…and this is a 
Unfortunately, it's the administrators who shape the faculty, and they too often lose sight of the purpose of their institution. Here's Eva von Dassow trying to remind the UM regents of their job.
Uh-oh. Von Dassow is in one of those liberal artsy departments, Classics and Near East Studies at the University of Minnesota. Now somebody up top is probably scrutinizing that academic unit and measuring its revenue generation, which, of course, is the true measure of a scholarly endeavor.
(via Left of Centre.)
Education
Politics
Comments
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 12:28 PM
Yes! Fantastic, she went after coaches' salaries.
It's repugnant that at many universities the highest paid employees are athletic coaches. Intercollegiate athletics is among the least important things universities do (I'd argue a good intramural program is more important than a good intercollegiate program).
Posted by: andrew h
|
July 10, 2010 12:39 PM
oh, that was awesome.. i guess there's a reason the regents are called 'regents', and not 'representatives' - their actions don't flow from the university or its faculty or its students, but from the demands of the state, which is most sensitive to ***REVENUE***...
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 10, 2010 12:44 PM
I find the American obsession with college sports, and the amount of money poured into it, absolutely bizarre. :-/
Not that we're exactly sane about it over here, either.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
July 10, 2010 12:44 PM
Oh be still my beating heart... I just fell in love again.
Was that a shawl Eva was wearing, or a superwoman cape?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 10, 2010 12:49 PM
man, that sounds familiar
Posted by: jidashdee
|
July 10, 2010 12:50 PM
MAJeff: Agree completely.
As someone not raised here I've never understood why minor league sports is in any way associated with universities. Does it bring in a lot of money that's spent on academics? If someone could shed some light on that I'd appreciate it.
Whenever I bring the question up with Americans I get nothing but silent blinking. Interesting that it's the same reaction I get when I ask why health insurance is tied to an employer.
Posted by: Sengkelat
|
July 10, 2010 12:55 PM
I alternate between fury and despair when I think of these things. How did the relationship between faculty and administration come to be so dysfunctional? Do the administrators not understand that the only reason their jobs exist at all is because the faculty teach classes?
...perhaps they understand it all too well, and that's why they're trying to turn universities into education-free sports complexes so they won't need the faculty any more. Ugh.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 10, 2010 12:57 PM
Some sports at some colleges do indeed bring in a lot of money. Most of it is direct, and this generally covers the head coaches' absurd salaries and stadium/fieldhouse upkeep.
But much more important is the indirect revenue: sports are the only strong connection between a college and its alumni, alumni are ceaselessly hounded for donations, and some of such donations might be used to help support academics.
It's also used as a recruiting tool for undergrads, whose tuition is more revenue (increasingly important even at public institutions).
Posted by: bcoppola
|
July 10, 2010 12:58 PM
At the US Social Forum in Detroit (the MoveToAmend session on corporate personhood) I heard people talking about a nationwide campaign against the "corporatization" of higher ed. Any word of that at UofM, PZ? Sounds like Ms. Von Dassow would & should get on board.
Posted by: phyzit13
|
July 10, 2010 1:07 PM
Being a student at the UofM, i see these budget cuts daily. one of my professors last year was limited the amount of paper that he could print for tests so much that he recommended we bring our own paper for tests because he could only give out one page per problem. (im in engineering, generally speaking, it takes 2-3 pages to properly write out a problem) everyday as i walk out of my apartment i look down the street at the brand new multi million dollar stadium that couldnt even fill the stands in its opening year. just about every night the school keeps some of the lights on in the stadium...and advertise that we are a "green school." it disgusts me when i see wasteful spending like that on the campus that i love. tuition keeps rising, but quality seems to be lowering. Von Dassow was right on in everything she said (and i personally loved her passive aggressive sarcasm), but unfortunately, im sure, none of it was actually heard or will be acted on. :(
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 1:17 PM
but unfortunately, im sure, none of it was actually heard or will be acted on. :(
I'm sure another administrator would make things better....
Posted by: Craig
|
July 10, 2010 1:29 PM
Damn. She's a good speaker. Now I'm mad at the UofM administration.
Posted by: Petzl
|
July 10, 2010 1:31 PM
She had me at "verbigeration."
Posted by: Petzl
|
July 10, 2010 1:34 PM
and "etiolated."
Posted by: briankspears
|
July 10, 2010 1:46 PM
Sad thing is that the same speech could be made in front of pretty much any Board of Regents in the US and the response would be the same: applause from the educators, and a nod/ignore from the Regents.
Posted by: gerard-harbison.myopenid.com
|
July 10, 2010 1:56 PM
Boards of Regents are generally the most extreme examples of regulatory capture in public life. Nominally charged with oversight over the university, they are almost invariably dependent on the university for the information they need to do their job. Even very dumb administators learn this quickly, and are careful to regulate the flow of information to the Regents so as to make sure they do exactly what the administration wants.
Posted by: Teshi
|
July 10, 2010 1:57 PM
How do you explain universities' survival that don't have giant expensive sports programs? Like... many Canadian schools.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
July 10, 2010 1:58 PM
Wow, she's amazing.
"This cash cow will be milked yet harder now..."
Loved it.
I definitely see the alumni connection with sports. It means nothing to me, I think I only attended on basketball game at NCSU before my graduation. None since.
Lot's of people I know get season tickets. Don't know how many support other parts of the school. Though the Horticulture Dept alumni are pretty supportive of that dept. Don't know about other depts.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 10, 2010 2:17 PM
Great speech, made with the proper emphasis to a bunch of weenies. Which gives my evil imagination the idea that anybody named Eva von Dassow might be even better in a leather corset and thigh-high boots giving the naughty regents a little of the old, uh, academic discipline.
Posted by: PS9
|
July 10, 2010 2:23 PM
I agree with what Eva von Dassow said, and sorry to go off on a tangent, but...
People here are commenting on the costs and claimed "revenue generating" of college football. Many Division I-A college programs lose money because of the bowl game system, not just the waste of money on facilities and coaching salaries. So why don't teams choose not to participate in bowls? Because they lose about six weeks of practice time for their players, which could put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. And why don't they go to a playoff which would generate larger revenues? Because those with the power to make decisions profit more from the current arrangement than they would be having a playoff.
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/college-solution/the-dirty-secret-behind-college-football-bowls/1231/
Part of why teams spend copious amounts of money are the demands of boosters and alumni. Without a successful football program, many boosters would stop donating money to the universities. If football declines, other departments will suffer.
To show how ridiculous some boosters are, Memphis University alumnus Fred Smith, CEO of FedEx, offered any BCS conference US$10million per year to take Memphis into a BCS conference, never mind the fact that Memphis is barely competitive in the Conference USA now, going 1-7 this past season. His "offer" was motivated purely by ego and advertising, not what's good for the university. He'd do more good donating that $10m directly to his alma mater, but that thought probably never occured to him.
Financial realities have hit in other sports (e.g. Formula 1 going from teams with budgets of US$500million a few years ago to a US$60million cap this year) and it will hit college football. Actually, it already has: Division II college and universities are scrambling to realign based solely on geography, just to cut down on travelling costs.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:31 PM
Part of why teams spend copious amounts of money are the demands of boosters and alumni. Without a successful football program, many boosters would stop donating money to the universities. If football declines, other departments will suffer.
So, boosters don't care about universities, they care about teams.
That's exactly the problem. Our university is in the midst of a capital campaign (when AREN'T universities in the middle of capital campaigns?) A couple alumni just endowed a chair, and others contribute in their own way. Sure, we've got the same-kind of egotisitic fuckwit that you describe at Memphis (except ours, dead now, threw birthday parties for Hitler). He contributed a new hockey arena.....
I hate collegiate hockey here. I hate that it's the only thing people in this town seem to care about. I hate that when a student athlete is kicked off the team for a semester, the news media talk about how he stayed in shape, but not how he remained academically eligible while working out in Canada.
The whole system is fucked. It's no surprise we're such a ridiculous nation.
Posted by: Schenck
|
July 10, 2010 2:34 PM
Sports is a business, and a profitable one, so why should it stop? I mean, unfortunately, its one of the sources of money for a college. Another resource though is grant money, colleges skim off some of that money, so in order to compete with the coaches, the professors need to bring in BIG grants, and also to promote themselves within and outside the university, like the coaches (and their teams) do.
#6 "Does it bring in a lot of money"
Yes.
"that's spent on academics? "
No. But it brings in money, presumably more than it costs to support (iow, its profitable).
"why health insurance is tied to an employer."
Because its a job perk? You can purchase it outside of your employer no? But when its tied to an employer, they are paying part of the costs, so its a benefit.
#7 "How did the relationship between faculty and administration come to be so dysfunctional?"
Different interests, different backgrounds (history and self-interest, powerful forces). Administrators are not responsible for the education of students nor the academic performance of a university (likesay, the research capabilities of faculty). They're not educators, they're businesspeople, and that's what their degress are often in too.
I mean think about it, the 'President' of a college is not an educator, does not need an educational degree, and CERTAINLY doesn't teach (maybe that should be a requirement, to teach, hell, at least 1 course a semester, or heck, one a decade).
