The first part of the article points out something very valid, are you discounting that or not? It then picks on the proffessors. Some are good, some are bad. I have met some awesome teachers that make things go "click", I've also seen some just donig it as a source of salery.

I do not plan to go to colledge, but I wouldn't mind taking classes on music theory/music, and anything related to building and prototyping my own car.

Hey, I got a 4 year degree too! I survived four years of government high screw-all in a damned tough timber town! But I will NEVER disdain an udder! :rolleyes:

Hey...if you had this much to drink (I'm on my way to a very important vote), you wouldn't type any better!

Okay...touche'....I'll give you that one... As one guy with a 4 year degree to another...;)

Not really. Rumor is she was such a crappy attorney, she had to go into sensationalist TV based on a loud mouth and blonde head of stringy hair.

Hey, but give the girl credit: you'd look at her twice if you stumbled into a Denny's at 2:15 AM, and there she was, seated against the counter, asking if you have a spare cigarette.

She's a prolific, committed smoker, after all...;)

Perhaps her work is intended for those of us that are better educated. Maybe you should contact your college professors and ask for a refund....Clearly...as she implies....they were overpaid.

What "first part" was very valid - you mean the first sentence about oil prices being determined by supply and demand? I might give you that, except that I don't see what Kanye West has to do with anything.

The whole article was crap. No supporting data, scattered writing, and blatant use of rhetorical trickery instead of facts or logic.

What do you think the average income of a college professor is, after reading Coulter? $120K, maybe? Like the one professor she uses as representative of all professors, the cretinous Wayne Churchill?

How about "Median annual earnings of all postsecondary teachers in May 2004 were $51,800." which you can find in about 1 second by typing "college professor average salary" in Google and clicking the first link that comes up (US Bureau of Labor Statistics).

You think Coulter doen't know this, can't use Google, has never heard of the US BLS? But railing on the greed of a group of people who make $52K doesn't sell, so she deliberately misleads her reader.

This works because her loyal readers want to be misled. They aren't interested in actually examining an issue - they have a pre-existing view and they want to read stuff that supports their view, written by - to apply Coulter on Coulter - the "most cretinous, idiotic, hate-filled lunatics in the universe".

P.S. For why tuition costs are going up, one thing to think about is whether the growth in demand for higher education is being matched by equivalent growth in state/federal spending on higher education. Historically, public university education has been largely subsidized, i.e. student tuition pays only a fraction of the university's budget. E.g. for the University of California, tuition covers about 9% of the UC's budget. The rest comes from the state government (about 25%), grants, research contracts, patients at the teaching hospital, and so on. So if the state government budget is getting tighter, then there's pressure for tuition to rise.

P.P.S. Fint, don't read the above, as it might upset your comfortably outraged world view. Don't worry, its all the fault of the Indian Studies professor.

You've posted some doozies Fint, but this is perhaps the most transparent troll spew I think you've done. Fine effort. And taking a lesson from the Coulter (and hence your) playbook, I'll generalize to say that everything you post is merely troll droppings.

Wow...this *is* cool. The world becomes so simple...

You should read the article more closely before critiquing it. Coulter did not cite all professors...nor any in CA as you seem to want to change the subject and argue something totally different...as usual. She discussed a specific professor (one who referred to the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns") that does not even hold a PhD....who has zero qualifications to teach the subject...yet received a six figure salary from taxes. Obviously her comparison is just too complicated for the simple minded.

How so? It seems pretty obvious to me that the "Churchill problem" is being treated much different than others...Why is that? Because he is an ultra-liberal...and it is ok if they waste tax dollars?

So the point of your post, and Coulter's article, was only about "a specific professor"?

So why did you bother to post it?

When you started this thread, you said it was an "interesting take on the huge rise in college tuition costs". If you'd titled it "hey guys there is an Indian Studies prof in Colorado who is overpaid" we could have skipped it.

The point is exactly as she stated:

"CNN reports that college tuition has risen an astonishing 40 percent since 2000. But the proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed."

You tell me...."Why are college tuition costs soaring?"...It certainly is not because of any increase in quality of the product. Why are you not calling for an investigation....other than the fact that "so-called" educators are a protected class for liberals?

Clearly, the sham professor from Colorado is the "poster boy" for all that is wrong in education...and as thus...is the perfect example.

Oh come on....nothing but cheap shots. You are better than that. Starting a sentence with "Rumor is" ............

Cheap shot? I never said I hated her. That'd be cheapest! And that she's blonde...or did I say that? :D

Anyway, good call on "Rumor is." It matches the conjecture she poses in her article, does it not?

You want me to tell you why college tuition costs are rising?

