cap should be put on what many professors & administration get paid. Many are already making more that what our Prime minister gets paid.
That is a surefire way to ensure that all talented individuals make their way into the private sector and the lowest common denominator teaches college.
This is another area where a delicate balance needs to be struck (like most things in this thread...)
My dad is in University Admin, and he says college president's are overpaid. so, i take his word on that.
Well, what's overpaid?
I think they top out at around $1M, and most of them are not making anything close to that.
But even $1M, while a big number, doesn't seem obscene to me when considered against the type of salaries that the doctors and lawyers who pass through these institutions are able to command.
Regardless, we're talking about private institutions, here, so it's not really the government's business, anyway.
He was speaking in the context of state schools, where presidents should be subject to more salaray scrutiny. agreed, private institutions can do whatever they please.
Well, how obscene can the salaries of state university presidents possibly be?
I'm sure that all of the salaries at the top end of the market--the ones edging towards $1M that I can see people getting bent out of shape over--are private.
Do you know what the numbers he was objecting to are? Just curious.
I think you are probably right about the private/public distinction. Don't know specific numbers on what he was objecting do. As I recall, he was echoing a growing concern in the academic community that more and more state president's were getting paid a lot more than what was published by the time housing, bonuses, pensions, etc. were factored in.
Like I said, he's always worked in public institutions and he's pretty high up the administrative ladder, so that is the area where he is most concerned with and I trust his knowledge. my mother, also a professor, echoed his statement. this isn't some, 'my daddy is super smart, and the last word on the topic.' just telling from whence i speak.
Haha... no, I don't doubt your father at all. I just wonder whether the numbers would be as wrankling to a disinterested taxpayer as they are to someone within the university hierarchy.
I'll throw this in as it seems relevent to the topic at hand- he spent almost 30 years at Miami University (Ohio) which, in 2002, I believe, became one of if not the first, public school to eliminate In State tuition. They found they had a lot of poor kids from out of state, and a lot of rich kids from Cleveland.
So, they blew out the entire idea of In State tuition, and went to a flat rate; then, state money that USED to be used to subsidize in state tuition was given as grants to in state students on a need basis.
I just say that because it was an interesting time to talk to him- as he was heavily involved in rethinking the entire Public School Tuition paradigm.
Comparing someone who works a dormitory dining hall to a department head, in terms of compensation, is not going to be very productive.
And it bears repeating, there are not many department heads making what the guy running this country takes home... even when you factor in book royalties which is how a great number of academics eat.
Not to get into things (Since I'm getting ready to leave for the day). But, I just find it mildly entertaining that an average department head can be making more money than the person running the country. Let alone the president of the institution who is making 5 to 10 times that.
This is so misinformed that it's laughable.
Like I said before, that may be a problem in Canada, but this thread is titled "What kind of changes do you want in the U.S. Government?"--in the U.S., the "average department head" is not making in excess of 500K, and I don't think any university president is making 2.5M to 5M ("5 to 10 times that").
Also, to the fact that while a professor can get a $20 to 30 thousand pay increase from the year before. People who work just as hard for the same place will get a 9 cents and hour raise.
25%+ raise compared to less than 1%. Something just doesn't add up.
Well, now you're arguing for a much broader redistribution of wealth. If that's how you feel, cool, but let's be clear: the problem as you define it is not universities, but capitalism itself.
Honestly, I think a lot of people in this thread just have some hostility towards higher education.
even when you factor in book royalties which is how a great number of academics eat.
This whole discussion is ridiculous.
The numbers for books pitched towards a popular audience are pretty meager--150K is a big literary hit--and the more niche-oriented books that one typically publishes to sustain a career within the academy don't do anywhere near those numbers.
I bet most professors could make more money off of a side gig waiting tables than off publishing.
-Increase farm subsidies for farmers across the United States. Eliminate reliance on foreign countries for foodstuffs. Encourage local farmers and agricultural companies to grow local foodstuffs and distribute them locally, be it co-ops or local supermarkets.
Are you insane!? The US produces more than enough food right now! We've got silos full of rotting corn because of farm subsidies making it economical to grow huge surpluses. Farm subsidies are the problem, not the solution.