At our school they even tried to make departmental Chairs part of the administration (iow, take them out of the faculty union). Divide and conquer eh?
#17 "Like... many Canadian schools."
Everyone knows that you guys live off of maple syrup anyway.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 2:38 PM
What's with using all those fucking words that no one even knows what the fuck they mean? Her speech was perfectly designed to preach to the choir and to befuddle--at best--or repel--at worst--those who aren't already in the choir.
BTW, her message is clearly correct: Never let a good crisis go wasted.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:43 PM
Sports is a business, and a profitable one, so why should it stop? I mean, unfortunately, its one of the sources of money for a college. Another resource though is grant money, colleges skim off some of that money, so in order to compete with the coaches, the professors need to bring in BIG grants, and also to promote themselves within and outside the university, like the coaches (and their teams) do.
And get television contracts too?
Seriously, though, it's not only the ways that athletics drain resources from education. The bigger issue is how athletics drive university policy and politics.
A thought experiment:
If the University of Minnesota were to bring home a national football title, who would the regents get rid of if there were a conflict between the football coach and the president?
I think we know, and that's the problem.
Posted by: CanadianChick
|
July 10, 2010 2:48 PM
Maybe it's because I'm an accountant, but I found her speech rather short on content. Biomedical research takes money to stay abreast of new technology and advances - what sort of equivalent costs are associated with English Lit or Ancient Greek? While I PERSONALLY don't understand the obsession with sport, before condemning it's share of expenditures, I'd need to see it's share of revenues. Hyperbolic comments about components of financial statements increasing over time rather lose their impact when referred to in a fashion that shows unfamiliarity (IMO) with what they mean.
I wonder if she'd be as passionate if it were biology or physics or accounting faculty that were being cut?
Again, it's the accountant in me speaking, but do classes that students WANT to take get cut or is it only this with declining enrollment that get cut? And if the classes are cut, wouldn't you HAVE to eliminate faculty??
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 10, 2010 2:50 PM
I've been in the absolute thick of this at my school, and I can tell you exactly what the retort will be: these are all separate revenue streams. The money the state provides for construction is untouchable for any other means. The sports is supported by an intercollegiate pot of money that is also barred from being used for anything else. The biomed facility and faculty are all being supported by outside grants.
It really is infuriating, because you can look at the whole picture and see dozens of ways to make the place work BETTER on the same or less money, yet the byzantine way the budget works makes it impossible to do it. And the whole time, the actual education of the students continues to suffer.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2010 2:59 PM
Her audience was a room full of academics, so her language was perfect. Jebus, PP, haven't you been keeping up with "framing"?
Yeah, CC, your accounting is getting in the way. Money to the university matters, but it's disbursement within the university should be about supporting the academic mission...and all those impractical, worthless, goofy disciplines like Classical Studies, foreign languages, philosophy, English, etc., matter. They are part of the training that makes students able to think about more than just how to maximize their paycheck.
We don't care quite so much about what students want to take, as what they need to take. If it was all about popularity, we'd be churning out biology majors who never took a math class.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 2:59 PM
Again, it's the accountant in me speaking, but do classes that students WANT to take get cut or is it only this with declining enrollment that get cut? And if the classes are cut, wouldn't you HAVE to eliminate faculty??
Often classes are being cut because of a loss of faculty. Last year, when i was on the market, I would guess that about a quarter of the schools I applied at canceled their searches. They didn't fill the positions. At other places, they're refusing to hire adjuncts to teach the full offerings. I was talking with friends in Mankato, and some departments have lost all of their adjunct lines. Grad student lines are also being cut, which means a cut in teaching assistants and, in some places, class instructors.
It's not classes being cut that forces a cut in faculty, it's the reverse.
Posted by: Mal Adapted
|
July 10, 2010 2:59 PM
Outstanding! That word describes some AGW deniers: "hockey stick hockey stick hockey stick..."
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 3:11 PM
Dude, did *you* know what those fucking words mean? I have a pretty fucking large vocabulary, and I had no idea what "verbigeration" or "etiolated" mean.
Humanities professors use words like that to (1) send a coded message to their humanities colleagues that they are "one of them" and (2) flip the bird at perceived philistines like scientists, administrators, professional school faculty, and regents. I do institutional committee work that includes humanities, science, and professional school faculty, and I see this shit all the fucking time.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 10, 2010 3:25 PM
Like PP, I find her text and delivery annoying but her message apt.
Posted by: four-thirteen
|
July 10, 2010 3:27 PM
I just graduated from the U of M. I can't say enough horrible things about the administration of the University. They squandered millions on academically useless sports programs while cutting desperately needed funding to real academic research, teaching and facilities.
The U of M puts education last on their list of priorities, rather than first on a list that should only contain two things: education and research.
I am with PP, the use of that highfalutin language does nothing to help communicate; it only drives a wedge between the audience and the speaker.
Posted by: chaseacross
|
July 10, 2010 3:30 PM
@PP
Awww, are you mad that the mean old humanities professors are kicking their fify cent words in your face? Let it go already.
Posted by: Foxbox
|
July 10, 2010 3:33 PM
If you'd had the chance to study Classics, you'd be able to work out what they meant :P
Posted by: Diane G.
|
July 10, 2010 3:34 PM
@ # 50--
Who doesn't know etiolated?
--Diane, botany major
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 10, 2010 3:42 PM
If PhysioProf were PlantPhysioProf, there would be no problem with "etiolated".
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 10, 2010 3:43 PM
I was surprised that a humanities person knew "etiolated". :)
I found her delivery to be a bit odd - she was kind of snide and condescending rather than passionate and outraged. But the message is a good one; if you don't take care of the basics, you may as well be ITT Tech for all that "education" will do you.
Posted by: waldteufel
|
July 10, 2010 3:49 PM
Her delivery style and message were both excellent.
When power needs a dressing down, "snide and condescending" works just fine.
PP, your ". . pretty fucking large vocabulary. . ." seems childishly focused on four letter words and their cognates.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2010 3:50 PM
Of course I know what those words mean! Verbigeration refers to obsessive repetition, and etiolated is pale and feeble. I used 'em both when I was talking to your mom about you last night.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 3:54 PM
She was speaking extremely fast--much faster than any decent public speaker would choose--because she was trying to cram her speech in to the allotted three minutes. You can hear the presiding officer of the meeting banging the gavel at the three-minute mark to signal that her time was up.
You seem childishly focused on the use by others of words that your mommy and daddy told you were bad when you were a widdle boy or girl. Grow the fuck up.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 3:57 PM
Dude, don't you have some religious fuck-ups to fuck with, or something? lolz
Posted by: waldteufel
|
July 10, 2010 4:00 PM
PP, Q.E.D.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 10, 2010 4:01 PM
Come to think of it, "verbigeration" could almost be a word W could have made up.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 4:05 PM
Yeah, QFED that you're a fucking officious intermeddler who pops a fucking stiffy scolding people for using "bad words". Now go clean the fucking jizz off yourself, you incontinent buffoon.
Posted by: mikee
|
July 10, 2010 4:07 PM
@PhysioProf
So the very eloquent Eva used a couple of words you haven't come across before. So what? It's not like her speech was excessively verbose or filled with a large number of uncommon words.
Not knowing the meaning of a couple of words hasn't obscured her point - that university administrators are dropping academic resources and standards in favor of sports programmes and paying for more management and admin.
I didn't know what "verbigeration" or "etiolated" meant either - until I looked them up on google. A dictionary is another option. Do you not see the use of unfamiliar words as an opportunity for YOU to increase your already "pretty fucking large vocabulary? Or are you of the view that when people communicate with you they should be restricted by YOUR vocabulary?
Posted by: herlathing
|
July 10, 2010 4:13 PM
I go weak at the knees when I hear a good mind talking like that, having been exiled to a rural area 25 years ago. I hadn't realised it before, but I see that universities are running into the same problem that health institutions have faced for some years. Too many administrators and lawyers, none of whom are going to go away. I came here to practice in a little 29 bed hospital, at a time when we had one administrator, a modest budget and we were very efficient. Now we have so many admin staff that there are people there whom I don't know, and they don't know who I am. The sad part is that to pay for all the admin, management and clerical staff, we have been cut to eight beds. We are evolving bit by bit into that aministrator's ideal hospital that would work its best without all those damned patients. I can see the same process is at work in higher education - imagine the regents' delight at running a university without the troublesome student body, the tiresome faculty, and gawd 'elp us, the postgrads.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 10, 2010 4:21 PM
Aw, did the mean humanities prof use some big words that PP didn't know the meaning of? What a nasty, horrible pedant she is. Poor PP, why don't you have a cup of cocoa and a lie-down until you can recover your fucking equilibrium?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
July 10, 2010 4:22 PM
Liberal arts programs are the first to go in a budget cut because everyone knows they aren't useful. Not to mention the fact that you'll never make a lot of money with a lib. arts degree. That should be reason enough to not even think about those majors! Never mind that some people might just be interested in or passionate about the Classics. Or who love to write. Or want to study the past (that would be me:)).
That pretty much settles that issue!
Squigit
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 4:25 PM
Of course I looked the fucking words up.
