ADVERTISEMENT

Quinnipiac Poll is not good news for Mrs.Clinton

I am not going to defend the tenure system. It certainly can be modified. If one Googles, one will see that conservatives are more likely than liberals to accept tradition as a reason for continuing with a policy. I don't have any reason to continue it myself IF it isn't serving a good purpose. I do think the concept serves a purpose as Goat points out, sometimes we need research into areas that may not be popular. Tenure allows that. Now maybe it has side effects that make tenure worse than the alternative. If so, we need to change or eliminate it. I'll leave that up to people who actually know.

But as always we are discussing something that isn't the real problem. Someone points out how the people that work in the system may be abusing the system and we all look that way. Meanwhile we ignore the total explosion of administrators and administrator salaries at universities. See story. From that link:

Administrators are not only well staffed, they are also well paid. Vice presidents at the University of Maryland, for example, earn well over $200,000, and deans earn nearly as much. Both groups saw their salaries increase as much as 50 percent between 1998 and 2003, a period of financial retrenchment and sharp tuition increases at the university. The University of Maryland at College Park—which employs six vice presidents, six associate vice presidents, five assistant vice presidents, six assistants to the president, and six assistants to the vice presidents—has long been noted for its bloated and extortionate bureaucracy, but it actually does not seem to be much of an exception. Administrative salaries are on the rise everywhere in the nation. By 2007, the median salary paid to the president of a doctoral degree-granting institution was $325,000. Eighty-one presidents earned more than $500,000, and twelve earned over $1 million. Presidents, at least, might perform important services for their schools. Somewhat more difficult to explain is the fact that by 2010 even some of the ubiquitous and largely interchangeable deanlets and deanlings earned six-figure salaries.

If you have any remaining doubt about where colleges and universities have been spending their increasing tuition and other revenues, consider this: between 1947 and 1995 (the last year for which the relevant data was published), administrative costs increased from barely 9 percent to nearly 15 percent of college and university budgets. More recent data, though not strictly comparable, follows a similar pattern. During this same time period, stated in constant dollars, overall university spending increased 148 percent. Instructional spending increased only 128 percent, 20 points less than the overall rate of spending increase. Administrative spending, though, increased by a whopping 235 percent.

That's a huge problem, Marv

My personal knowledge about that is confined to a single campus, and the views of many emeritus professors from that campus. They are of various political stripes, but they all say the explosion in administrative staff is astounding, soaks up huge chunks of the budget and slows decision making to a crawl. As a consequence, more and more departments are depending on research grants and outside funding to maintain quality faculty. This model encourages more low-level courses to be taught by grad students, many who have no interest in academic careers while the full professors work on grant funded research.
 
This is why I don't think we need to replace the tenure system. There are ways around it if someone violates the duties of their position. Getting rid of tenure - or just weakening it - to me is just a back door to firing professors for the wrong reasons.
Tenure doesn't mean you can't get fired. It means you must make a trail of paperwork , let the professor know the complaints, give them an opportunity to fix it, and if they don't, they can be fired. Like many other jobs. Every year tenured teachers and professors are fired. If those teachers or professors are abusing tenure, it's likely they have a lazy administrator.

That's not how tenured job actions work, Zeke

First you have an elaborate corrective action system. That can take up to two years depending on the system in place at a school.

Then you have the post action due process review apparatus than takes another academic year.

In all the educational institutions I know of the process typically takes about 3 years, meanwhile you have the turmoil of a divided staff and other crap to put up with. In a single K-12 school, this is a huge problem.

Not to expand this thread any more than necessary, one thing I don't understand is why a campus can impose a system on male students that can result in expulsion in a month or two after an accusation of rape, while that same university will protect a faculty member's tenure position and drag out the process for a couple of years when a faculty member has sex with a student.
 
I get that. But what if we make tenure revokable? How do we do it objectively so that we can be sure that it is only being revoked for not fulfilling obligations and not because someone has a problem with their research?

