|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 25 2016 02:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:20 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large. Peaceful world order? Depends what you mean, submission through work and poverty are pretty violent. And yes, that world order will end eventually. Everything that starts has an end. Maybe, with many "third-world" countries growing in economic power, it'd be better to end that order right now and create conflict right now, at a time when the Western world isn't behing the rest of the world in terms of economy, technology and military, instead of waiting until that order explodes upon our faces? are you under the illusion that people are poorer now? the rest of the post is basically suggesting war is growth in a zero sum game. terrible
People are definitely poorer now than they were ten to fifteen years ago, that's actually a fact, especially the financial crisis has greatly reduced wealth of the middle class.
|
On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die.
There's a ridiculous amount of overhead (my university has nearly 7000 administrative staff compared to just under 3000 academic staff, even when you cut out non-academic workers that's still a huge amount for an institution whose primary role is to educate), administrative salaries are going up and the difference is paid with tuition (while professors' salaries remain stagnant), but there's also a huge amount of money towards research and grants, and the law of demand (people are convinced the only way to succeed is with a college degree) means that tuition can keep going up.
Personally I wouldn't argue for free college. In fact I'd argue for fewer people to apply to college and more money invested in alternative, more practical opportunities. But I do agree that the costs need to drop, a lot.
|
On February 25 2016 02:42 Mohdoo wrote:LMAO. That is so insanely stupid. I am so proud to have not even heard of this phrase until now.
Really? Proud? I guess the bar has gotten pretty low.
|
On February 25 2016 02:44 Plansix wrote:
This is a very American post. Very American.
#1 economy in the world and back to back world war champs? Life could be worse.
|
On February 25 2016 02:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:24 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:20 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large. Peaceful world order? Depends what you mean, submission through work and poverty are pretty violent. And yes, that world order will end eventually. Everything that starts has an end. Maybe, with many "third-world" countries growing in economic power, it'd be better to end that order right now and create conflict right now, at a time when the Western world isn't behing the rest of the world in terms of economy, technology and military, instead of waiting until that order explodes upon our faces? are you under the illusion that people are poorer now? the rest of the post is basically suggesting war is growth in a zero sum game. terrible People are definitely poorer now than they were ten to fifteen years ago, that's actually a fact, especially the financial crisis has greatly reduced wealth of the middle class.
It’s not even that hard to prove. You just take minimum wage from 30 years ago and compare it to the tuition for Harvard and Yale. Then do the same for right now.
On February 25 2016 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:44 Plansix wrote:
This is a very American post. Very American. #1 economy in the world and back to back world war champs? Life could be worse.
Personally, I like the EU national self loathing to the American self aggrandizing. It just healthier.
|
United States43959 Posts
I do accounting at a university and the less the faculty are involved in management the better. My department only exists because 20 years ago they built an extremely expensive facility and nobody here understands a sunk cost fallacy so each year rather than close the entire department and "take the loss" they pump more good money into it to keep it running for another year. It's a great facility but it's chronically underutilized and the university has a second identical facility which is used a lot.
You have to understand that faculty cost around five times as much as regular admin staff and do about as much work towards running the place as negative two admins. For each department chair you need three regular admin staff, one to keep his ego inflated, one to do the work and one to do the work again when the chair rejects the work of the first one.
The issue isn't administrative salaries. It's tenured professors who do literally nothing but cause more work for the admins making a quarter mil a year (with the same salary forever once they retire) who couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery. This place would run far more smoothly if you got rid of the professors, the grad students do all the actual research anyway.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
people are not poorer now even in rich states and i was mainly talking about global poverty
|
On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS).
Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. Basically, much like a government bureaucracy, they expand expenditures to meet incoming money. The only way to fix the system is for an alternative accreditation scheme to be created (90% of the degree's value is tied up in the sheepskin and admittance effects). Probably, the cheapest and easiest thing would be for employers to use the ASVAB in screening employees.
|
On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. Basically, much like a government bureaucracy, they expand expenditures to meet incoming money. The only way to fix the system is for an alternative accreditation scheme to be created (90% of the degree's value is tied up in the sheepskin and admittance effects). Probably, the cheapest and easiest thing would be for employers to use the ASVAB in screening employees.
My state school feels like sleep-away camp. Can confirm.
|
On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for.
In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded.
|
On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded.
Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems.
Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006.
|
On February 25 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:
people are not poorer now even in rich states and i was mainly talking about global poverty
uhhm, yes they are poorer. In absolute terms, at least if we're talking about the median.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1936711/original.jpg
Real median income also has practically stagnated for decades.
|
On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006.