And try to keep your eye on the ball here. She wasn't attempting to communicate with *me*, and I couldn't give a flying fuck whether people use words I don't know when they communicate with me. The questions are *who* is she communicating with and *what* is she communicating to those people?
She was not attempting to "speak truth to power" or convince anyone who wasn't convinced already that everything universities do other than provide homes for humanities scholars is "waste". Rather, she was playing up to her humanities pals on the faculty.
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 10, 2010 4:25 PM
Heck, "verbigeration" was pretty obvious, although new to me. And "etiolated" has been in my vocabulary for quite a while. (It's even in the ms of my unpublished novel in a description of a poorly tended alfalfa field.)
And if academicians don't use them fancy words, the language could shrivel up to one-syllable four-letter words -- like I hear my students using. One wouldn't want that.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 10, 2010 4:39 PM
"revenue generation, which, of course, is the true measure of a scholarly endeavor"
Fans of "Dilbert" will recognise the influence of the pointy-haired Boss.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
July 10, 2010 4:45 PM
Fictional (and very funny) accounts of similar faculty downsizing:
SF author Connie Willis covered the subject, both in her novel "Bellwether" and the short story "End of the Cretaceous".
Posted by: blotzphoto
|
July 10, 2010 4:55 PM
"As someone not raised here I've never understood why minor league sports is in any way associated with universities."
Actually this is a fairly easy question to answer. Because College Sports, especially basketball and football, pre-date their professional counterparts by decades. The colleges are where football and basketball were formed long before the NFL or NBA. When the fledgling NFL was losing teams to bankruptcy every year throughout the 30's and 40's, big time college football at places like Notre Dame was already filling 100,000 seat stadiums. The NCAA basketball tournament is arguably a bigger deal than the recently completed NBA championship season. It looks odd bereft of the history, but it's important to remember that college football and basketball were not created to be minor leagues for the NBA or NFL. Quite the opposite... professional versionsof these sports grew out of their collegiate predecessors.
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
July 10, 2010 4:59 PM
We could solve the side-argument and get back to addressing the main issue with one simple test. Anyone wishing to be a University Regent or similar should take a vocabulary test, at about the level causing such coniptions above.
Yes, I knew both words though I admit to double-checking one of them which I do not use very frequently - proving once again the infinite superiority of a UK education and how very long its benefits last.
Posted by: ericwilliamlin
|
July 10, 2010 5:09 PM
@46.
Have you watched the great BBC sitcom Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister? There was this great episode (I believe it was "The Compassionate Society") about an empty government hospital that was in operation solely for the administrators--some 500+--but no patients.
Sadly, the show is from the 1980s and in 20 odd years, almost every topic that show covered and parodied is still painfully relevant.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 10, 2010 5:14 PM
I didn't know the words, and I didn't look them up, because the way she USED them made the meanings clear enough to get at what she was talking about.
And I also did not find her speech to be perfect, to have the polish of a professional speechmaker, but I also don't expect people who aren't politicians and who are talking about something they are emotional about (and therefore might not have perfectly smooth, unemotional TV newsreader presentation) in a rush to fit into an allotted slice of time, to come off as perfect, to not stammer, to not seem like a real person.
It's fucking strange what we've decided to consider important in this country, and how we've decided to judge ideas and the people presenting them.
Right down to the last little fucking detail we're a silly, shallow society.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
July 10, 2010 5:24 PM
Right down to the last little fucking detail we're a silly, shallow society.
USA! USA! USA!
What? Wrong time?
:(
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 5:26 PM
It's fucking strange that someone would leave this comment on a fucking *blog*. The whole point is to "judge ideas and the people presenting them". It's why fucking blogs exist.
PeeZee posted a video of a speech by an academic. It is only natural that academics will dissect the content and delivery of the speech.
And, frankly, I am surprised that people here aren't fucking grateful to me for decoding what this little speech was really all about. Just because you superficially like what she's saying, you drop all pretence of skepticism or desire to dig down below the surface and see what is really being communicated and to whom it is being communicated?
Posted by: spiderxray
|
July 10, 2010 5:32 PM
PP, disdain to acknowledge the obfuscatory intermeddlers and thwart their penchant to discountenance and pettifog. They cleave to scurrilous pedantry and eschew pellucid maledictions.
Posted by: Sanktron
|
July 10, 2010 5:56 PM
phyzit13
Your situation is the exact one I faced at Okie State. We built a huge football stadium(even moved a 4 lane road through town to accomodate) and every other part of university life has suffered. We also have a huge "green campus" push, and from what I'm told a decent engineering department.
We couldn't fill the stadium despite our team doing much better than it has in the past. I simply couldn't afford tickets.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 10, 2010 6:08 PM
Well, aren't you precious for "decoding" a straight-forward speech? Don't strain your fucking arm giving yourself a pat on the back, asshole.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 6:13 PM
PhysioProf @58
It's because, we're not grateful.
Because your argument was an unnecessary flare-up of the very problem. I.e. how humanities are seen as less than the sciences, uppity, need to be put in their place, or trying to justify their existence with meaningless "big words" and such.
In short, what she was doing was trying to communicate a dire problem in how we in America regard education in general and higher education specifically as a priority (i.e. we don't).
What "she was doing" versus "what you were doing", only one actually has a negative and nasty subtext of parochial divide and conquer techniques.
And furthermore, as a fellow science-degree holder wanting to go into academia, I know damn well I need to stick up for the humanities.
Not just because they aren't actually useless and provide very key information and education critical for having a well-educated population, but also for selfish reasons as well.
As we've seen, once the reagents have drained all the blood from the stone of the humanities that they can, they start cutting back on the sciences that they see as the least directly profitable and from there, the sciences in general.
Want to lose geology departments? Evolutionary biology departments? Physiology departments?
Want the only thing left in universities to be a place one can get an MBA and the sports stadium?
If not, then we are united as one as academics and aspiring academics and we need to tackle the problem at its source, which is the way education is valued socially and politically.
In short, we don't. We like sports, we like "tax cuts", we like prisons, but funding priorities reveal again and again that a good majority of citizens would gladly see the schools burn than risk having higher taxes to fund them.
And that needs to change.
As does the attitude among administrators that universities should be run like capitalist businesses rather than public services.
Posted by: mikee
|
July 10, 2010 6:17 PM
All hail, PhysioProf. Thank you so much for taking your precious time to explain to us poor saps what the speech really meant. Pray tell us why you are so sure that your interpretation of Eva's speech is correct? Do you have some telepathic link to her?
You claim to be skeptical yet imply that YOUR cynical interpretation of Eva's words is the correct one without any objective evidence to support this hypothesis other than what seems to me to be a very subjective interpretation of her choice of words and demeanour?
I have to wonder if there is some self interest or bias involved? Does the name Physioprof mean you are involved in sports at a university level?
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 6:23 PM
Addendum to myself @62
Also, you know what? Us academics get in the habit of using "big words" all the fucking time. It ends up being natural to us because it's in all the papers we are reading, the textbooks we are using, the conversations with other academics, not because we want to make Physiology Professors look stupid in some great big academic pissing contest, but because it's become common usage.
Almost every time I have a conversation with friends and family who are out of my speciality, I'll get some bizarre praise for "high vocabulary" or "that sounded smart" and it infuriates me, because it isn't "high-falutin' knowledge", it's just the vocabulary one ends up using in X field because of the classes and reading material one has had.
An artist will use terms and references I won't recognize off hand. Hell, even a plumber will.
And frankly, the knee-jerk resentment you displayed PhysioProf to words that weren't instantly recognizable to your field of expertise is the problem.
Not that you need to change, but that there is a steady belief in America that gaining knowledge is inherently insidious. That people want to grow smarter, expand knowledge-bases and vocabularies not because they are interested or its a natural result of simply reading lots of works, but because they "want to be better than you". I.e. they want to trigger people's resentment of knowledge, that it's something done not for its own sake, not for society's sake, but for the sake of enforcing (especially class) hierarchies.
This resentment comes in at the ballot box which leads to massive underfunding of higher and lower education. It comes in at the administrators who bow to the pressure and believe that anything that doesn't directly tie to millionaires donating wings is a useless discipline.
And it comes in socially with hordes of resentful morons with no real biology education or climate science education just going "well my gut don't believe in evolution or global warming, so damnitt, it's not really happening."
It's a virus at the heart of America.
And until we get over our knee-jerk resentments, carefully trained by a diseased society, we can't start work on the cure.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 10, 2010 6:32 PM
Word choice is besides the point. Classics profs get used to wielding their big, gnarly vocabularies and it is hard to get all monosyllabic again--I'll forgive it. The message is reasonable, and I am empathetic with any hard-working faculty member singing for her supper*. H
However, her tone seems to be counter to what I perceive her goal to be: persuasion. The people who ultimately make these decisions (regents/chancellors/presidents) are very important. Maybe in some movie (like, Scent of a Woman**, this kind of shit would work. However, if 1) I believed that I was very important, and 2) I was already inclined to can a segment of the faculty responsible for very little revenue generation, Dr. van Dassow would be first in-line, after this screed. An honest plea would have been more effective***. You can cut to the sarcasm after you get canned. Or have your attorney handle the speech, better yet.
*I'm more of a dancing bear. It's the way I choose to live.