One easy way to start is to separate

Misconduct from poor performance. A teacher who abuses sick leave, or has sex with a student should not have the same tenure protection as a teacher who supposedly doesn't "connect" with students. The due process discharge hearing is fine in both cases, but a teacher who should be fired for misconduct shouldn't be entitled to the pre-termination corrective action process that tenure provides.
 
I think you and Walker are mistaken about the purpose of tenure. Tenure isn't meant to be a reward (i.e., for good teachers). It's meant to be a protection of academic freedom for those who might go against the administration or prevailing opinion, or study things that might be frowned upon, depending on the whims of his superiors. To give some Indiana-centric examples, it's meant to protect people like, say, Alfred Kinsey and Murray Sperber (although, I think in both cases, they had the strong support of the administration, you can easily imagine how they might not have).
The University of Wisconsin is a highly regarded public university. That's likely to change. Undermining tenure will drive the university's best professors elsewhere and discourage others from joining. Meanwhile, Walker's huge budget cuts will undermine the university's offerings and drive up tuition. This is exactly what's to be expected from a guy who has little regard for higher education.
 
But they are even more pissed off now, because he has done even more recently to decimate public education in Wisconsin. Just spent a week with several student and professors at University of Wisconsin. He once again slashed budgets, giving more money to charter schools and private schools, he cut $250 million from U of W budget, removed all of state tenure ( and surely you know you can get rid of tenured professors if you have cause), more vouchers. He is basically taking everything he possibly can from public schools and giving them to charter schools, more and more of which we see failing. The university is planning on getting involved in a big way in his campaign. And probably not the way he would like.
Sorry, that's funny. They're really, really pissed now! :)
 
The University of Wisconsin is a highly regarded public university. That's likely to change. Undermining tenure will drive the university's best professors elsewhere and discourage others from joining. Meanwhile, Walker's huge budget cuts will undermine the university's offerings and drive up tuition. This is exactly what's to be expected from a guy who has little regard for higher education.

Nah,

Professors follow the money, not the tenure laws. And the big money comes from endowed chairs and research grants. State general fund support for higher ed is down all over the country. Walker has nothing to do with this. Things like medicaid, k-12 education, and transportation are grabbing larger and larger shares of state budgets and are all higher priorities than higher ed. Some spending, like medicaid, have federal mandate requirements--especially those state that bought in to Obama's expanded medicaid funding that is now running out as the state obligation is increasing. That is unfortunate but that is life in the new economy.
 
Poll numbers dropping combined with headlines today that Justice Department is investigating possible criminal charges based on email issues. I am sure politically no charges will come forward but it just adds to the problems she is facing.
 
Nah,

Professors follow the money, not the tenure laws. And the big money comes from endowed chairs and research grants. State general fund support for higher ed is down all over the country. Walker has nothing to do with this. Things like medicaid, k-12 education, and transportation are grabbing larger and larger shares of state budgets and are all higher priorities than higher ed. Some spending, like medicaid, have federal mandate requirements--especially those state that bought in to Obama's expanded medicaid funding that is now running out as the state obligation is increasing. That is unfortunate but that is life in the new economy.
There's no basis for your confidence that this won't impair UW's ability to retain and attract talented faculty. It's true, though, that state support for higher education is trending down. (This is among the reasons why tuition is rising.) We'd be wise to reverse this trend and not double down on it.

In any event, I think it's notable that one of the GOP's top presidential candidates is adversely targeting his state's flagship university. I'd hoped that this model of low taxes, low services, underfunded infrastructure, low wages, no unions, and low education levels could be limited to the states of the Old Confederacy, where it intractably perpetuates social dysfunction. Unfortunately that old timey conservatism has gone north. Now every state can be Mississippi.
 
There's no basis for your confidence that this won't impair UW's ability to retain and attract talented faculty. It's true, though, that state support for higher education is trending down. (This is among the reasons why tuition is rising.) We'd be wise to reverse this trend and not double down on it.

In any event, I think it's notable that one of the GOP's top presidential candidates is adversely targeting his state's flagship university. I'd hoped that this model of low taxes, low services, underfunded infrastructure, low wages, no unions, and low education levels could be limited to the states of the Old Confederacy, where it intractably perpetuates social dysfunction. Unfortunately that old timey conservatism has gone north. Now every state can be Mississippi.

