Thanks Scott Walker for killing Wisconsin Prof Tenure!

[Deeg]

@even_sven

And it’d be nice to get a CEO’s salary, a teacher’s hours and an employee discount everywhere.

True, but I don’t see anybody decrying the killing of CEO salaries.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Revenant_Threshold

I’m confused as to what government is made up of, if not people. Lizards?

Commies. Lazy commies.

[cornopean]

@wolfpup

Private institutions (i.e.- businesses) are in the business of making money. Period. That’s why they exist. If they deviate from that goal the shareholders or stakeholders can justifiably sue them, fire the board of directors, etc.

I would agree with this. but what you seem to miss is that those companies that earn the most money are the very companies that are best meeting the needs of people. A company’s profit statement is simply a manifestation of how well people like(dislike) their product or service.

so the truth is that the more companies try to maximize their profits, the better off we as a society are.

[ITR_champion]

@The_Hamster_King

Paying for research faculty is a long-term investment. Money spent on research now only leads to institutional prestige years in the future. Which means that there’s a strong incentive for universities to “eat their seed corn” by skimping on it. If a university stops funding new scholarship and instead focuses on courting wealthy donors and slashing costs, it can coast for decades on its reputation before the damage to its “brand” to become apparent. And by that point it’s too late to reverse.

The American university as we know it is a solution to a 19th century problem. It may have served decently during most of the 20th century. Now it’s a lumbering dinosaur.

The university is supposed to serve two purposes: education and research. In the 19th century, both purposes required bringing people together in one location. Universities brought intelligent professors together in one place, and generally required them to both teach and do research.

In the 21st century, neither research nor education requires that people be gathered together. With teleconferences, Skype, wikis, and other tools, ten people can easily work on a research project while scattered in ten different states, or even ten different countries. As for education, millions of people are already taking online courses. So both the main purposes of a traditional university can be accomplished without a traditional university any more.

Blockbuster Video went out of business because Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube used new technology to give people better, cheaper video. America’s universities will hold out longer because the government gives them money and doesn’t demand much in return. In the long run, however, their fate will be the same as Blockbuster’s. They have to adapt or die.

[cornopean]

@The_Hamster_King

Paying for research faculty is a long-term investment. Money spent on research now only leads to institutional prestige years in the future. Which means that there’s a strong incentive for universities to “eat their seed corn” by skimping on it. If a university stops funding new scholarship and instead focuses on courting wealthy donors and slashing costs, it can coast for decades on its reputation before the damage to its “brand” to become apparent. And by that point it’s too late to reverse.

This certainly could happen. but what’s the most effective way to fix this?

I suggest that the free market will quickly catch on and this institution will not get away with this for long. The word will get out and this business will start losing profits fast.

You want the govt to fix this, but I am not sure how you fix this with legislation. ?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cornopean

Govt is made up of people who are pursuing their own self-interest. do you think our govt is looking out for your best interests?

Unless you’re British, your government and mine are different.

But to answer your question; no, I don’t believe my government is looking out for my best interests. I don’t think people, writ large, are looking out for my best interests. I don’t think my neighbour is looking out for my best interests. I could probably count the number of people who are looking out for my best interests on my fingers.

Unless there’s some overlooked group of people out there who give a crap about my best interests, I’m not entirely sure why “the government don’t care about you!” is a useful point to make.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Shodan

I am glad you agree that there isn’t any problem. Walker represents the government, and the government IS the people, so he is clearly expressing the people’s will. And the unions, who are NOT the government, and therefore don’t express the will of the people, should shut up and not interfere.

Whoa, you skipped a step. Aren’t unions “the people”, too?

[cornopean]

@Revenant_Threshold

Unless you’re British, your government and mine are different.

But to answer your question; no, I don’t believe my government is looking out for my best interests. I don’t think people, writ large, are looking out for my best interests. I don’t think my neighbour is looking out for my best interests. I could probably count the number of people who are looking out for my best interests on my fingers.

Unless there’s some overlooked group of people out there who give a crap about my best interests, I’m not entirely sure why “the government don’t care about you!” is a useful point to make.

Ok…here’s the point. Since we agree that govt is not looking out for our best interests and we all agree that some govt is necessary, then isn’t it rather obvious that we should try to limit and minimize govt as much as possible?

We know that people are greedy and self-interested. now the question is…what economic system best regulates and channels this greed. I would argue that capitalism does this most effectively (not perfectly). In a capitalistic system, the greedier you are, the harder you have to work to serve people and to please people. The only way to get rich is to make something that everyone wants. That is an awesome way to channel greed. The Shark Tank is a perfect illustration of this.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cornopean

Ok…here’s the point. Since we agree that govt is not looking out for our best interests and we all agree that some govt is necessary, then isn’t it rather obvious that we should try to limit and minimize govt as much as possible?