**Hoowah.
***Maybe pride does not permit it in van Dassow's case. I'm not that principled.
Posted by: mikee
|
July 10, 2010 6:35 PM
@ Cerberus #64
Feel better now? :-)
Couldn't agree with you more. However, it's not a problem exclusive to America, we have the same problems in the antipodes. I was simultaneously amused and depressed when reading the following book which outlines some of the problems.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-triumph-of-the-airheads-and-the-retreat-from-commonsense/story-e6frg8no-1111112520587
I know there are a few good books on what is happening in the USA with regards to this. Any books that you would recommend?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 10, 2010 6:38 PM
von Dassow
Sorry. Doing too many things at once.
Posted by: waldteufel
|
July 10, 2010 6:40 PM
Sorry, PP, you didn't decode anything. You gave an opinion of her speech without reference to evidence or even her arguments.
That isn't "decoding", it isn't critical thinking, and it doesn't merit gratitude from anyone.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 6:42 PM
Antiochus @65
Uh, that's kind of a tone troll and I'll explain why.
Humanities professors have been "politely pleading", begging and rolling in the dirt for their jobs for a long, long time.
And it hasn't stopped the consistent cuts into their departments, the loss of entire disciplines to ignorant bottom-line focused administrators in countless departments.
At the school I did my undergraduate in, the building the Biology department had was a few years old and this was a good university that had no top tier sports teams or a football team at all to divert and dominate the focus. It was an academics wet dream.
The literature department was situated in a decaying building with known asbestos problems. The head of the department was still only an "adjunct" professor and there wasn't actually any budget for photocopies. If they wanted a handout, they had to print it at their homes on their personal computers.
In university.
There was a lot of begging, a lot of playing nice.
And like every time a despised minority plays nice, makes sure they don't spook the big bad predator and what not, they got ripped to shreds. Every no-duh request treated like the requester just shot the administration's dog.
So yeah, at some point, it becomes obvious that begging and playing nice isn't working and it's important to show the struggle with different emotions. Snark, outrage, finger-puppet shows...
Who cares, the point is a diversity of approaches, good cop, bad cop, insane cop, so that one approach can penetrate the fog of deliberate indifference and make a difference.
It's how it works in activism.
It's how it works in union mobilization and bargaining.
It's how it works in political maneuvering.
Why wouldn't it be how it works here?
Posted by: MetzO'Magic
|
July 10, 2010 6:48 PM
Birger, hi,
I thoroughly enjoyed Doomsday Book. So how is Bellwether in comparison?
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 10, 2010 6:58 PM
Cerberus: I get your point. If she were outraged, fine. If their was some faculty solidarity in the form of a union, fine. Condescension is unlikely to be effective by itself, especially if the target of persuasion is the target of condescension. I wouldn't want to be represented by von Dassow, myself, at least if my goal was to keep my job.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 10, 2010 7:10 PM
Antiochus @71
You'd probably be surprised, actually. Snark has been a remarkably powerful activist tool as of late and a certain number of people who are embarrassed by a snarky evisceration end up moving forward where an earnest argument or a dispassionate laying of the facts have failed in the past.
But it's all about diversity in activism and speaking out. And it's something that will occur naturally if allowed. Some will give the softly softly for specific small-scale action, some will give rabble-rouser for necessary large-scale changes, some will give snark or clever or publish a book or a satire.
The point is that the various people in a movement or argument will try different things with the hope that some of the techniques will work on some and others will work on those the other techniques didn't work on.
With this, I have a hard time blaming her because academics (owing to their relative powerlessness) have been doing softly softly with administrators and it hasn't helped the decline so a few sharp reminders of exactly how close to the edge we are is more than necessary.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 10, 2010 7:10 PM
I should also say that it is important for the faculty representative to lay out in no uncertain terms how the faculty successfully fulfills the mission of the university. Maybe that has been done by other speakers.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 7:13 PM
Us academics get in the habit of using "big words" all the fucking time. It ends up being natural to us because it's in all the papers we are reading, the textbooks we are using, the conversations with other academics, not because we want to make Physiology Professors look stupid in some great big academic pissing contest, but because it's become common usage.
yup.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 10, 2010 7:13 PM
Obviously, I'm entirely an outsider, but damn that was a fantastic and mordacious speech!
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
July 10, 2010 7:14 PM
New fucking words are fucking great, PhysioProf, you stupid fuck, in any fucking context.
Please put a fucking sock in it.
Posted by: lorigb
|
July 10, 2010 7:17 PM
I'm going to school at Iowa State, and I was pissed off to see that they built a huge, swank new building (not even on campus, wtf? I wonder how much that land set them back) for the basketball team to practice in, and they're updating and improving the football stadium (which isn't even in bad shape. I worked there last season for my off-campus job in the concessions area). Combined total? Nearly $20 million. And how much did my tuition go up this semester? And why did both of my summer classes get cancelled at the last minute? Grr.
Maybe I'd be more sympathetic if I gave a shit about sports.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 10, 2010 7:18 PM
Cerberus #72: Diversity in activism. Good point. She certainly is good at snark. I'd like to know how this plays out.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 7:25 PM
I'm going to school at Iowa State
It's just that every time I see that, this alum is happy.
But, as I recall, there was a period when the basketball coach at Iowa State was not only the highest paid employee of the university, but of the State of Iowa.
There's something completely fucked up about that.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 10, 2010 7:25 PM
PP:
Apparently, your conception of a "pretty fucking large vocabulary" refers to a less than extensive lexicon.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 10, 2010 7:42 PM
There's an even worse problem infecting the liberal arts, and that's the rise of the "discipline-specific" general education classes. Oh, let's have an English Comp class that does all its writing on engineering topics, so the engineering majors can relate! Let's have Calculus for Business majors, since they don't really need allthat calculus that doesn't relate to finances. And so on, and so on. Other programs push for them, and then liberal arts programs get stuck under a huge amount of pressure to offer such things (and unfortunately some are all too willing to pander to stay in good graces). And then what you get is a general education that's worth crap, because it's just a slight variant on the major anyway. And it has to be staffed by a lot more adjuncts, to get all the majors' sections in. That really hacks me off.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
July 10, 2010 7:44 PM
This is exactly why I bailed out of academia after my Master's (in one of those liberal artsy disciplines). What money there was, was being channeled into "productive" "revenue-generating" programs (in those days computers/technology, business, and engineering). I didn't think I could bear to live my life fighting to wrest meagre funds by trying to champion the acquisition and passing on of knowledge as the purpose of the academy rather than job training and corporate sponsorship (university sports isn't such a big deal here in Canada).
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 10, 2010 7:50 PM
It's fucking strange that someone would leave this comment on a fucking *blog*. The whole point is to "judge ideas and the people presenting them". It's why fucking blogs exist."
And nowhere did I say that that WASN'T the point. I simply expressed the opinion that a PARTICULAR critique and the target of it was fucking inane and stupid.
"And, frankly, I am surprised that people here aren't fucking grateful to me for decoding what this little speech was really all about."
When and if that happens, perhaps I'll be thankful. In this particular case, the message didn't NEED any decoding. What instead happened is someone completely disregarded the entire content of the message instead to go off on a rant and criticism of the use of TWO WORDS, two words the use of which in no way obscured the meaning of the message given.
THAT is what I was referring to as stupid and silly - rejecting an entire message because it contained two words that were new to a few people, despite the overall meaning having been perfectly clear because of the CONTEXT in which they were used.
And overlooking the message because of the vocal inflections of the speaker, or because she seemed hurried, or imagining her in leather because rather than being male, she's female and so apparently her message must be judged with gender in mind.
The rest? The discussion of how university politics works, how funding works, how she may be right or wrong about it? THAT is what I was glad for. I never had the good fortune to be in a position to attend college, let alone get much past 8th grade, so that's a world I don't know about and am glad for a discussion of it.
But that is NOT what I was characterizing as shallow and silly.
Now, are YOU fucking grateful to ME for correcting your mistaken ideas of what I meant, for correcting your deficient comprehension of what I expressed rather clearly?
Not that you have to be, I don't give a fuck, I'm not so conceited as to expect people to be GRATEFUL that I post comments here.
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 10, 2010 7:57 PM
"However, her tone seems to be counter to what I perceive her goal to be: persuasion. "
I got a sense of that too, that she was not about to persuade anybody. Maybe I'm cynical, but I disregarded that concern because I have the impression that NO speech would persuade those making the decisions, that she knows that, and that essentially this was more a case of "not taking it lying down" from her perspective.
My impression was that she saw the change as inevitable, thought that nothing she had to say could change it, and was simply wanting to get her objections on the record.
Posted by: richard.r.shea
|
July 10, 2010 7:57 PM
Eva is actually a member of my former artsy department, Classics and Near Eastern studies (the graduate program that cured me once and for all of any theistic delusions). The stress on our department, like on so many others, is intense. She never has been the shrinking violet, and I'm glad to see her direct approach with the powers that be.
Posted by: lorigb
|
July 10, 2010 8:00 PM
Heh, well I grew up in Story City and was poor, so that ruled out private schools and out-of-state tuition, so ISU was kind of the default. I like Ames though, and I've liked the vast majority of my professors so far. And since I've gone back to school after an 8-year hiatus which mostly involved being a drunken townie, classes seem a hell of a lot easier.