The acid started kicking in near the end of your post, I could tell. I come from the country. Small farmers are getting their asses kicked by huge agrobusiness companies in California, Florida, and globally. If these small farmers are eliminated, and somehow (smirk) America gets into global conflict, who feeds us? Increasing the amount of corn available for ethanol is tantamount to making it a viable fuel option (along with creating more ethanol refineries). Not to mention, importing foods from around the world takes a huge toll in fuel sources driving/shipping it here, polluting foreign countries for our gain, and not supporting local businesses. Buying Chinese products at dollar stores and Wal Mart and needing a mango 365 days a year is a huge reason as to why the American economy sucks.
Before insulting me and calling me "crazy," read some literature about the global food supply. I'd recommend Who's Going To Feed China? I don't spout theories without having a lot of knowledge behind it.
I bet most professors could make more money off of a side gig waiting tables than off publishing.
Not so sure about that; people who've done significant work on books with constant circulation, text book type stuff and volumes like the Norton Anthology can get checks of up to 20-30k/year.
Not exactly enough to cop the yacht but you know, when you add it on to the baller-status salary that the universities are lacing them with...
I bet most professors could make more money off of a side gig waiting tables than off publishing.
Not so sure about that; people who've done significant work on books with constant circulation, text book type stuff and volumes like the Norton Anthology can get checks of up to 20-30k/year.
Not exactly enough to cop the yacht but you know, when you add it on to the baller-status salary that the universities are lacing them with...
No doubt--but there's only so much work revising the major survey texts to go around. On a lesser scale, if you can hit the spot such that your book becomes a commonly assigned work, then you're assured of a certain level of income from it. But even that relatively modest level of success is the exception. Most academic books are quietly ignored and mostly only purchased by academic libraries. It's one reason why books from academic presses are so damn expensive--nobody buys them.
I still maintain that, in the average case, the professor who opts to wait tables for four years instead of sinking four years into a book comes out ahead economically (I mean, ignoring what the fact that you spent four years slangin' filet instead of publishing is going to do to your prospects of getting tenure).
Comparing someone who works a dormitory dining hall to a department head, in terms of compensation, is not going to be very productive.
I'm not talking about working in the caf. And while my raise this years was much better than 9 cents. I know there are some around here who got that and do things that are much more valued than making food and picking up garbage. Lets just try to agree that there are many people out there making way more than they are worth and many more out there making less than.
And it bears repeating, there are not many department heads making what the guy running this country takes home... even when you factor in book royalties which is how a great number of academics eat.
I was thinking about what you said before. By your standards, shouldn't the president of the united states be making a few hundred million or more? Wouldn't that "ensure that all talented individuals" run for the position? Maybe thats why GWB is president...
Small farmers are getting their asses kicked by huge agrobusiness companies in California, Florida, and globally. If these small farmers are eliminated, and somehow (smirk) America gets into global conflict, who feeds us? Increasing the amount of corn available for ethanol is tantamount to making it a viable fuel option (along with creating more ethanol refineries). Not to mention, importing foods from around the world takes a huge toll in fuel sources driving/shipping it here, polluting foreign countries for our gain, and not supporting local businesses. Buying Chinese products at dollar stores and Wal Mart and needing a mango 365 days a year is a huge reason as to why the American economy sucks.
Wait a minute. Are we talking about preserving small farms or producing enough food in America? Are we talking about the viability of ethanol or producing enough food in America? The price of fuel or producing enough food in America?
I'd love to debate you on all these tangential issues you're bringing up, but let's keep it legitimate. Open a new thread if you want to talk about the morality of mangoes.
Before insulting me and calling me "crazy," read some literature about the global food supply. I'd recommend Who's Going To Feed China? I don't spout theories without having a lot of knowledge behind it.
You sure about that? Why recommend a book about China in this thread about USA?
I'd love to debate you on all these tangential issues you're bringing up, but let's keep it legitimate. Open a new thread if you want to talk about the morality of mangoes.
You are exceedingly insulting. You're being a condescending prick when:
A) You know nothing about research I've done on, say, Global Economics, Biology, Agriculture, and Land usage/Urban Planning. B) You haven't cited any facts or discussions other than your instincts and gut, which are deceptively wrong. C) You know nothing about me or my education. So take your fucking mouth off you fucking pissant.