No. You’d also need to show that the alternative wasn’t worse.

And, as an aside, I don’t think the government should be looking out for my best interests on a personal level. Nice as that might be for me, I care about the rest of you peons, too.

We know that people are greedy and self-interested. now the question is…what economic system best regulates and channels this greed. I would argue that capitalism does this most effectively (not perfectly). In a capitalistic system, the greedier you are, the harder you have to work to serve people and to please people. The only way to get rich is to make something that everyone wants.

No, it isn’t. You can also get rich by making something that only a few people want, but which they’re willing to part with for more than a more commonly desired thing. Or by making something that people actively need, but jack up the price. Or by cornering the market on some commodity. Or by reducing the excellence of your product so that it’s cheaper to produce, but still better than the best alternative. Or by misrepresentation of your product, portraying it as a thing that is wanted when it is not (or exaggerating). Or by arranging matters such that rival products cannot compete. Or… there’s probably a good many more things I’m forgetting.

[cornopean]

@Revenant_Threshold

No. You’d also need to show that the alternative wasn’t worse.

well let’s just look at countries where the govt does its best to look out for the best interests of its people. would you want to live there? Have you ever seen the Index of Economic Freedom? Would you rather live in Hong Kong or India?

And, as an aside, I don’t think the government should be looking out for my best interests on a personal level. Nice as that might be for me, I care about the rest of you peons, too.

I know it’s counter intuitive but those govts that do the most for their people, have economies and societies that are wretched.

No, it isn’t. You can also get rich by making something that only a few people want, but which they’re willing to part with for more than a more commonly desired thing.

I don’t understand.

Or by making something that people actively need, but jack up the price.

I don’t see the problem with this. ?

Or by cornering the market on some commodity.

the only way they could do this is if the govt prevented competition from entering this sector.

Or by reducing the excellence of your product so that it’s cheaper to produce, but still better than the best alternative.

what’s the problem with this??

[ITR_champion]

@The_Hamster_King

There’s a nation-wide war against tenure. In the 1960’s, almost 80% of faculty positions in U.S universities were tenure-track. Over the last 50 years tenure-track jobs have dropped to just above 30% of faculty.

This is horrible news for higher education in the long run for several reasons:

[LIST]
[li]Academic pay has never been that great compared to industry, but tenure provided intellectual freedom and security that attracted excellence despite the lack of dollars.[/li]

Have you heard about about what happened to Laura Kipnis?

There are threats to the intellectual freedom of professors, certainly, but they’re not coming from Scott Walker.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cornopean

well let’s just look at countries where the govt does its best to look out for the best interests of its people. would you want to live there? Have you ever seen the Index of Economic Freedom? Would you rather live in Hong Kong or India?

Ok, let’s do that. Define some standards and we’ll hash it out.

Personally I’d rather live in India, because I have extended family there. Strange that I’d make my decision based not purely on economic factors, I know, but that’s how it is with the people and the free market. We’re happily irrational.

I know it’s counter intuitive but those govts that do the most for their people, have economies and societies that are wretched.

Cites, please!

I don’t understand.

Let’s say you make and sell sandwiches as a business. Lots of people want sandwiches, so you can sell 100 in a day. You charge $2 a pop, so you’re making $200 a day - minus your costs.
I, on the other hand, sell diamonds. Not everyone wants diamonds, and those that do don’t necessarily want them every day, so I only sell one a day. But I charge $500 for my diamonds, so even though my market is smaller, I’m making more money per day than you are.

I don’t see the problem with this. ?

If I buy my sandwiches from Cornopean Cornucopia, and one day you decide to charge $3 for your sandwiches rather than $2, I am spending a dollar more per day than I had been. This is a negative for me (and a positive for you). I am now less able to afford other goods or services.

the only way they could do this is if the govt prevented competition from entering this sector.

If I have all the diamonds in the world, is it the government that prevents new diamond-sellers from entering the market?

what’s the problem with this??

It refutes your notion that greed can well be channeled by the free market. If I sell my diamonds for a ludicrous sum - let’s say a cool million for one - but all the other merchants are charging a million and a half, you have to come to me for your diamonds despite my ludicrous price.

[Lobohan]

@ITR_champion

Have you heard about about what happened to Laura Kipnis?

There are threats to the intellectual freedom of professors, certainly, but they’re not coming from Scott Walker.

That’s incoherent. Even if I accept that article at face value, how does that show that Scott Walker isn’t threatening the intellectual freedom of professors?

[Shodan]

@Revenant_Threshold

Whoa, you skipped a step. Aren’t unions “the people”, too?