But yeah, I just about crapped my pants when I found out how much they're going to pay Hoiberg to coach. Base salary: $800,000. Ugh.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/41BVxgNnxYK3oMimuMaSsPKbcOfrm4dyoNw-#96cd3
|
July 10, 2010 8:11 PM
Sad thing is, she could have given that speech, virtually unaltered, at any ESU [Enormous State University] in the country.
Posted by: Furcas
|
July 10, 2010 8:15 PM
""However, her tone seems to be counter to what I perceive her goal to be: persuasion. ""
No, her goal is to make the regents put the money where she thinks it should go. Making them share her point of view would be one way to do that, but it's not the only way, nor is it likely to be an effective one. Do you really think the regents have never heard most of what she said? If they weren't persuaded before, why would they be now?
On the other hand, if she can make everyone else believe the regents are being incompetent (or malicious), she could force them to change the way they act if they don't want to appear that way. It probably won't change the regents' actual beliefs, but that doesn't really matter.
In other words, if you can't make the people in charge care about the same things you do, you might still be able to make them act as if they did by threatening them with losing status points, and to do that, a sharp tone and a bit of sarcasm will beat the nice and gentle approach every time.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 10, 2010 8:22 PM
But yeah, I just about crapped my pants when I found out how much they're going to pay Hoiberg to coach
I was in Ames when Freddie was playing. His contract actually appears lower than what they were paying Tim Floyd.
(I went to elem school in Ames while Dad was in Vet school. So, I'm a bit more of a local who left than just an alum. I'm thinking I may have to go back for VEISHEA soon, even though it seems to be nothing compared to when I was a kid or undergrad.....rioting drunk college students can just fuck off)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
July 10, 2010 8:28 PM
@48:
Nah, not useless- actively harmful, as far as the plutocrats who rule us are concerned. They make people engage in the very dangerous subversive activity of thinking, even- shudder- thinking about values that can't be expressed in terms of money.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 8:40 PM
In other words, if you can't make the people in charge care about the same things you do, you might still be able to make them act as if they did by threatening them with losing status points, and to do that, a sharp tone and a bit of sarcasm will beat the nice and gentle approach every time.
nicely said.
Posted by: lorigb
|
July 10, 2010 8:41 PM
Ah, VEISHEA. Actually, the last time I hung out on campus during VEISHEA was during the last riot. As soon as we realized what was going on and got a whiff of teargas, my friends and I left. They've made it so nothing's even near the bars/Greek housing/student rental housing because they're so afraid of riots. All the carnival stuff this past year was on/around Pammel Drive, though there may have been some stuff by the campanile too.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 8:45 PM
Dude, don't you have some religious fuck-ups to fuck with, or something?
aren't you late for your meds?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkOxyC7WFXvi-PQPqz9mtQMtXRCYWv_edA
|
July 10, 2010 10:06 PM
PP took a criticism of how we've decided to judge ideas and the people presenting them to mean that we shouldn't "judge ideas and the people presenting them"; in other words, PP ignored the "how," assuming that there's only one way to judge ideas and the people presenting them. And that's to assume that people who use words PP doesn't know (anyone who's taken intro bio knows "etiolated," but I agree that "verbigeration" is obscure: at least I initially thought it was a made-up word) is going to meet with a response of "Wha, you think yer smarter'n me, huh?" In other words, Dr. von Dassow's diction is bad for her purposes and nobody could believe otherwise; she should have used a persuasive rhetorical style like PhysioProf does.
Right.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
July 10, 2010 10:17 PM
Carlie @81:
I actually kind of like that. At my school, everyone has to take a lower level English Comp and a literature course, then at the upper level, it becomes more focused. So I took "Eng 302 H" meaning "Eng upper level writing for the humanities" because at that level, I don't need to write about engineering--hell, I wouldn't understand it--and an engineering major wouldn't be able to write about, and would probably never have to, post-Modernist anthropological theory. That goes along with the whole idea of specializing once you get into higher level classes, and I like that and think it's a good idea.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
July 10, 2010 10:21 PM
A clarification to my last post @95:
Eng 302 is part of the general education requirements and everyone has to take it regardless of what college you're in, that's why I chose it specifically for my example. Sorry if that was unclear.
Squigit
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 10:42 PM
This is what I've been trying to tell you dumbfucks the whole time. She's not trying to persuade anybody with this speech. She's grandstanding for her humanities cronies so she can get a bunch of shoulder pats at the next boxed-chardonnay swill-fest.
The fucking regents and whothefuckever at this meeting weren't even listening to her fucking speech. I'm sure they were dicking with their Blackberries. You think they have the slightest fucking interest in what some fucking professor is bleating at them?
You fuckwits have no fucking clue how academia works, yet you whine like fucking babies when someone who actually knows tries to clue you the fuck in.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 10, 2010 11:00 PM
A starfart is eminent.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 10, 2010 11:10 PM
Pats PhysioProf on head
Yes, dear, you're the only academic in the world. You're a very important person and no one quite understands things the way you do.
Closes door. Pauses. Opens door again.
You didn't know 'etiolated'? Really? That's high school biology.
Posted by: krisrhodes
|
July 10, 2010 11:18 PM
It my understanding that the highest paid public employee in Iowa is now the University of Iowa's football coach. Big improvement, eh?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 10, 2010 11:21 PM
Got it. She should have said "fuck" a bunch more times.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 10, 2010 11:21 PM
this, however, is very funny
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 10, 2010 11:46 PM
Dude, all kidding aside, the way that you try to get people to do what you want them to do is to convince them that doing what you want them to do is in *their* interest. Von Plassow is clearly a very intelligent person, and surely understands this. Therefore, the only reasonable interpretation of her speech is that it wasn't directed at actually influencing the decisionmaking of the regents and other admindouches who were at that meeting.
Honestly, this shit is not that fucking complicated, and I am surprised that you are so easily fooled by her antics. (This is not to say that her antics are not useful for her, but their purpose has nothing to do with what you assert: speaking truth to power.)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 11:52 PM
A starfart is eminent.
and imminent.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 11:56 PM
Dude, all kidding aside
I grew out of surfer lingo when I was 15.
he way that you try to get people to do what you want them to do is to convince them that doing what you want them to do is in *their* interest.
sometimes, you're so clueless it's fucking scary.
here, just for you, I'll quote the relevant part of #88 again:
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 10, 2010 11:59 PM
this shit is not that fucking complicated
no, it isn't.
what is surprising is that you keep thinking somehow we haven't a clue about it, and you're the only one with the "inside track".
most of us here ARE in academia, or closely associated.
*shakes head at the clueless screaming berk*
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:01 AM
Why are you always so hostile from the get-go, PhysioProf? Most of us need at least one disagreeable comment thrown our way before we break out the napalm (which we do).
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:03 AM
Why are you always so hostile from the get-go, PhysioProf
that's his M.O. I guess he thinks we're all pigs, ignoring the pearls he keeps
clutchingthrowing at us.Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 12:04 AM
Dumshit, #88 doesn't know jack fuck about how this shit works: the people in charge weren't even fucking listening to her speech. What fucking planet are you from that you don't understand this? SHE WASN'T TALKING TO THE FUCKING REGENTS AND ADMINDOUCHES WHO WERE AT THIS MEETING, AND THEY WEREN'T THERE TO LISTEN TO THE BLEATING OF THE FACULTY.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:05 AM
Did you say something about bacon, Ich?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:06 AM
the way that you try to get people to do what you want them to do is to convince them that doing what you want them to do is in *their* interest.
Dood, see, the way you get people to learn how to surf, is by putting them on a board, in the ocean, with waves.
IT'S OBVIOUS! WHY CAN'T YOU MORONS SEE THAT!!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:07 AM
Did you say something about bacon, Ich?
Why yes, I believe I did.
Posted by: waldteufel
|
July 11, 2010 12:08 AM
PP, dude, you really ought to get back on your meds.
Really. There's a nice fellow. Here's a glass of nice, cool water to wash down those pills.
Oh, sorry, let me put that in words you might understand: Fucking take the fucking pills you fucking sicko retard. The fucking pills will fucking make you fucking better.
Then, after you've fucking rested, you can fucking show us more of your fucking keen insight into fucking academia.
Thank you. Oh, please put the gerbil down before you hurt yourself.
Oh, wait. Sorry . . ."gerbil" is one of those complicated words with two syllables, neither of which is "shit" or "fuck".
Never mind.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 11, 2010 12:09 AM
I WANNA HOLLER THE LOUD FUNNY WORDS!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:10 AM
hey, PP, who is Minchin trying to communicate with in this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
Because nobody but you surely knows.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 11, 2010 12:14 AM
PhysioProf's right, IMO
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 11, 2010 12:14 AM
ermmm...that's kind of the gist of #88...that others may hear the speech, and that their opinion would influence regents.
Metaquestion: Why does everything here have to be such a travesty?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:18 AM
PhysioProf's right, IMO
about what?
he constructed a strawman of PZ's post, then tells us all we haven't a clue how to communicate with administrators, or get them to move on issues of import.
which part do you think he was right about? Or is it that you feel indeed YOU don't know how to manipulate administrators?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:20 AM
Why does everything here have to be such a travesty?
define "travesty".