I dunno man, some of these TVs were extremely large. I hope you're right.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 25 2016 03:09 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:
people are not poorer now even in rich states and i was mainly talking about global poverty uhhm, yes they are poorer. In absolute terms, at least if we're talking about the median. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1936711/original.jpgReal median income also has practically stagnated for decades.
first you cant seriously compare post recession with a bubble peak that is just bad. i was referring to the free trade era aka post ww2 wto era. that is much longer than a decade. second though wage stagnated benefits have increased
|
On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006.
It always seemed to me that new real estate was the biggest vanity expense that added size but not educational or research value to the university. For example, new dorm rooms that are fancier when the old ones suffice or are not necessary because students could live at home.
|
On February 25 2016 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006. I dunno man, some of these TVs were extremely large. I hope you're right.
Construction of that scale doesn’t buy the TV from Bestbuy. They buy bulk, sometimes off brand generic TVs buildings like this. Most of the screens come from the same place and they are just all thrown into different TVs anyways.
On February 25 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006. It always seemed to me that new real estate was the biggest vanity expense that added size but not educational or research value to the university. For example, new dorm rooms that are fancier when the old ones suffice or are not necessary because students could live at home.
I agree to an extent, but TV panels are not the money sinks people think they are. Screens are fucking cheap, which is why we all have them on our phones. This is the dark future that Back to the Future 2 predicted.
|
On February 25 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006. It always seemed to me that new real estate was the biggest vanity expense that added size but not educational or research value to the university. For example, new dorm rooms that are fancier when the old ones suffice or are not necessary because students could live at home.
Yes, its mostly new construction + new permanent positions. These positions basically accept all the "busywork" for department heads and tenured professors leaving them to do...very little to justify the $100k+ salary they draw (adjuncts + grad students are paid very poorly for doing these tasks at a much greater frequency and with similar/sometimes higher productivity).
|
This is the dark future that Back to the Future 2 predicted.
Didn't it predict 9/11 too? 
|
Unless a professor is publishing or working on other things, there is no reason for them not to do some administration. Though lessons are a lot of work too.
On February 25 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Didn't it predict 9/11 too
They have not abolished lawyers yet, so I think they got lucky with that one.
|
On February 25 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 03:09 Plansix wrote:On February 25 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:On February 25 2016 03:00 cLutZ wrote:On February 25 2016 02:38 travis wrote:On February 25 2016 02:35 oneofthem wrote:On February 25 2016 02:34 OtherWorld wrote:On February 25 2016 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
bernie already is on the trump path except he's not saying racist stuff. free college, 15 dollar wage, declare isolationism etc. very shocking stuff I can get behing the fact that there are arguments going in favor of most stuff we Europeans find weird about the USA (extreme capitalism, extreme individualism, extreme freedom, etc), but I genuinely don't understand how is free college/free education something "shocking", let alone "very shocking" ? Not having free education means that (1) the natural effect of kids from higher sociocultural classes staying at the top (independently from their efforts) while kids from lower sociocultural classes staying at the bottom is not fought, which is not favoring meritocracy ; (2) on a societal level, you are missing on kids that could have made great things but didn't because they were stuck at the bottom of the social ladder, while giving money & jobs to kids that aren't exceptional at all and just had the luck of being raised in the right family ; (3) you force parents with lower income to do a relatively greater sacrifice compared with parents with higher income when saving money for their kids' education, thus also furthering current inequalities. How is that good for anyone? That's basically the creation of a static society, where where you come from (instead of what you do) determines what and who you are, and a static society can only die. have you been to a u.s. private college recently. it's a fucking day spa even state schools are expensive though, especially graduate schools (which is a big problem in itself because many students will end up having no choice but to go to an out of state graduate school which in turn will cost ASSLOADS). Yes, because even state schools engage in the ridiculous amenities creep that people lampoon private schools for. In both my undergrad and grad school, there were just so many TVs everywhere. TVs showing the most basic stuff. Usually just a single page of what looks to be a PDF file to show some kinda banner or chart or ad for a football game or something. Hard to not cringe thinking what the total # of TVs on campus may have been. So unbelievably unneeded. Screens in general are pretty cheap. Likely cheaper than a physical sign that you have to keep changing, because they you need to hire a person to handle that. Salaries, health care and are the real problems. Lets not be my home town that was confused by a school need a computer per classroom in 2006. It always seemed to me that new real estate was the biggest vanity expense that added size but not educational or research value to the university. For example, new dorm rooms that are fancier when the old ones suffice or are not necessary because students could live at home.
This is a big one too. A big marketing trick is advertising "state-of-the-art dorms" for freshmen and then having it covered by tuition or some nebulous "campus fee".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