No, not in the same sense. Unions represent their dues-paying members. Governments represent all citizens.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Lobohan

That’s incoherent. Even if I accept that article at face value, how does that show that Scott Walker isn’t threatening the intellectual freedom of professors?

Nothing has shown that Walker is threatening the intellectual freedom of professors. It doesn’t have to be disproved, because it has not been demonstrated.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bridget_Burke]

@Deeg

True, but I don’t see anybody decrying the killing of CEO salaries.

Let’s start killing them & find out–the public might cheer. When’s Walker going to start doing that?

Of course, I’m talking about killing CEO salaries. Not time for the tumbrils. Yet.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Shodan

No, not in the same sense. Unions represent their dues-paying members. Governments represent all citizens.

You seem to have subtly altered “IS the people” to “represent all citizens” here.

[elucidator]

@Shodan

…Governments represent all citizens…

What a good idea!

[mozchron]

Disclosure - I’m tenured faculty.

Walker has not proposed to eliminate tenure. Its much more subtle than that, and evil in its genius. Wisconsin had tenure standards enshrined in the state constitution (the only state that did this). Walker has this removed and put tenure policy with the board.

Sounds good right? Except that the board members are appointed by Walker. Does anyone think that this isn’t a backhanded way to eliminate tenure?

Tenure does NOT mean that faculty can not be fired. It means that faculty are entitled to due process before being fired. This doesn’t happen often, because mostly faculty do what they are supposed to do. But tenured faculty can be and are fired.

Tenure is in place so that faculty are free to pursue unpopular lines of research. Here’s an example of an oil magnate who tried to get faculty fired because he didn’t like their research: Oil CEO Urged U of Oklahoma to Fire Earthquake Scientists. Without tenure, why wouldn’t the University bow doen to a big donor and get rid of them?

Faculty who get tenure are, in the VAST majority of cases, not the types to coast. Here is the typical road to tenure (after graduating with a 4 year bachelors degree) for people in my science field:

1. Graduate school. This can take anywhere from 4 to >10 years. Lets call it 6 (pretty typical).

2. Postdoc. There aren’t enough faculty jobs to go around, so you usually do a postdoc. This is where you work for peanuts for a faculty member getting more training, grants and publications to make yourself competitive for a faculty job. A typical postdoc lasts for between 2 and 6 years. 2 or more postdocs is now the norm. Well call it 5 years of postdoc experience.

3. Get a job! Congrats, you just beat out 100 other candidates and got a faculty job. Now you work your ass off getting grants, publishing papers, and making an international reputation for yourself. This takes 7 years.

4. Tenure. Easy street. You only had to work your ass off for 18 fukken years after graduating from college! If you’re lucky, you might now be making 100K.

Does that sound like a good plan to anyone here? By the time you get tenure, some of your college friends might be retiring!.

Are there professors that abuse the tenure system? Sure. Are the the norm? Absolutely not. I have been at 6 Universities at various stages on my training and career, interacting with hundreds of faculty, and I can count the deadwood on one hand.

If tenure is eliminated, then Public University research stops. The good people will leave for private Universities that won’t be stupid enough to mess with tenure, and the rest will be replaced with adjuncts. We already have a name for Universities with no research component - Community Colleges. We’re just going to turn our public universities into community colleges that happen to award 4 year degrees.

[cornopean]

@Revenant_Threshold

Ok, let’s do that. Define some standards and we’ll hash it out.

the typical three are unemployment, GDP, and inflation. there are lots of others as well.

Cites, please!

The index of economic freedom: Index of Economic Freedom: All Country Scores | The Heritage Foundation

Let’s say you make and sell sandwiches as a business. Lots of people want sandwiches, so you can sell 100 in a day. You charge $2 a pop, so you’re making $200 a day - minus your costs.
I, on the other hand, sell diamonds. Not everyone wants diamonds, and those that do don’t necessarily want them every day, so I only sell one a day. But I charge $500 for my diamonds, so even though my market is smaller, I’m making more money per day than you are.

I am not trying to be obtuse here but I just don’t get your point or even what might be wrong with this situation. It seems perfectly acceptable to me. ?

If I buy my sandwiches from Cornopean Cornucopia, and one day you decide to charge $3 for your sandwiches rather than $2, I am spending a dollar more per day than I had been. This is a negative for me (and a positive for you). I am now less able to afford other goods or services.

again…I just don’t see the problem with this.

If I have all the diamonds in the world, is it the government that prevents new diamond-sellers from entering the market?

a good hypothetical but it doesn’t pertain to the real world.

It refutes your notion that greed can well be channeled by the free market. If I sell my diamonds for a ludicrous sum - let’s say a cool million for one - but all the other merchants are charging a million and a half, you have to come to me for your diamonds despite my ludicrous price.

why do I have to come to you? why can’t I just decide to not purchase a diamond?