I rather like poking at comrade physio prof.
his screams are really loud and screechy.
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 11, 2010 12:20 AM
Is there a corollary to Godwin's law that says contentious discussion threads eventually spawn sporadic use of ALL CAPS?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:22 AM
Antiochus -
Why can't we have nice things?
Well, we just can't, that's why! :-)
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 12:24 AM
Dude, you're a fucking delusional self-aggrandizing shitnut. I interpreted the fucking speech in the fucking video for you morons. And I haven't said jack fuck about whether you have a clue about how to communicate with administrators. Can't you fucking read, asshole? All I have said is that Von Dashow in her fucking speech WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO COMMUNICATE WITH ADMINISTRATORS.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:27 AM
That's actually good. Filing it away with douchenozzle.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:29 AM
have you tried any of the cool addons that let you change the size of your text, and the color, so you can scream inanities
EVEN LOUDER!!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:33 AM
All I have said is that Von Dashow in her fucking speech WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO COMMUNICATE WITH ADMINISTRATORS.
and, without yelling like a monkey on crack, I can, again, tell you that you are wrong.
She was indeed communication with administrators... just not directly.
subtlety just is not your strong suit, is it? Not in recognizing it, nor in utilizing it.
but hey, like I said, you can try changing font sizes and colors to see if it makes anyone else notice you're insane.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 12:33 AM
How about addressing the merits of whether you're totally full of shit or not, instead of engaging in diversionary tactics?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:34 AM
...indeed [in] communication...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:36 AM
engaging in diversionary tactics?
like using invectives for every other word, or screaming in all caps?
just go away, deluded old fool.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 12:38 AM
Dude, she's a fucking tenured faculty. She doesn't give a flying fuck about any of that shit she is talking about, other than keeping her sphere of influence as large as possible. Get a fucking grip, fool.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 11, 2010 12:39 AM
This is extremely entertaining.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:42 AM
Get a fucking grip, fool.
project much?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 11, 2010 12:43 AM
"This is extremely entertaining. "
The jackknifing of the various cars was pretty cool, but I think my favorite part was how the caboose actually flew through the air for at least forty yards.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:43 AM
Yes, Feynmaniac, it is.
BTW, did I ever tell you how enormously happy it made me that you took my suggestion to adopt the insult "Chimerical Toad?" Because it gives me lolz every time I see it.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 11, 2010 12:44 AM
You bet your fucking fuck it is! It's the fucking shitballs. Fucking motherfucking class-A motherfucker yeah!Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:44 AM
Can anyone who reads PP's blog tell me if he spends all his time berating his readers for not getting his inane screeds?
...in all caps?
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
July 11, 2010 12:45 AM
Indeed it is, but I'm running out of popcorn. Can we please move on to the starfart?Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:46 AM
LOL
you forgot to put at least half of that in caps, Kel.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
July 11, 2010 12:46 AM
*in a Faculty board meeting, somewhere*
Zzz... zzz...
Uh? What? Who woke me up? Oh. A star farted.
*falls back to insensate slumber*
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 11, 2010 12:46 AM
Lemme try!
Fuck you, PP. The last person I saw engaging in this much self-conscious fucking posturing about how much smarter and fucking edgier he was than the deluded masses was my fucking Randroid ex-boyfriend. And only when he was fucking drunk out of his fucking mind.
...
Am I doing it right? *edges toward the spanking couch*
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 11, 2010 12:48 AM
Yeah Josh, thanks for the suggestion.
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
July 11, 2010 12:49 AM
Angela: The Caps Lock button is your friend, abuse it.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 11, 2010 12:49 AM
...*which I was going to hide under, until I edited my comment and it stopped making any sense*
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 11, 2010 12:51 AM
Angel Kaida - That's it!
You bend over the spanking couch and take a #12 Birch caning.
Naughty Angel!
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
July 11, 2010 12:53 AM
Angel, not Angela, very sorry.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 12:53 AM
until I edited my comment and it stopped making any sense*
making sense?
WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD YOU FUCKING WANT TO MAKE FUCKING SENSE!
It's obvious you, unlike our esteemed comrade PP, haven't learned the first lesson about not making sense.
Posted by: tsig0
|
July 11, 2010 12:58 AM
PP are you trying to communicate with us?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 12:59 AM
Patricia is not the ignunt redneck rube she'd portray herself as. She's clearly a seasoned professional. Watch out for that woman.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:00 AM
PP are you trying to communicate with us?
I think we need a medium to interpret at this point.
Quick, someone fetch Paul the Octopus!
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 11, 2010 1:02 AM
Ichthyic @ 135
His posts are largely inconsequential, one- or two-sentence rants.
(If you can have very brief rants. I suppose they're simply ultracondensed bile.)
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 1:05 AM
I'm trying to clue you fucking assbags into reality. But you're more interested in stroking peezee's fucking sack. This shit is fucking embarrassing.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 11, 2010 1:06 AM
OH FUCK YOU GUYS! Dude, I make one little fucking EDITING error and everyone jumps all fucking OVER it! YOU PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD YOU FUCKING HAVE IT AROUND HERE! You just have to fucking make fun of every little fucking MISTAKE! It isn't my fault my fucking computer ate half my typing and then everyone got my fucking NAME wrong and... fucking... fuck everybody! Dude.
[/youtube-grade starfart-PP mashup]
Also... Not exactly what I was initially going for, but yay spankins!
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
July 11, 2010 1:08 AM
Yeah. Yeah. Just a little lower. . oh fingernails. . .
You are unique, PP.
Posted by: tsig0
|
July 11, 2010 1:15 AM
PP it doesn't get any realler than PZ's sack.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
July 11, 2010 1:16 AM
Angel Kaida,
I think you need some inspiration. Meet Malcolm Tucker, in the British series In the Thick of It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjAyazqtQj8
Played by the brilliant Peter Capaldi, Tucker is the “Director of Communications” for the British Government and is supposed to be loosely based on Alastair Campbell (who had the equivalent role in Tony Blair’s administration).
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:24 AM
I'm trying to clue you fucking assbags into reality.
umm... no comprendo.
Has someone managed to locate Paul the Octopus to translate yet?
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 11, 2010 1:25 AM
@Pope Maledict,
It's magnificent! *watching raptly*
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:26 AM
Meet Malcolm Tucker
...
*sheds tear*
perfect.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 11, 2010 1:28 AM
Angel Kaida @ 151, that was a sterling effort! But you need to add a little narcissism wrapped up as keepin' it real for verisimilitude.
Pope Maledict @ 154, that role was Capaldi's tour de force.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 1:30 AM
yup, I'm now looking to grab "In the Thick of It" for my next TV series to watch.
thanks for the tip!
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 11, 2010 1:35 AM
There's a film too, "In the Loop".
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
July 11, 2010 1:52 AM
Whoops, I sort of got the movie title mashed in with the series. The series title is just “The Thick of It”; and as desertfroglet posted above, they made a film “In the Loop” after the series finished.
Do not click on this link. I will not be held responsible for you wasting your entire Sunday afternoon clicking on links.
Posted by: Zebra
|
July 11, 2010 1:53 AM
Available evidence suggests that Eva von Dassow actually cares about this & isn't simply trying to impress her liberal arts colleagues. She's been saying this kind of thing in public for 1.5 yrs now:
In 1/2009 in an article or letter in the Minnesota Daily as reported here and here
In 4/2009, in an article or letter in the Star Tribune here
In 4/2010 at an open meeting with the president of UM, as reported on MPR here
Posted by: Glenn G
|
July 11, 2010 2:50 AM
My university is trying to trim its budget too. Staff and funding are being cut, and undergrads are expected to pay hundreds of dollars each to help pay the deficit of.
So guess how much our university president makes?
More than the motherfucking president of the USA.
Our administrative staff are payed FILTHY amounts of money, and they should all be ashamed.
Also, I never got why universities invest so much in sports. Please, somebody, tell me who REALLY gives a flying fuck.
Posted by: rkedia
|
July 11, 2010 3:12 AM
@PhysioProf: Try this on for size -"The limits of my language are the limits of my world"
Posted by: jafafahots
|
July 11, 2010 3:36 AM
YOU STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLES AREN'T FUCKING LISTENING TO MY LESSONS IN HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE WITHOUT ALIENATING THEM, YOU GODDAMN FUCKING MORONS!
He. This thread is fun. I vote we make PP our mascot.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 11, 2010 3:47 AM
Then why the fuck didn't you fucking say so earlier you syphilitic asshole-licker? If you fucking said something fucking earlier then a lot of this fucking shit would have fucking been avoided.Fuckstick I thought preaching to the motherfucking choir wasn't a fucking problem. That someone fucking obfuscates their message by enhancing their fucking vernacular with more shit esoteric content might cause some to fucking miss the fucking point of the goddamn construct, but fucking hell it might be fucking pertinent to consider the shitcunt audience. Perhaps it fucking missed the fucking mark but for fucks sake did it really need to fucking enrage you so?
Heck, you may be enlightened and have something worthwhile to say but gosh darn it, this is not something to get so indignant over.
