Mrs Whiggins

Sir, you are treading on thin ice here. I love John Wick. That poor man. He loved his wife and after she gave him that puppy and everything that happened after (I'm not going to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the series) and he is just a haunted sad man. Just breaks my heart. And RIP Lance Reddick. But, to wit: Lance was real and John is just a character in a movie and if the OP steps near a copy machine or scanner with real money or attempts to lay hands on a certain Pantone color of ink, he will be hearing from people who don't joke around with respect to funny money. If you want to barter, use Thin Mints. That's the kind of green that gets respect.

This woman above was quoted in the article as saying this below, she is talking about her children seeing her upset over her television appearance: "I told them a lot of people were sending me unkind messages and comments, and that I would do my best to not let my feelings affect my mood, but that it might, and if it did, that I'm sorry. Saying this out loud made me more conscious of trying to keep that promise." Well then. Considering the anti-wokesters do not accord the so-called 'woke' the consideration of being kind, welcome to the world of having your vitriol spewed back at you sister.

In some religious circles, the belief is that God intended for the 'tribes' to remain pure among themselves. Others use the as long as both are Christians then interracial marriage is to be considered after prayer and reflection upon the views of their community or some such. With approximately 104 completed versions of the Bible, there is ample space for folks to find something that forms to what they desire pro or con.

Here is a clip; it's not too long.

Wait, hold up, let me get this straight... He missed a gotdamn opportunity to say he was raised with a Buccaneer swashbuckling mentality and he whiffed on that? What a maroon.

At the state universities and the systems (i.e. UT system, A&M system etc) the budgets are all public. Most folks aren't really into digging into that type of reading but if we actually paid more attention to money trails, we might encourage our public officials and their 'friends' to be better stewards of our tax dollars. Here is your McDonald's burger: Costs: Building and maintenance and utilities Shipment of food, storage containers, serving containers, cleaning supplies, etc. Food ingredients, subject to use by dates, spoilage, etc Equipment to store and prepare food at temperature appropriate levels Advertising and marketing Whatever the hell HQ does Workers to prepare food, sell food, clean building I probably left out a bunch. We know that a lot of this has been streamlined for efficiency and profit and so on, but when it comes down to it, we really don't want to buy a burger and then die from it, so there is also an element of risk that we're willing to take when we eat cheaply. Sure, McDonald's doesn't want the bad press either, but just as a take out fast food burger has a break point, then you and I have to figure out what is the break point for a bachelor's degree from an R1 university of which there are 137 (as of 2021). With your last reply while I was typing: very good points IMO. I will say that our oldest is not going into academia despite the encouragement of department faculty (it is in a STEM field); while there is higher job security (to an extent depending upon publications, tenure, etc) the salary and other intangibles stifled the desire to pursue that lifestyle. As a parent who wishes to have healthy happy adult children, I'm fine with whatever. As someone who takes in interest in American competitiveness on the world stage, there is another type of reckoning coming and that is: that other countries that are continuing to invest in the sciences (among other things) are going to outpace us as there is a great wave of retirements coming and those positions will need to be filled. If graduate students are not staying in academia and there will be a break point for that as well, then we will be bringing in more H1B1 faculty and that, in turn, may make it harder for academic placements for native talent. Remember: some of that grant money discussed earlier goes towards a graduate student's salary and benefits while they acquire experience and knowledge to then, in turn, go forth and teach and research further. Applied research is great, I'm all for it. But where the US has been a historic leader is in basic research. We've all heard the trope about ketchup viscosity being studied, but there are many questions out there yet to be answered.

I didn't want to get too far into the weeds so yeah, I left out a lot. With respect to research, a neighbor is a retired faculty from one of the big unis here in Texas. When we were chatting, I learned that universities take ~50% of a grant off the top for operating costs. So a million dollar 5 year grant goes to a physicist and he/she gets 500K and the university takes 500K. If I understood it correctly, that university share is to pay for the staff that handles the paperwork, keeps the lights on, etc. The faculty prof pays for equipment, materials, post doctoral/grad student/undergraduate salaries, and whatnot. With federal grants there is a minimum salary requirement for post-doctoral salaries (includes benefits) while for graduate students the salary is whatever the competitive rate is (I think) but includes benefits and tuition. So, a professor will need to maximize that 100k a year. Meanwhile, tuition dollars bring in so much a head. Another thing I learned is that if a prof wants to take a semester off to focus on writing/research, some departments have them 'buy' out their teaching to pay for the faculty that will take on their course load. I suspect that they are using their grant money for this but I don't know how that works.

I don't believe you are the only person who is upset @GringoSalado. I do think it is complicated, however, and the solution would require people sitting at the table who have some knowledge (political issues aside no CR) about what all goes into this (costs both tangible and otherwise). So many stakeholders, which to a degree most of us are but *some have more insight into various consequences both short and long term. For example: let's ignore faculty salaries as those have mostly remained stagnant. So if teaching, research, and service (which relates to various metrics) are the three main ways faculty are reviewed, would you have them increase teaching and cut research? At many public universities with tuition being higher, it actually brings in more $$ than research (obviously institution dependent) Faculty used to be advisors at most public schools, and at smaller schools they still are I think. With my oldest child, there were dedicated advisors with subject knowledge to help students and degree plans. To slice those positions, you save money but it comes at the expense of documented data driven student success. Also, some faculty just don't seem to be very good at advising (temperament and other skills). With increases in student populations you have space issues. Do you make more online classes? Some of the rate payers (i.e. parents and students) are not very happy with those and believe it diminishes the 'college experience.' What about labs? Those require space. More students means more space or running labs around the clock. For safety, labs are usually numbers limited. Cut labs? In other words, what to cut and where and would you be willing for salaries for educators be diminished? If you ignore all of the support services, the grounds crews and maintenance staffs (mostly outsourced these days) at what price point are parents willing to pay for the person instructing the class? I obviously cherry picked the more personal cuts because those are ones that many would object to--when a student fares poorly how much responsibility are 'we' willing to place on them if we cut those student services and the unfunded (by the state) mandates that require universities to provide data, services, and other miscellanea? @MonkeyDoughnut is spot on with the thoughts regarding wealth based tie ins to universities and outcomes. Those families are also the ones that are orbiting around campus and emailing profs (according to second-hand info) and otherwise highly involved in their offsprings' future. What would happen, for example, if athletics were divorced from public universities? Many athletic departments are self-sustaining, but are they really? What are some of the costs that are not tabulated in the operating expenses that are still provided by employees? How much of a 'jobs' program are universities for the communities in which they are located and is that important?

I don't know what all he did at Pay Pal, but his verbiage in the tweet sounds suspiciously like that ol' on the outside looking in you can't understand it, and on the inside looking out you can't explain it.....guess he feels at home in Texas, he just should've gone further east.

IIRC, the three founders of Starbucks have degrees in history and english.

Hard to say. There is data on humanities as a whole, which includes more than just art history (classical studies, history, philosophy, etc). According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, there were 202,665 humanities degrees awarded in 2018. I can't recall the percentage of total degrees conferred this category represents, but it isn't a large percentage.

I found the article a good read, thank you for posting it. I also find it an interesting juxtaposition to the text displayed on Tesla's own website advertising their auto insurance: Ummmm....

Well, you see, it's called MENstruation so mansplaining a female's reproductive cycle but not allowing females to in any way assert themselves with respect to their bodily autonomy is so on brand as to be self-evident.

One of our channels had a little John Wick marathon last night as a teaser for the upcoming film. At the end of the first one (any maybe the others, I didn't stay up for all of them) there was an in memory of screen. Between seeing him as Charon and that, I was watery-eyed. Very much enjoyed his body of work.

To add to the discussion, a couple of my own thoughts: 1. It would be helpful when adding anecdotal info (not from the Op-ed above but other posts) if the unit is listed. For example, @Pig Bellmont mentioned his father paid ~$660 per year while @Rimbo paid that amount per semester while attending. @GringoSalado mentioned $120--is that per credit hour/semester/year? If per credit hour, I believe the math would be around $1440 per semester for 12 hours (minimum full time student) so $2880 per year. Currently, UT is ~$5,500 per semester depending upon major. 2. I don't dispute the information regarding the spending; I spent a lot of time on this when my oldest was preparing for college and followed various paths. It gets complicated (to me) on several levels. I'm spoilering that discussion for brevity: The student debt/loans is a big problem; no question. It's also useful IMO to break that down into smaller bits though. For example, @tx 3 putt and @smokebomb mention trade school debt. There is also the debt taken on by pursing education at the predatory little strip mall schools that offer associates degrees. I was surprised to discover that one of the most common majors for that degree is English. I'm not knocking English and heaven knows I've read enough writing that could use a good polish, but it is not clear to me what career path the average associates degree holder is taking that major. In a four year school, many English majors go on to teach (k-12/post secondary) and so on so I'm thinking perhaps that the 2 years are attempting to get their grades up enough to transfer in to a four year school (which, if the community type college is standard as opposed to for-profit is one way to save money). And, bringing up community colleges, those also have students who take on financial burdens because even those schools are not super cheap and again, have some administrative mandates that they must follow. It does seem as if there is an unbearable strain on the system. I mean, off the top of my head: rising population (i.e. more HS grads enrolling in four year institutions), more degree holders in general among both native born and immigrant populations (I believe I read in the BofLabor stats that save Mexico, immigrants from other countries were just as likely or more likely to have a bachelor's degree--that is not a personal statement on immigration, it's just what I listed to discuss degree holding populations), automation of many career paths, fluctuating birth rates that affect enrollment numbers, etc. And yes, loans are a big deal. One thing that does seem to be data supported is that the leading indicator for student success at four year institutions is family income. That is a big deal if we really stop and think about it and education in general. So many ways you could go with that in a discussion. Anecdotally, my family went from generational poverty to first-gen to soon to have multiple grads and that path has gotten a lot more difficult today. We have tiers of educational institutions within higher ed from elite private and public to tiny system schools that exist to serve very local communities. What path should students from impoverished backgrounds follow given some of the economic realities? Given the wealth inequalities that are growing? Given various demographics of our country? A final note about the Op Ed. Paul Campos is a Federalist Society member and has a variety of publications. IMO, his statements hold some truths, but little in the way of productive measures. So, administrative salaries at the top levels are high, so the numbers of admins are up. What is the solution? He is a law professor at U of Colorado-Boulder and has written a book "Don't Go To Law School (Unless): A Professor's Guide to Maximizing Opportunity and Minimizing Risk." I don't doubt that the legal career path is expensive, competitive, and not a decision to be taken lightly. We've just been discussing how many career paths are similar. We have a lot of people in this country and a variety of careers. What are some ways to provide opportunity to those who seek higher education but cannot afford it? Tough cookies? Subsidize? Eliminate unfunded mandates from state higher ed boards? Eliminate the assistance programs for students with special needs? Should the non financial aid students subsidize the needier students as this currently is in place at various institutions? A lot to unpack, sorry for the very long post. TL/DR: I am pro higher education or at least education in general but pragmatic enough to realize it is not the best path for all. Who, how, and why are questions that I think about with respect to higher ed. Oh, and to what purpose. That's another one.

What years were you attending? One of the conflating (I think that's the word I need here) issues with tuition is that in 2003, the tuition regulating authority passed from the Texas Legislature to the public universities. During that first year, tuition at the various state schools was raised anywhere from 4 to 15 percent. Between 2004 and 2008, tuition increased 47 percent (statewide). Some have argued that deregulating tuition slowed increases while others argue the opposite view. Given that the portion that state funds with taxpayer dollars has shrunk, tuition was going to increase regardless. (Prior to 2003, tuition was already on the climb, having increased ~30 percent in the years preceding the bill's passage.) One of the potential reasons for the deregulation passing may have been the multi billion dollar shortfall the state was facing--they could keep from raising taxes and then pass the blame onto the higher ed institutions). FWIW, I'm not speaking in favor of one point or the other, but providing some context for those that may not have been aware of some of the background. My example was Texas as I reside here, but this was not a lone outlier with respect to higher ed in general. Without straying too far off topic, while some would like a 'reset' for ideological reasons in higher ed, I disagree with that and believe the focus would be better served on some of the discussion that is more related to the topic in this thread--there are varying degrees (not physical degrees) of post secondary education that can serve a variety of needs: tech school, apprenticeships, associate degrees, traditional colleges and universities, etc. What needs are best met by each of these to produce capable, thinking, productive citizens that are engaged in society and how do we reach a consensus?

Here is some data for you from the National Center for Education Statistics: Th the following is some more info that was included with the above illustration: II In order to productively discuss the merits, though, it might be useful for folks to elaborate on what exactly they personally consider a useless degree. For example, if a student majors in history but also registers for a robust curriculum of science coursework, they may very well go onto medical school. While universities offer biomedical type degrees, that is no guarantee that medical school is in a student's future. Professional schools only have so many slots to fill and quite a few applicants.

UT's own John Hanke was Plan II and then went on to earn an MBA at Cal-Berkeley. Perhaps an example on the higher end, but it is worth saying that there is a not insignificant number of enrolled students who view college as extended high school and expect a job handed to them upon graduation. Not how that works and truly it never has. Goes without saying that in some years markets are tighter and the type of degree does matter, but the study/social life balance is interesting to observe. Young people in most schools today do not have the benefit their parents did of being able to string out college: it was cheaper and schools were not penalized (at least as much) if a student had extended year(s) to get their shit together, endure a life tragedy, figure out exactly what might be a suitable career path, etc. Degree plans are much tighter now. I've observed that with my own children. Get in and get out. Is that the way it should be? Again, depends upon with whom you speak.

In the Movie section there has been a thread discussing the latest Guy Ritchie movie--Operation Fortune. In some ways, the entire GOP is like a Ritchie movie turned sideways and with gangsters, con artists, and enforcers. I keep waiting for some angry father to slam Pedo Matt's face with a car door or for the rank and file to decide they're sick of being told what to do by Wotcher Jim Jordan and wrap him face down in a urinal by his crooked tie.

Some of what plays into that is when your dad went to school the percentage that taxpayers via the state subsidizing tuition was likely higher. Disregarding Texas which has a somewhat unique situation, the percentage is quite stark in some states. For many years regardless of whether a taxpayer or a taxpayers family used higher education, they subsidized it. This was not seen as a bad thing, per se, as the idea was to lead to a more educated diversely enriched population that, in turn, would pay higher taxes due to higher income levels. Often, someone with K-12 + some higher ed (does not have to be a full on bachelor's degree or more) is able to pivot somewhat if life hands them a surprise shit sandwich. I'm generalizing, but while one can self-educate (i.e. via a library etc), the ability to have discussions and exposure to varying perspectives and life experiences is enriching and available and more likely to be taken advantage of in an educational setting. Does it happen in the work force? Yes, sure, but the purpose and motivations are perhaps under different constraints then. The US used to have the highest educated population in the world, but have fallen behind other countries. Does that matter? Depends upon with whom you speak.

The Sargassum is reclaiming its people?

Stephen Miller (yes that Stephen Miller) replies to Kirk's tweets. That tells anyone in possession of thinking skills pretty much everything they might need to know.

The Ledge could have *poetry in springtime if you like; you know things such as 'gather ye rosebuds while ye may...' or "...the lone and level sands stretch far away' or 'Then we will have tonight,' -we said- 'Tomorrow may we not be dead?' or '...She was advised to play coy, exhorted to come on hearty, exercise, diet, smile and wheedle....' or there is the following poem which will really bum you out so it is spoilered: Some folks have decided that women are to be the shame eaters for all of society's ills. *Selections are, in order, from: To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time by Robert Herrick; Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley; On Cheating The Fiddler by Dorothy Parker; and Barbie Doll by Marge Piercy. I'm not well-read in poetry but I believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor.

I also put some tomatoes in a while back and now am sweating their survival. Argh. The early bloomers I still have inside, but I was trying to jumpstart the longer to produce variety. Oh well. I've covered them but this will slow things down if they make it. We'll see.