The problem is that states MUST balance their budget

I should have added the burden unfunded defined benefit pension obligations to my list of priorities. Illinois is trying to get out from under it and the courts have said no. Raising taxes is not a solution because the high tax payers will simply relocate to states with lower taxes and a more robust economy.

You can look at the trends of any state budget in the last couple of decades and see where the money is going. Medicaid, k-12 education, and pensions are among the biggies. Then you throw in social service obligations, transportation, and corrections, and it is readily apparent why higher ed is in the dumper. I don't think any of this is politics. It is just life in the world of demands on government far outpacing the recourses.
 
Nah,

Professors follow the money, not the tenure laws. And the big money comes from endowed chairs and research grants. State general fund support for higher ed is down all over the country. Walker has nothing to do with this. Things like medicaid, k-12 education, and transportation are grabbing larger and larger shares of state budgets and are all higher priorities than higher ed. Some spending, like medicaid, have federal mandate requirements--especially those state that bought in to Obama's expanded medicaid funding that is now running out as the state obligation is increasing. That is unfortunate but that is life in the new economy.
Huh? "The big money" is in endowed chairs and grants? What does that even mean, and how would it mitigate not having tenure? A professor at UW could take a job at Minnesota, write the same grant proposal, and have a more secure future, to boot.
 
The problem is that states MUST balance their budget

I should have added the burden unfunded defined benefit pension obligations to my list of priorities. Illinois is trying to get out from under it and the courts have said no. Raising taxes is not a solution because the high tax payers will simply relocate to states with lower taxes and a more robust economy.

You can look at the trends of any state budget in the last couple of decades and see where the money is going. Medicaid, k-12 education, and pensions are among the biggies. Then you throw in social service obligations, transportation, and corrections, and it is readily apparent why higher ed is in the dumper. I don't think any of this is politics. It is just life in the world of demands on government far outpacing the recourses.

Maybe he can find the money in the Buck's stadium bucket.
 
That's not how tenured job actions work, Zeke

First you have an elaborate corrective action system. That can take up to two years depending on the system in place at a school.

Then you have the post action due process review apparatus than takes another academic year.

In all the educational institutions I know of the process typically takes about 3 years, meanwhile you have the turmoil of a divided staff and other crap to put up with. In a single K-12 school, this is a huge problem.

Not to expand this thread any more than necessary, one thing I don't understand is why a campus can impose a system on male students that can result in expulsion in a month or two after an accusation of rape, while that same university will protect a faculty member's tenure position and drag out the process for a couple of years when a faculty member has sex with a student.
I guess it depends on where you are. That certainly isn't the case in elementary and isn't the case at IU. I can't speak for others. I know multiples teachers that have been through the process within a year.
 
The problem is that states MUST balance their budget

I should have added the burden unfunded defined benefit pension obligations to my list of priorities. Illinois is trying to get out from under it and the courts have said no. Raising taxes is not a solution because the high tax payers will simply relocate to states with lower taxes and a more robust economy.

You can look at the trends of any state budget in the last couple of decades and see where the money is going. Medicaid, k-12 education, and pensions are among the biggies. Then you throw in social service obligations, transportation, and corrections, and it is readily apparent why higher ed is in the dumper. I don't think any of this is politics. It is just life in the world of demands on government far outpacing the recourses.
The problem is also that Republicans insist on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy, paid for with spending cuts that hurt everyone else. In Wisconsin, for example, Walker cut taxes by $2 billion. This was supposed to produce an economic boom, but of course it hasn't -- instead Wisconsin has lagged both the Midwest and the Nation. (The situation is even worse in Bobby Jindal's Louisiana and Sam Brownback's Kansas.) While failing to produce any economic benefits, Walker's tax cuts have required (among other things) devastating cuts to Wisconsin's flagship public university.