Posted by: hermetically sealed
|
July 11, 2010 4:10 AM
Time to cue it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXT0gOk1Ogw
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 11, 2010 4:56 AM
Don't you mean "WAS FUCKING NOT FUCKING ATTEMPTING TO FUCKING COMMUNICATE WITH FUCKING ADMINISTRATORS, YOU FUCKETY FUCKIN' FUCKALL CLUSTERFUCKHEADS!!!1!"?
Well, something's certainly embarrassing, in the Holy Starfart, motherfucker! category...but it isn't our orgy. Those are standard around here, ya know.
Posted by: Butch Pansy
|
July 11, 2010 5:35 AM
Thanks, hermetically sealed, I needed that.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 11, 2010 5:43 AM
Oh. My mistake. I thought for a moment that PP was trying to fuck us clueless assbags into reality. It's easy to get these things mixed up.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 11, 2010 5:53 AM
sasqwatch:
I thought PP was trying to say he was trying to fuck our assbags clueless on the way to reality. Not a clear communicator, that one. Oops, I meant not a clear fucking communicator, that one.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 11, 2010 6:07 AM
[meta]
I see this thread has been derailed by the Revelation of
"perfectly designed".
Heh.
"in the choir"
Hehheh.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 7:02 AM
Here's the thing that pisses me off about speeches like hers, though, and it's where PP does have a point - she never once gives any actual argument as to why liberal arts are important. It's a diatribe on how the university supports some things over others, but it does not explain why the liberal arts need to be supported as well. Sure, there's a "tree of knowledge" that should not be pruned. But for the people who are looking at the budget, the tree is just an extra little bit of decor in the background. For the current and former college students who had to take liberal arts classes and hated them and what they did to their GPA, they're a roadblock that is better off removed. She doesn't say how the students are negatively impacted by that etiolated education. To try and convince anyone who is in charge, the success of the liberal arts programs has to be tied to, I hate to say it, measurable outcomes. Throw in an example of how being a good critical thinker solved a major problem, or how not thinking in a broad sense caused a major disaster for someone. Toss in a name of a famous leader whose well-rounded background served them well and how. These people in charge literally do not understand how a person who is more educated is better off than a person who isn't; just chiding them for trying to "streamline" education by cutting it all out won't do any good, because they honestly don't see it as value.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 11, 2010 7:20 AM
I thought that was the whole point. Liberal arts exist to make science look good ;)Posted by: John Morales
|
July 11, 2010 7:25 AM
Carlie, yes, but I take the bell-ringing as indicative of a limited (3 minutes) opportunity to speak.
I don't think she wasted much (if any) verbiage in delivering her message, and suspect she'd have included more argument had she had time to do so.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 11, 2010 7:34 AM
Not being in academia I wonder if I got all the nuances of von Dassow's comments to the regents. If someone would be so kind as to explain the subtleties of what she said, then I'd be able to comprehend the refinements and implications of her remarks.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 7:56 AM
'Tis - no subtleties, really. "You spend an obscene amount of money on sports and biotech, and we have to slum around with all adjuncts teaching core subjects. Plus we're the ones you cut further every time there's a budget crunch."
My problem with that is that the easiest response to that is "So? We pay you what you're worth. Go find yourself a historian job in the free market for more if you think you can."
Three minutes isn't a lot of time, but I did see a lot of posturing within that three minutes. It's just not how I would go about using that time, is all.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 11, 2010 8:15 AM
It's really not hard to see why liberal arts matters. It's the same reason why other esoteric disciplines matter. If knowledge is going to become purely about profitability then there is little point to having a non-profit-driven enterprise.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 11, 2010 8:40 AM
Carlie,
Sorry, my post #176 was really addressed to PP in hopes of encouraging him to continue to starfart.
In actuality I'm familiar with certain parts of von Dossow's complaint. I'm the Chief Economist for a service company. What does such a company need an economist? The truthful answer is it doesn't. I've had to pick up various duties to make myself useful (and in some ways indispensable) to the company. My boss, who's had to do the same thing, once described our functions as "shitty little job executives."
A couple of years ago my company laid off a number of executives. I managed to stay on because I was doing a lot of stuff nobody else wanted to do and because I was a member of the committee looking at who to lay off.
I worry about the budgetary hammer coming down on me. At 62 I'd find it difficult to get another senior executive position.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 8:48 AM
To us it isn't. To people whose only exposure to liberal arts were boring/difficult classes that "screwed up my GPA" and that they skipped half the time anyway and never did the readings? They just don't get it.
'Tis - oops, sorry. I feel your pain, though. I'm a biologist, but at a place that doesn't have any science degrees, so I've been placed alternately with the humanities (since we're all gen ed) and the engineers (who think basic science, biology specifically, is as useless as memorizing Beowulf).
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
July 11, 2010 8:50 AM
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
GOOOOOOOOOOL!!!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 9:06 AM
Fred - all of it, smartypants. :p
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 11, 2010 9:39 AM
I prefer to take on graduate students with a BA rather than a BS precisely because they already know how to write*. Writing is something I find difficult to teach.
*Or should, anyway.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 11, 2010 9:57 AM
Carlie #180,
Are there really people out there like that? Well, I guess there probably are but are there how many?
I am about as steeped in science as they come having studied both computer science and physics as an undergrad but I never viewed my arts courses as boring and even that difficult for the most part and as far as I know none of my friends treated those classes like that. There were a number of classes I took that I was simply amazed that people could fail, or not get an A+ as I found, especially for the introductory courses (though sadly even for some of the higher level courses), that the standard of writing accepted was low and the ability to read the textbook was all that was needed to pass.
I did really enjoy some of the arts courses. My Japanese language courses were interesting and I really liked a course I took in the history of the physical sciences. Though I did notice most of the other people in that course seemed rather apathetic and bored with the material.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 11, 2010 10:04 AM
Proofread before submitting. Must slow down.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 10:09 AM
A huge amount of the ones I teach (I teach an interdisciplinary humanities class in addition to biology classes). And, more depressingly, a large percentage of administrators and businesspeople I've come into contact with.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 11, 2010 10:10 AM
uh, well, to answer Ich's question from up^there someplace:
I think PhysioProf is correct that:
1. the text, tone, and style of the speech in the video are aimed squarely at the speaker's fellow north-campus intellectuals and not at the ostensible audience of administrators
and
2. the ostensible audience of Regents and other administrators almost certainly spent the three minutes of the speech not listening thoughtfully but rather "dicking with their Blackberries" while inwardly rolling their eyes at the ineffectual posturing of this insufferably narcissistic professor of Classics and Snide Studies or some shit.
(and, again, I--and PP--agree 100% with the actual message of the speech)
False dichotomy.
Posted by: Travis
|
July 11, 2010 10:31 AM
Carlie,
That is depressing. I mainly teach a computer science course for arts and social science students and find it terribly depressing. Not so much that they do not care about the material but because they seem to have no work ethic at all. They want me to solve every single problem and have no intention of trying anything themselves before asking for help. Now it is mainly first year students, perhaps they get better at being independent as times goes on.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
July 11, 2010 10:37 AM
On the flip side, I find that many of our best biology students deplore anything artsy and don't read for pleasure.
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 11, 2010 10:57 AM
True, but I believe Zebra's probably responding to this:Posted by: Free Lunch
|
July 11, 2010 11:01 AM
Can regents be shamed into doing the right thing?
As for semi-professional sports, it is clear that schools like the University of Chicago or NYU have suffered terribly in their academic standing by abandoning big time sports and the Ivy League, because it offers no sports scholarships and rarely has sporting teams that the rest of the world want to watch, will end up begging for students soon.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 11, 2010 11:09 AM
You didn't know 'etiolated'? Really? That's high school biology.
I didn't either, though to be fair I took my high school biology in French.
Posted by: geneb123
|
July 11, 2010 11:18 AM
I think von Dassow was trying to persuade the regents. In my opinion, she was attempting to shame them through ridicule. The feeling of shame is a very toxic emotion and quite often people will work dilligently to rid themselves of that awful feeling. In this case, my belief is that von Dassow hopes that the regents will feel like such assholes for behaving as they do that they will alter their behavior to attempt to rid themselves of the shame that she believes they should rightly feel.
Dang... as I'm writing this I see #191 brought up the same thing. Oh well, seconded!
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
|
July 11, 2010 11:20 AM
Travis @#188,
Among various hats I wear on campus, I direct a residential honors program for first and second year students, so I have a lot of interactions with incoming freshmen. And with rare exceptions, across the board (regardless of major) I see the attitudes you describe fairly often. I think this is in large part a byproduct of the rise of the helicopter parent (that is, the students are USED to having massive amounts of help and not being allowed to do things on their own) and of the high schools (public & private) focus on getting people INTO college without preparing them for the skills FOR college. And, thankfully, most of the students do grow out of this over time. (I warn new directors in the programs to stop thinking about incoming freshmen as pre-graduate students and to remember they start off as third-semester highschool seniors...).