Let's see. Suppose we wanted to determine why prices for something are rising. Normally, we'd assess demand; the population of college-age kids, the career prospects of the college-degreed vs high school graduates, the growth in different job categories and what education they require. Then we'd examine supply; how many new universities open each year, the capacity of existing universities to increase enrollment, sources for the capital investment, etc. You'd also look at the marginal cost of production and the input costs. Regulatory and tax factors too. Now, this particular item (tuition) also functions as a revenue line in a university's budget, almost a balancing item. So we'd look at the university's expenses, and sources of non-tuition revenue. If non-tuition revenue sources go down, tuition revenue has to . . . what?

Hmm, this would be work. It would require analysis and thinking. Gosh, I don't see that in any of the neo-con blogs I read, and I can't be bothered to do the work myself. Wait, Ann Coulter, has given me the answer! It's all due to this despicable prof in Colorado, Wayne-somebody! Great, I'll cut and paste it to PP and I'm done!

After all, he is the "perfect example" and "poster child" of college professors, you say. Never mind that he makes 2X the median salary of all college profs, of course you didn't know that because Coulter didn't tell you. Never mind that you just backtracked with "Coulter did not cite all professors . . . She discussed a specific professor".

I have no idea what you do for a living, but I am hopeful that you don't use Coulter-style "analysis" in your industry.

If you were an analyst, you would see that Coulter make no attempt to analyze why tuition costs are rising. She only repeats the facts as reported. her point is the same:
"CNN reports that college tuition has risen an astonishing 40 percent since 2000. But the proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed."
Obviously...Churchill is indeed a good selection for example (poster boy)...because he is well known. He is well known to be overpaid, well known to have a fraudulent resume, well known to not have the normal credentials for his position, and well known as a far-left, anti-american, pro-terrorist wacko. He is the perfect person to use to point out the inequity in how the issue is being treated in the media. It is the same tactics used to attack the oil industry....brilliantly turned around on them by Coulter. Why did you not do similar analysis on all oil industry employees to defend them before making your post like you did with educators? Obviously such small minded attacks prove Coulter's point.... sacred cows of the left are treated differently than everyone else.

What do I do for a living? My primary job is an operations research analyst...although a very senior one now, with most of my "grunt work" done by others....but still considered by many to be one of the top analysts in the country....I appreciate your "schooling me" anyways.

This so called churchill problem is only one professor at one college. How can you generalize based on one man? I can bet that my dynamics professor doesn't earn close to that pay, and he can clean any MIT professor's clock in my opinion (the guy is good).

Then you turn around and use your dynamics professor...He is "only one professor at one college."..."How can you generalize based on one man?" LOL.

Of course Churchill was never the point...only the attention-getter. The point was:

"CNN reports that college tuition has risen an astonishing 40 percent since 2000. But the proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed."

That's a good start, to admit "that Coulter make no attempt to analyze why tuition costs are rising."

Now, in the first few lines of her piece she reports that tuition costs are rising.

So, what is the remaining 9/10ths of her article for? She isn't analyzing anything, as you've agreed. She isn't providing any further data to help the reader do analysis, except to highlight one prof and invite the reader to consider that prof as representative of all profs, which is actively misleading since he earns >2X the average prof salary and, as you say, lacks the "normal credentials for his position".

What she's doing is rabble-rousing. And you're part of the rabble.

You may be a good ops analyst, in your field. But when it comes to social/economic issues like this, your posts don't suggest that you actually analyze. Certainly not in this thread, where you post a Coulter article that "make[s] no attempt to analyze" and then don't follow up with any attempt of your own.

By the way, is Churchill "indeed a good selection for example (poster boy)...because he is well known"? When you analyze a problem, are you led by the occurrence that gets the most publicity? Or do you collect the data on all occurrences and look at max, min, mean, distribution, and so on? What would you instruct one of your "grunts" to do?

Focusing on notorious, well-publicized instances is a good way to rabble-rouse. Its not a good way to actually understand a problem.

P.S. I see you keep bouncing around. Sometimes Churchill is a good example, then he's merely the attention-getter, no he's the poster boy, actually he's just one specific individual, etc. Okay, let's be clear about it. He is the most aberrant, attention-getting, individual instance that Coulter could find in a population of 1.6 million post-secondary profs in the US. Great for rousing the rabble, and that's about it.

Maybe one college but not one professor. I used him as an example because i have a lot of respect for the guy and he's one of the best i know at what he does. However i've yet to come across a professor how didn't know what they were talking about as you insinuate this churchill fellow is. Bad teachers sure, but uneducated, i think not. And since NMSU isn't exactly a top rated school to say the least, i'd go out on a limb and say that there are plenty more schools with talented faculty who more than earn there salary.