China is going to need a HUGE amount of food in the future to feed their population peak and post peak population. They are at the same time destroying prime farmland. The food is going to have to come from somewhere. The issues I bring up are interconnected, but you can't see it because you're too busy be a condescending prick, so by all means, carry on.
Comparing someone who works a dormitory dining hall to a department head, in terms of compensation, is not going to be very productive.
I'm not talking about working in the caf. And while my raise this years was much better than 9 cents. I know there are some around here who got that and do things that are much more valued than making food and picking up garbage. Lets just try to agree that there are many people out there making way more than they are worth and many more out there making less than.
Sure. But I'm a little suspicious of this idea that universities are huge wasters of money that just need some limits set and some financial restraint. I think they should get more money, not less.
ADD THESE TWO THINGS TO OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!
1. Money management and credit education starting in 1st grade. Taken every year until graduation. Learn how to budget yourself, learn to avoid luxury items you really can't afford, learn to balance a checkbook, learn how to make your money grow. Learn about the stock market. etc.
2. Full health education! I mean knowing how to cook a healthy meal, knowing about what you're eating, knowing WHY you shouldn't eat certain foods, learning how exercise and diet effect you, etc. It's simply is not enough to make kids run around a track in PE if they don't know why they should be doing it.
i agree with everything Spelunk said. every damn thing.
and what the Non has been arguing about is the most important issue mentioned so far: subsidizing an array of small, local farms growing a wide variety and bio diverse range of fruits,veggies,grains. every american city needs to restore its green belt asap.
this ties in to another very important issue, heavily regulating land development and sprawl. there are too few incentives to rehab and restore. everything is new new new which is usually new construction in increasingly car reliant sprawled out cities and suburbs. how many of yall bitches can walk to work (or take convenient public transportation)???? re-localizing the economy, our food sources and our civic lives is critical.
and we should bring back public stonings for appropriate occasions
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
I'd also like the reintroduction of the electric car with a mandate that they should be 25% of all new cars on lots by 2008
it's not that hard
electric cars will consitute 25% of the new cars produced when 25% of car consumers want to buy the pieces of shit you totalitarian swine.
LOL. Dolo casts. reels. WHO GONNA TAKE THE BAIT????
what a tool
im not wild about electric cars though.planning that is car centered has little chances of ever being environmentally sustainable, no matter whats coming out the exhaust.
ADD THESE TWO THINGS TO OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!
1. Money management and credit education starting in 1st grade. Taken every year until graduation. Learn how to budget yourself, learn to avoid luxury items you really can't afford, learn to balance a checkbook, learn how to make your money grow. Learn about the stock market. etc.
2. Full health education! I mean knowing how to cook a healthy meal, knowing about what you're eating, knowing WHY you shouldn't eat certain foods, learning how exercise and diet effect you, etc. It's simply is not enough to make kids run around a track in PE if they don't know why they should be doing it.
ADD THESE TWO THINGS TO OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!
1. Money management and credit education starting in 1st grade. Taken every year until graduation. Learn how to budget yourself, learn to avoid luxury items you really can't afford, learn to balance a checkbook, learn how to make your money grow. Learn about the stock market. etc.
2. Full health education! I mean knowing how to cook a healthy meal, knowing about what you're eating, knowing WHY you shouldn't eat certain foods, learning how exercise and diet effect you, etc. It's simply is not enough to make kids run around a track in PE if they don't know why they should be doing it.
I like these. I think that #2 might hurt the vending machine contracts in school cafeterias, though. Then again, it takes a village, etc. How many US parents eat healthy?
I think we need to come up with a better way to implement policies than through tax incentives, if only because it's turned our tax code into a Kafka-esque comedy. If I'm expected to pay taxes, I should be able to figure it out by myself, not have to pay a 'tax professional'.
I think we need to come up with a better way to implement policies than through tax incentives, if only because it's turned our tax code into a Kafka-esque comedy. If I'm expected to pay taxes, I should be able to figure it out by myself, not have to pay a 'tax professional'.