As you say, demands for government services are increasing. Republicans have responded by cutting taxes and services. This is what the race to the bottom looks like. If Republicans like Scott Walker get their way, every state will be Mississippi.
 
Hilary declared war on investments made by the wealthy. Interesting strategy and that will certainly help pander to the far left.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/hill...crease-in-short-term-capital-gains-taxes.html

Clinton's plan specifically seeks to double the period of time for the 39.6 percent top capital gains rate (from up to a year to up to two years), and then institute a sliding rate scale until assets are held for more than six years.
 
Yeah. But even if he does win Wisconsin, he could still lose. To put it in perspective, if you assign the following swing states to the GOP candidate:
NV, AZ, NM, CO, IA, WI, GA, NC, VA, NH
You get 259 votes.
That leaves Ohio and Florida. Even by winning his home state and sweeping virtually everything else, Walker would still need to win at least one of those two to eke out a victory.
Hillary (or whoever) could literally concede every purple state, put all of their time and money into winning Florida and Ohio, and walk away with a win.
It's going to be a severe uphill climb for any Republican, no matter who they are running against.
A Walker/Rubio ticket would get you Florida. Walker/Kasich ticket gets you Ohio.
 
If HRC's problems continue, look for Dem PTBs to start getting behind Martin O'Malley. I've long thought that O'Malley would be a pretty compelling candidate - but, as yet, he's failed to gain any traction.

And I seriously doubt party leaders are going to warm up to the idea of having Bernie Sanders as their nominee.
 
If HRC's problems continue, look for Dem PTBs to start getting behind Martin O'Malley. I've long thought that O'Malley would be a pretty compelling candidate - but, as yet, he's failed to gain any traction.

And I seriously doubt party leaders are going to warm up to the idea of having Bernie Sanders as their nominee.
One of the ways the Democrats are similar to the GOP is that there is currently a disconnect between the leaders and the members. Party power brokers may look at O'Malley as a great candidate, but rank-and-file Democrats just don't like him.

If the Hillary campaign implodes (e.g., if this email scandal actually turns into something), the nomination is going to be ugly.
 
If Republicans like Scott Walker get their way, every state will be Mississippi.

If they don't, every state will be Illinois.

If big public sector spending was a magic formula for sustained economic strength, a place like Illinois (among others) wouldn't exist.

The best road map for contemporary Republican governance was laid out largely by Mitch Daniels. He kept taxes at a moderate level (trimmed and capped property taxes, but hiked sales taxes). The critical action was -- and will continue to be -- on the spending side of the ledger.

I think Texas has done very well, too. But a whole lot of their recent success can be traced to oil/gas action. And that obviously isn't such a huge opportunity for everybody -- though I do think states are wise to maximize what opportunities they have in that area. Prices won't stay low forever.
 
One of the ways the Democrats are similar to the GOP is that there is currently a disconnect between the leaders and the members. Party power brokers may look at O'Malley as a great candidate, but rank-and-file Democrats just don't like him.

If the Hillary campaign implodes (e.g., if this email scandal actually turns into something), the nomination is going to be ugly.

So you think Sanders would be a better choice for Dems? He'd probably lose every single swing state -- assuming he's not running against Trump or Cruz (and he wouldn't be).

Neither party can just take into account who is favored by the most ideologically stringent among their bases. That's how Republicans ended up with Goldwater in '64 and Dems ended up with McGovern in '72 (and I say that as somebody who adored Barry Goldwater).

Why do you think rank/file Dems don't like O'Malley? What's not to like? Don't get me wrong: he's way far away from where I am. Evan Bayh, he's not.

Forget platforms and positions for a second (and he's running to Hillary's left, I might add). What he's got is mojo. And, IMO, that is a far bigger factor in determining victors in presidential contests than policy positions.

If I were a Democrat, that's who I'd be supporting. I think that a lot of Hillary's support is the (mistaken, IMO) belief that she'd be a shoo-in. There really isn't much reason to believe she would be.
 