Free Lunch @#191: absolutley!! U Chicago & MIT & Hopkins & U Cal Berkeley aren't exactly hurting in reputation, funding, or alumni support even with almost now college sports.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 11:20 AM
But I think it's a flawed view of what will shame them and other people watching - lots of them like college sports. And didn't like liberal arts classes. It's a message that isn't even in the same playbook they're reading. They could just as easily point at that as an example of how unconnected liberal arts departments are with everyday people and what they need and want.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 11, 2010 11:22 AM
Do American Universities not think it might be better to compete for students based on the quality of the courses they can offer ?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
July 11, 2010 11:39 AM
Matt - in a word, no.
Some do, of course. The Ivy Leagues. The really prestigious private schools that are competing for the best and brightest. Everyone else is scrambling for the students who want a student union with a Starbucks, a decent bus line back and forth for campus, good dorms, and games to watch on the weekend.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
July 11, 2010 11:45 AM
I do find that odd.
Like in the US, there in the UK there is more cachet in certain universities but even amongst those who are not part of the elite there is competition for students based on the quality of the courses. The research rankings for different subjects do make a difference and there is wide spread acceptance that for some subjects the best universities may not be among the elite. The university I went was not an elite one, but it had, and still has, one of the best reputations in the country for marine science.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 11, 2010 12:09 PM
The narrow-minded focus on a utilitarian education has been going on for years. I would have thought that the recent wars would have made clear that no one can predict what "knowledge" will prove important, or even vital, later on. Don't we wish we had more people with fluency in Arabic (Eastern and Iraqi dialects) and Pashto? Why don't we? (Besides the military throwing out intelligence personnel with fluency in Arabic because they're gay).
I already wrote about the 80s and Reagan's incentive tax scheme. Contrary to legend, he enacted new taxes: on unproductive learning.
How long must this contempt for learning something without an obvious big paycheck go on before we realize that we can not predict with 100% accuracy what we will need in the future?
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
July 11, 2010 12:18 PM
Caine,
That sounds painful. :-/
Posted by: MrNaglfar
|
July 11, 2010 12:56 PM
If anyone would like to debate the merit, or lack thereof, of any college program, you'll need to start at the basic level and address somethings that, oddly enough, no one has seen fit to address
If you want to discount revenue generation as the measure of scholarly endeavor, that's fine by me. But precisely what is the true measure of scholarly endeavor? I don't see anyone using any actual metric (whatever arbitrary one it is) to decide how to allocate budget, or for a rationale for retaining certain programs and courses over others.
Further, let's not pretend that liberal arts degrees are "useful" in that evil revenue generation kind of way. I would never encourage anyone I know to go to a college to major in liberal arts. As a related example, my girlfriend would love more than anything to be able to get a degree in English royal history, but the jobs that become available with such a degree are not exactly numerous. While the subject is interesting to her, it's sure as hell not worth spending however many thousands of dollars a year to pursue a formal education in it while being forced to take a number of other classes she would have no interest in (the pain in the ass gen-eds). Better to simply do self-education, which is largely free.
Some other things to consider: It's not like these faculty members are doing pro-bono work themselves. Would the faculty (either in the liberal arts department or across the board) be willing to suffer a 10 or 15% pay cut in order to retain a few of their colleagues? I'd be curious to see how valuable she feels the "pruning of the tree of knowledge" would be to her then.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
July 11, 2010 1:22 PM
Carlie @ #173:
I agree with you, but the scary thing is that "these people" are the fucking REGENTS of the university. If they don't understand the value of education, that school is screwed.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
|
July 11, 2010 1:36 PM
MrNaglfar @#201:
At UMCP (and at other institutions as well, I'm sure) we are sucking up week-long furloughs (pay cuts in all but name) in order to prevent or reduce firings.
MattPenfold @#196:
There are public (state) universities that also make a focus of their academics as a point of pride in recruiting: Univ. of California Berkeley, North Carolina State University, etc. (We are University of Maryland are doing so, too, but are working against an old regional perception as being a sports-centered school.)
But even when *promoting* academic excellence, it doesn't mean that the leaders of the institution (as a result of the economic conditions in general) aren't having to make decisions of distributing the cuts in funding.
Posted by: PhysioProf
|
July 11, 2010 2:07 PM
Of course I'm correct. And BTW, just to clarify: I don't think there is anything wrong with what Von Dassow is doing. However, it is important to be clear on what exactly it is that she is doing with this speech. And trying to convince the regents to cut other shit and not the humanities ain't it. Her speech is a very effective coded message to her own humanities colleagues.
Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92
|
July 11, 2010 2:15 PM
Let's go back to Steven Dunlap @199.
It is relatively easy, just about anywhere, to find an Iraqi or a Pashtun who speaks near-perfect English but almost impossible to find someone from the US who knows anything of those languages.
The US, then, going into Afghanistan and then Iraq was at the mercy of those who could communicate with them and without a means of discerning whether this bloke they could understand was pushing the case which suited his sectional interest, which suited the country or which had been dictated by the Man in Moon.
Likewise, someone - anyone - with a degree in Near Eastern Studies (or archaeology, or linguistices, or anything really) might have noticed that failing to guard the National Museum in Baghdad and the historic sites could only add to their troubles and greatly diminish their country's reputation. Hell, they did not even understand the delegations of very senior scholars who begged them to prevent the sort of destruction which coalition forces wreaked.
To have University Regents who are unable to foresee a need for such knowledge may be unfortunate. To have them still in post and still not getting it after the event should be a matter of shame.
Posted by: mikee
|
July 11, 2010 4:46 PM
@PhysioProf
You really are the most arrogant person I have come across on here. Perhaps you are right, perhaps Eva did aim her speech at her own clique of colleagues. However, the speech has found a resonance here with people on here from many different backgrounds, including the sciences.
In your certainty that your interpretation of Eva's talk is correct you slagged off a lot of people on here, accusing us of sucking up to PZ and suggesting that we should be grateful for your views. That patronizing approach to a group of very intelligent people, including other academics, is utterly arrogant. No wonder you were flamed. I would suggest you look up Intellectual Attribution Bias, because I think you have a bad case of it.
And I still can't see how you can be absolutely sure that you KNOW what Eva's motivation was in giving the talk, unless perhaps you have discussed it with her personally? My perception is that she is angry and frustrated by what is happening and was communicating her frustration and anger in a way familiar to her. It may not be the wisest career move, and perhaps as other people have suggested here she could have approached it differently. But I still think it was more likely to be motivated by anger rather than showmanship (or should that be showpersonship?)
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
July 11, 2010 5:10 PM
If I were to deconstruct PP's coded message to us, I would start by mentioning the unsubtle contempt for those of us who have the audacity to think the Humanities are equal in academic value to the sciences and should be treated as such.
But, having dealt with this prejudice most of my life, I'm in no mood to waste time on it this afternoon.
Besides, I don't need to: the scientists here understand already.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
July 11, 2010 5:46 PM
This lady is very courageous to "speak the truth to power", and she speaks it very well. But did it really take her so long to discover what "shock strategy" really means ?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 11, 2010 6:30 PM
On that note, when I finished university and entered the business world, one of the first compliments I got on my abilities was my writing. I was actually shocked when my manager told me that so few graduates he comes across are able to write. Fucking-a motherfucker how fucking right you were! Shithead.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 6:34 PM
Of course I'm correct.
as i said, NO, you're fucking NOT.
from 162:
or hell, just fucking dig yourself fucking deeper, fucking asswipe.
Posted by: Zebra
|
July 11, 2010 8:43 PM
Not a dichotomy. I said
not
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 11, 2010 11:26 PM
The liberal arts, and education in general, are all about improving the variety and satisfaction of one's sex life. Or at least that appears to be the case in Finland.
In all seriousness, my favorite essay on the purpose of higher education is from a University of Chicago sociology professor who suggests that the purpose of higher education is to increase and deepen the pleasure of one's life. Unfortunately, our current culture of looniness seems to have caught on that education is about pleasure and is thus preventing humanities professors from using photocopiers to further their lascivious schemes.
Not sure why PhysioProf doesn't seem to know any big words. Perhaps no one cared enough to suggest that he should take some humanities classes in his physio studies.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 11, 2010 11:32 PM
"However, it is important to be clear on what exactly it is that she is doing with this speech."
Don't you mean "it is motherfucking cockbagging important to be clear, you douchetarded fucksticks"?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 11, 2010 11:35 PM
The liberal arts, and education in general, are all about improving the variety and satisfaction of one's sex life. Or at least that appears to be the case in Finland.
AT LAST!
that explains why Michael Palin always said it's
the country for me.
Posted by: fbudinichd
|
July 12, 2010 3:58 AM
@94
English is my second tongue... and I knew the meaning of those words. I could bet that PhysioProf and you only speak english.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
July 12, 2010 11:12 AM
Mattir @ #212:
I have that speech in book form (UofC prints them in soft-cover editions) and hadn't gotten around to reading it yet. Thank you for the nudge!
/tangent
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 12, 2010 4:51 PM
@chgo_liz -
I read that speech in the alumni magazine around the time we first started homeschooling - it changed the way I think about education completely. If you asked the Spawn what education was for, they'd probably say "pleasure."
PhysioProf would probably think that education was simply an opportunity to use the F-word a lot out of the hearing of Mom. I've never been a big proponent of the soap-mouth-solution, but he tempts me sorely.