Re: Obama's Powderkeg

Disculpa Senora Randolph M. Jones, pero did you really mime the following on 3/9/2008 11:22 PM???
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Disculpa Senora Randolph M. Jones, pero did you really mime the following on 3/9/2008 6:16 PM???
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Disculpa Senora Chris Mihos, pero did you really mime the following on 3/7/2008 1:48 PM???
On Mar 7, 1:35 pm, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:59 am, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjo...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, never
tug on Superman's cape:

Tom Enright wrote:
It is only "naive" in the university world. In the real world it is
the best model. If you own a business that cleans carpets and hire 10
carpet cleaners it would be wise to have all 10 cleaning carpets.
Concentrating on the CORE business and doing what they were HIRED
for. Seems pretty logical.
Aha. So you think university professors are hired to teach. I think
I've found part of your misunderstanding. In the business model,
university professors are hired to increase revenue. They can do this
by bringing in research money or by increasing the reputation of the
university. The latter activity can *partly* be achieved by teaching.
And I see part of your confusion.

If a university hires professors to increase revenue, fine. I see no
issue with that. The schools should maximize profit. Eliminate
tenure, hire only the best professors (not the most politically
acceptable) etc. If a university's goal is to actually educate
students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside
the front gate, than professors should be hired to educate those
students. When you move between the "we are a public, non-profit
entity involved with educating students" and "we are attempting to
maximize revenue" there is no point in debating. You can use these
two arguments, no matter how irreconciable, whenenver convenient.


I don't understand, though, why they can't both be true. Why can't a
university be interested in educating students and, at the same time,
try to maximize its revenue stream? Why can't you have faculty working
both to educate and to conduct research and bring in research funding?



Sorry for the delayed response, but I just saw this and feel obliged to chime in.

I definitely don't believe that maximizing the revenue stream should be a university priority. Universities are supposed to (1) educate students, and (2) advance the state of knowledge through research and other scholarly activities. They most definitely shouldn't be aiming to make profits or to be run like corporations. I recall that many years ago I was visiting Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS (the Little Apple, baybeee...) and the local campus paper had this article where the president/chancellor was talking about how he was the "CEO" of the university and how he had certain responsibilities towards its "stakeholders." It made my hair stand on end - I'm sorry, but a university is NOT a business and should not operate like one. Unfortunately, we're seeing - more and more- that this is how university presidents view their roles. Increasing endowments and net income dollars is number one on the list.

As research goes, I agree that it's perfectly acceptable to spend time trying to bring in grants to support graduate students (and to help pay for a month or two of your own summer). But the thing that depresses me intensely is that research productivity is so often viewed in terms of dollars - as in "Prof. X has Y thousand dollars in research."
No mention of publications or graduate students mentored or most importantly - research impact. Just dollars! I do have to say there's one thing that backs up Enright's original point (even if it was not in the proper context) - we graduate WAY too many PhD's, and we'd be generally better served if only SOME faculty at SOME universities focused on research and the others focused on teaching.

I'm not sure why people are making this out to be an either/or choice. All businesses (generally) try to maximize income vs. costs within the business area they're operating in. A janitorial business doesn't try to increase revenue by selling computers, but they do advertise, try to run efficiently, etc.

Because a university is - emphatically - NOT a business.

I think the people at every university who are involved in balancing the budget might disagree with you here. Universities have customers, revenue, costs, etc. They also have some properties that make them different from "normal" businesses, but there is no point in acting like colleges and universities don't have an enormous financial aspect to them.


I'm not denying they have fiscal responsibilities - I just question the priorities they seem to have at times, especially when they detract from teh educational and scholarly mission.


Colleges and universities have budgets...they have to do the same thing. I'm sure the balance comes down differently
for different colleges, especially public vs. private, but there's no question in my mind that colleges make a *lot* of their decisions in an attempt to cut costs and attract more students/donations/research funding. There's no way they could continue to exist, otherwise (although again the degree to which this is true depends on the level of subsidy being received from the government).


First, cutting costs and attracting research funding/tuition dollars/endowment gifts are all perfectly acceptable. However, this does NOT equate to maximizing profits (and I guess I should have used this word rather than "revenue streams"). I firmly believe that universities should basically operate at cost (of course, with some margin to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations and for investments that cater to future requirements).

A non-profit business is still a business...to be sure, it's a different kind of business, but it has to deal with all sorts of financial issues the way businesses do. Not having a net income (operating at cost) doesn't make you not a business.


OK - I agree. I guess I was thinking of a business in the sense of one that exists to make profits for its shareholders...


I don't even know what "we graduate way too many PhDs" means...how would you measure or argue that?

We have two open faculty positions this year in my department. There were - count this - over 120 applications for these two positions. To me that is a pretty obvious measure of the fact that we have a glut of PhDs. Yes, I know that industry employs some of them, but in a vast majority of cases they don't need a PhD to do what they are doing. I have two ex-PhD students - one is employed by Motorola and the other by American Express. Both are doing good work, but in both cases they are vastly overqualified for what they do.

And it's *already* the case that the college-level choices out there are all over the map, from teaching-oriented to research-oriented. It's *already* the case that some faculty at some universities focus on research and other focus on teaching, and there's every possible mix of those two out there in the US college system.

OK, but I'm not sure I see the point you're making here...



You closed the post I responded to with this:

"...we'd be generally better served if only SOME faculty at SOME universities focused on research and the others focused on teaching."

The point I'm making here is that our post-secondary educational system already does that.

You're right. Maybe I should qualify my statement to say that it was in reference to the Research 1 schools (these are the ones that I am most familiar with).


--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obamas Powderkeg
    ... Concentrating on the CORE business and doing what they were HIRED ... If a university hires professors to increase revenue, ... students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside ... university be interested in educating students and, at the same time, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Obamas Powderkeg
    ... Concentrating on the CORE business and doing what they were HIRED ... If a university hires professors to increase revenue, ... students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside ... university be interested in educating students and, at the same time, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Obamas Powderkeg
    ... Concentrating on the CORE business and doing what they were HIRED ... university professors are hired to increase revenue. ... If a university's goal is to actually educate ... students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Obamas Powderkeg
    ... If a university hires professors to increase revenue, ... If a university's goal is to actually educate ... students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside ... and all metrics have shortcomings. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Obamas Powderkeg
    ... carpet cleaners it would be wise to have all 10 cleaning carpets. ... Concentrating on the CORE business and doing what they were HIRED ... If a university's goal is to actually educate ... students, to stay true to those Latin words hammered in stone outside ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)