Technically yes. In reality, it is much more difficult than you are leading on.
Well I know exactly how difficult it was in my school system, as I was part of the team that sat in on meetings. I'm also very close with a superintendent in another district and have discussed it with him often. I'm not as familiar with the university policies, but I know a couple at IU that happened within a year.
 
Why do you think rank/file Dems don't like O'Malley? What's not to like? Don't get me wrong: he's way far away from where I am. Evan Bayh, he's not.

Forget platforms and positions for a second (and he's running to Hillary's left, I might add). What he's got is mojo. And, IMO, that is a far bigger factor in determining victors in presidential contests than policy positions.
Much of Hillary's strength is in minority voters. O'Malley, Sanders and Webb have none, giving her a big advantage. I do not see those three gaining traction there.

I get your point about about O'Malley. I like him myself. But the best example I can come up with is this, from the left the difference between Kasich and Rubio seems fairly narrow. Yet to the right the gulf seems more substantial.

I believe Sanders is feeding into Hillary's weakness. Hillary, as with Obama , has a lot of deals made with corporate America. I believe there are many in the Democratic Party looking for someone who isn't in bed with the various streets. For mainstream Dems, Hillary seems the choice. For stick it to the man Dems, it is Sanders. O'Malley has to pick which camp he is in and beat out that person. But I cannot see that happening.

Frankly Webb is the best candidate. If one's only goal is to keep the GOP out of the White House he is the obvious choice. I think he wins and it isn't close. But he will not win the nomination. Even I have no intent in voting for him. Hmm, given I never vote for the primary winner maybe he will.
 
Much of Hillary's strength is in minority voters. O'Malley, Sanders and Webb have none, giving her a big advantage. I do not see those three gaining traction there.

I get your point about about O'Malley. I like him myself. But the best example I can come up with is this, from the left the difference between Kasich and Rubio seems fairly narrow. Yet to the right the gulf seems more substantial.

I believe Sanders is feeding into Hillary's weakness. Hillary, as with Obama , has a lot of deals made with corporate America. I believe there are many in the Democratic Party looking for someone who isn't in bed with the various streets. For mainstream Dems, Hillary seems the choice. For stick it to the man Dems, it is Sanders. O'Malley has to pick which camp he is in and beat out that person. But I cannot see that happening.

Frankly Webb is the best candidate. If one's only goal is to keep the GOP out of the White House he is the obvious choice. I think he wins and it isn't close. But he will not win the nomination. Even I have no intent in voting for him. Hmm, given I never vote for the primary winner maybe he will.

Who is Frankly Webb? And what kind of a name is Frankly, anyway?
 
Shorter Aloha: "Unlike all the other times, this time this will absolutely be the very big deal I claim, even though the facts aren't what I said they were." [Rockfish: Just like the facts never turn out to be what you guys imagine they are.]
 
Well I know exactly how difficult it was in my school system, as I was part of the team that sat in on meetings. I'm also very close with a superintendent in another district and have discussed it with him often. I'm not as familiar with the university policies, but I know a couple at IU that happened within a year.

I'm talking less about misconduct and more about underperformance.
 
Still wrong.
Could be. But he starts with VA which is a nice state to go Dem. He would struggle in reliably Dem states. But unless he seriously underperforms he still wins CA, OR, HI and the rest. Just by less. Maybe not that much less, he will not scare many GOP voters, so a tepid Democrat turnout would be matched by a tepid GOP turnout.

I can see him running real well with poor whites and working class whites, which are two of Clinton's groups. Potentially putting WV, KY, and MO into play. He will struggle with educated white liberals and minorities

The problem is, Sanders and O'Malley seem to do poorly with minorities too. And poorly with poor whites. Again, I like Sanders a lot (enough that I probably will volunteer/donate for him) but his nomination will shrink the battlefield greatly. The same is true with O'Malley to a certain extent, though less so than Sanders. But he runs far better in wealthy white liberals than other demographics. That is not a group that expands battlefield states.

That leaves Clinton. She is both the strongest and weakest candidate. She runs well in that poor/working class white demographic and dominates minority votes. But her negatives are very high and there is Clinton fatigue. The 1000 GOP investigations into whether or not the Clinton's removed their mattress tags have had an impact. A lot of people are tired of seeing the name Clinton as a headline since 1991.
 