Yeah, that would be very nice, though I don't know how feasible it would be. It seems like we're nearing the point where it would be better to just tear down the entire tax code and rebuild it from scratch than to keep adding layers to the tax maze.
Yeah, that would be very nice, though I don't know how feasible it would be. It seems like we're nearing the point where it would be better to just tear down the entire tax code and rebuild it from scratch than to keep adding layers to the tax maze.
And as nice as that sounds, if dudes like Steve Forbes want it, there must be some catch that I haven't seen yet.
not for nothing, but its pretty pathetic if you feel that its the responsiblity of the federal government to teach everyone how to cook for themselves.
Comments
I'll throw this in as it seems relevent to the topic at hand- he spent almost 30 years at Miami University (Ohio) which, in 2002, I believe, became one of if not the first, public school to eliminate In State tuition. They found they had a lot of poor kids from out of state, and a lot of rich kids from Cleveland.
So, they blew out the entire idea of In State tuition, and went to a flat rate; then, state money that USED to be used to subsidize in state tuition was given as grants to in state students on a need basis.
I just say that because it was an interesting time to talk to him- as he was heavily involved in rethinking the entire Public School Tuition paradigm.
And it bears repeating, there are not many department heads making what the guy running this country takes home... even when you factor in book royalties which is how a great number of academics eat.
This is so misinformed that it's laughable.
Like I said before, that may be a problem in Canada, but this thread is titled "What kind of changes do you want in the U.S. Government?"--in the U.S., the "average department head" is not making in excess of 500K, and I don't think any university president is making 2.5M to 5M ("5 to 10 times that").
Well, now you're arguing for a much broader redistribution of wealth. If that's how you feel, cool, but let's be clear: the problem as you define it is not universities, but capitalism itself.
Honestly, I think a lot of people in this thread just have some hostility towards higher education.
This whole discussion is ridiculous.
The numbers for books pitched towards a popular audience are pretty meager--150K is a big literary hit--and the more niche-oriented books that one typically publishes to sustain a career within the academy don't do anywhere near those numbers.
I bet most professors could make more money off of a side gig waiting tables than off publishing.
I demand that he come in here and answer for his half million dollar salary and his Curtis Jackson-like publishing revenues!
Are you insane!? The US produces more than enough food right now! We've got silos full of rotting corn because of farm subsidies making it economical to grow huge surpluses. Farm subsidies are the problem, not the solution.
The acid started kicking in near the end of your post, I could tell.
I come from the country. Small farmers are getting their asses kicked by huge agrobusiness companies in California, Florida, and globally. If these small farmers are eliminated, and somehow (smirk) America gets into global conflict, who feeds us? Increasing the amount of corn available for ethanol is tantamount to making it a viable fuel option (along with creating more ethanol refineries). Not to mention, importing foods from around the world takes a huge toll in fuel sources driving/shipping it here, polluting foreign countries for our gain, and not supporting local businesses. Buying Chinese products at dollar stores and Wal Mart and needing a mango 365 days a year is a huge reason as to why the American economy sucks.
Before insulting me and calling me "crazy," read some literature about the global food supply. I'd recommend Who's Going To Feed China? I don't spout theories without having a lot of knowledge behind it.
I've read essays for high school[/b] discussing Curtis Jackson's magnum opus "Pieces To Weight." Often, they spell it "Peaces."
Not so sure about that; people who've done significant work on books with constant circulation, text book type stuff and volumes like the Norton Anthology can get checks of up to 20-30k/year.
Not exactly enough to cop the yacht but you know, when you add it on to the baller-status salary that the universities are lacing them with...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Mr. Bush, shot down
No doubt--but there's only so much work revising the major survey texts to go around. On a lesser scale, if you can hit the spot such that your book becomes a commonly assigned work, then you're assured of a certain level of income from it. But even that relatively modest level of success is the exception. Most academic books are quietly ignored and mostly only purchased by academic libraries. It's one reason why books from academic presses are so damn expensive--nobody buys them.
I still maintain that, in the average case, the professor who opts to wait tables for four years instead of sinking four years into a book comes out ahead economically (I mean, ignoring what the fact that you spent four years slangin' filet instead of publishing is going to do to your prospects of getting tenure).
Nonetheless, I'm waiting to hear Oliver's explanation for his jet setting, tag popping ways.
Let's just say the man ain't called "Dub" because of pause tapes.
I'm not talking about working in the caf. And while my raise this years was much better than 9 cents. I know there are some around here who got that and do things that are much more valued than making food and picking up garbage. Lets just try to agree that there are many people out there making way more than they are worth and many more out there making less than.
I was thinking about what you said before. By your standards, shouldn't the president of the united states be making a few hundred million or more? Wouldn't that "ensure that all talented individuals" run for the position? Maybe thats why GWB is president...
Wait a minute. Are we talking about preserving small farms or producing enough food in America? Are we talking about the viability of ethanol or producing enough food in America? The price of fuel or producing enough food in America?
I'd love to debate you on all these tangential issues you're bringing up, but let's keep it legitimate. Open a new thread if you want to talk about the morality of mangoes.
You sure about that? Why recommend a book about China in this thread about USA?
Location up for grabs!
You are exceedingly insulting. You're being a condescending prick when:
A) You know nothing about research I've done on, say, Global Economics, Biology, Agriculture, and Land usage/Urban Planning.
B) You haven't cited any facts or discussions other than your instincts and gut, which are deceptively wrong.
C) You know nothing about me or my education. So take your fucking mouth off you fucking pissant.
China is going to need a HUGE amount of food in the future to feed their population peak and post peak population. They are at the same time destroying prime farmland. The food is going to have to come from somewhere. The issues I bring up are interconnected, but you can't see it because you're too busy be a condescending prick, so by all means, carry on.
It's too long to fit in the Location text box display. awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Why are we talking about China in this thread, though? Seriously.
I was talking about China because Chinese issues are important to the global economy as a whole.
I apologize for name calling, but Van Damme, those sassy comments were pissing me off.
Then let's talk about it. In a thread that's not about the US.
Friend, it's just ones and zeroes. No need to get the blood boiling, see? Let's be friends instead
Sure. But I'm a little suspicious of this idea that universities are huge wasters of money that just need some limits set and some financial restraint. I think they should get more money, not less.
1. Money management and credit education starting in 1st grade. Taken every year until graduation. Learn how to budget yourself, learn to avoid luxury items you really can't afford, learn to balance a checkbook, learn how to make your money grow. Learn about the stock market. etc.
2. Full health education! I mean knowing how to cook a healthy meal, knowing about what you're eating, knowing WHY you shouldn't eat certain foods, learning how exercise and diet effect you, etc. It's simply is not enough to make kids run around a track in PE if they don't know why they should be doing it.
and what the Non has been arguing about is the most important issue mentioned so far: subsidizing an array of small, local farms growing a wide variety and bio diverse range of fruits,veggies,grains. every american city needs to restore its green belt asap.
this ties in to another very important issue, heavily regulating land development and sprawl. there are too few incentives to rehab and restore. everything is new new new which is usually new construction in increasingly car reliant sprawled out cities and suburbs. how many of yall bitches can walk to work (or take convenient public transportation)???? re-localizing the economy, our food sources and our civic lives is critical.
and we should bring back public stonings for appropriate occasions
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Thats my word.
electric cars will consitute 25% of the new cars produced when 25% of car consumers want to buy the pieces of shit you totalitarian swine.
LOL. Dolo casts. reels. WHO GONNA TAKE THE BAIT????
what a tool
im not wild about electric cars though.planning that is car centered has little chances of ever being environmentally sustainable, no matter whats coming out the exhaust.
These are both very good ideas.
I like these. I think that #2 might hurt the vending machine contracts in school cafeterias, though.
Then again, it takes a village, etc. How many US parents eat healthy?
I think we need to come up with a better way to implement policies than through tax incentives, if only because it's turned our tax code into a Kafka-esque comedy. If I'm expected to pay taxes, I should be able to figure it out by myself, not have to pay a 'tax professional'.
Yeah, that would be very nice, though I don't know how feasible it would be. It seems like we're nearing the point where it would be better to just tear down the entire tax code and rebuild it from scratch than to keep adding layers to the tax maze.
And as nice as that sounds, if dudes like Steve Forbes want it, there must be some catch that I haven't seen yet.