Gallup poll not good news for her either.

CKuLeOvUsAAI_aQ.png



Maybe because she is running the lamest campaign ever.



2365B0BBFB1234023367447896064_3c88b6e5fec.4.2.15427123923311565592.mp4
 
Could be. But he starts with VA which is a nice state to go Dem. He would struggle in reliably Dem states. But unless he seriously underperforms he still wins CA, OR, HI and the rest. Just by less. Maybe not that much less, he will not scare many GOP voters, so a tepid Democrat turnout would be matched by a tepid GOP turnout.

I can see him running real well with poor whites and working class whites, which are two of Clinton's groups. Potentially putting WV, KY, and MO into play. He will struggle with educated white liberals and minorities

The problem is, Sanders and O'Malley seem to do poorly with minorities too. And poorly with poor whites. Again, I like Sanders a lot (enough that I probably will volunteer/donate for him) but his nomination will shrink the battlefield greatly. The same is true with O'Malley to a certain extent, though less so than Sanders. But he runs far better in wealthy white liberals than other demographics. That is not a group that expands battlefield states.

That leaves Clinton. She is both the strongest and weakest candidate. She runs well in that poor/working class white demographic and dominates minority votes. But her negatives are very high and there is Clinton fatigue. The 1000 GOP investigations into whether or not the Clinton's removed their mattress tags have had an impact. A lot of people are tired of seeing the name Clinton as a headline since 1991.
But Marvin, have you ever stopped to think that if the Clinton's didn't continue to put themselves in the position to be investigated this wouldn't be an issue? The Clinton's aren't squeaky clean no matter how many times the liberals say they are unjustly being investigated.
 
But Marvin, have you ever stopped to think that if the Clinton's didn't continue to put themselves in the position to be investigated this wouldn't be an issue?
By serving in public office? Because that's all it takes. Benghazi!
 
But Marvin, have you ever stopped to think that if the Clinton's didn't continue to put themselves in the position to be investigated this wouldn't be an issue? The Clinton's aren't squeaky clean no matter how many times the liberals say they are unjustly being investigated.

What's a "liberal"? Just curious.
 
I see you're just being a dumbass, again.

I see you're deflecting again. Go ahead, give me a definition. I'm curious. What constitutes whether or not someone is "liberal" or "conservative"? Everyone throws around the labels, but can anyone give me a definition that applies exclusively to each?
 
I see you're deflecting again. Go ahead, give me a definition. I'm curious. What constitutes whether or not someone is "liberal" or "conservative"? Everyone throws around the labels, but can anyone give me a definition that applies exclusively to each?
I'll make a deal with you, when you stop throwing around insults about "conservatives", I'll give you a solid answer. Go ahead, lead by example.
 
I'll make a deal with you, when you stop throwing around insults about "conservatives", I'll give you a solid answer. Go ahead, lead by example.

Ok, I didn't think you had an answer. I insult republicans and democrats. I've used "conservative" in quotes because I'm not really sure what that is. Well, "conservative" and "neocon" to be fair. Are you a "conservative"? If so, what specific character traits and beliefs lead you to call yourself that? I don't call myself a "liberal" even if others do. I don't know what it means to be "liberal". I believe people should have equal rights and equal treatment, but someone who calls themselves a "conservative" might believe that as well as a "liberal". That's not all I believe in, just a small example.
 
Ok, I didn't think you had an answer. I insult republicans and democrats. I've used "conservative" in quotes because I'm not really sure what that is. Well, "conservative" and "neocon" to be fair. Are you a "conservative"? If so, what specific character traits and beliefs lead you to call yourself that? I don't call myself a "liberal" even if others do. I don't know what it means to be "liberal". I believe people should have equal rights and equal treatment, but someone who calls themselves a "conservative" might believe that as well as a "liberal". That's not all I believe in, just a small example.
I have an answer, I just don't think you can keep from insulting others who don't agree with you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT