My wife has a degree in math from St. John's in Annapolis, along with a philosophy degree from same. Her skill in software architecture is highly sought after...but not because of her degrees; her work ethic, tenacity and focus are the reason.

Which, no doubt, are the traits of your colleague.

Evoking the, "troll" epithet is the last refuge of a simple mind...I frankly expected better.
My bad.

haha. that's funny. why argue when it is pointless? Fint doesn't care a whit about this crap. He posts it to get a rise out of people. I could line up brilliant point and after brillant point and it would either be ignored or refuted by "facts" that have nothing to do with the point at hand. But therein lies the rub...there really is no point in hand.

Churchill sounds like a quack. He's being investigated by the university right now. Every profession has losers. This evidently is one of them. But to indict an entire profession and blame high costs on the faculty is specious at best, and mean-spirited at worst.

Of course she made no attempt to analyze the rise in tuition costs because that had nothing to do with her point....she similarly did not analyze the rise in gas prices.....she only stated the fact that both had had similar increases.

The entire article was to point out:

"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."

I am a very good, well trained analyst....there is no difference in "field." There is simply no need to analyze anything to understand her point...which was very simple:

"proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed."

Once again, Churchhill is the perfect example to use in an Op Ed article. Obviously you want to show a "worst case" example...as Churchhill likely is. Once again...no attempt is made to analyze salaries because that was really not the point of the article. No, I would never have an employee waste time doing any statistical analysis on such a simple problem where the answer was obvious and the necessary data (40% increase in tuition costs)was already there to prove my/her point...which is:

"proposed solutions to the exact same problem — high prices for gasoline and tuition, respectively — were diametrically opposed."

You just confuse the terms...I don't know if it is by accident or by design. No one claimed Churchhill was the mean, the median...or just a statistical anomoly. As I stated, he is the perfect example for this op ed article because he is the attention-getter (poster-boy)....just as the CEO of Exxon...or Cheney would be used to indict oil companies for price increases. I cannot imagine that they did much research into the average Joe in the oil industry who receives a median salary. As I posted earlier, Coulter once again is using a liberal technique against liberals....and they are crying like babies.

Actually NMSU is very well respected by industry....and certainly a "best buy" for engineering/technical education.

Did you even read the article...or my posts? I cannot seem to find my indictments of the profession that you do. Maybe you could point them out to me.

On the other hand...what other profession could justify such large salaries without insisting on clear performance measures/improvement? Obviously tenure in public schools needs to be revisited.

Which is the definition of OT...and I know the answer to the tuition thing.

You say:

"Of course she made no attempt to analyze the rise in tuition costs because that had nothing to do with her point"

And then you say:

"The entire article was to point out:
'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.' "

So her "point" has to do with the proposed solution to rising tuition costs, while at the same time the cause of rising tuition costs has nothing to do with her point.

The solution to a problem has nothing to do with the cause of the problem? Right.

You inititated this thread with the title "Why are college tuition costs soaring". And Coulter kicks off her article with the question "What determines the price of college tuition?".

So I thought you and she were actually trying to make a point about the causes of and solutions for rising tuition costs.

Apparently not. There is no discernible point to your thread, none that is interesting anyway. Excuse me, I have to go get 30 minutes of my life back.

Actually I disagree about that being the definition of OT. To me, OT is a place for this community to discuss things *not* directly related to Porsches or BMWs...ie topics that really don't belong on the tech boards. It is not (imho) a place for social experiments, vituperative attacks, or inflammatory trolling. A good active discussion on a hot topic will always tend to raise the dander of some, but too often it just becomes rather mean-spirited.

But sillly posts (and grid girls) are always welcome.

As for the tuition question, again this is way too simplified. If you want to have an answer, you need to set the question. Tuitions are vastly different between different types of institutions, as are the revenue streams. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

And I still don't know where that 40% number came from. I know a lot of institutions that have not increased by anywhere near that number. Again, the premise is sloppy.

Perhaps if you actually read my posts...(of course that would not fit your argument, now would it?)...where I posted several times that:

The entire article was to point out:

"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."

It seems pretty clear to me that this points out the differing standards for "liberal friendly" industries/concerns.

In all these posts, I have never even mentioned "causes of and solutions for rising tuition costs" so it appears odd that you somehow have decided that is my position....I guess that fits your argument better than what I actually posted.

Come back when you decide what is is you really want to discuss...just don't attribute your silly rants to me.

Sometimes it seems to me that if you disagree with the post...or it hits a bit close to home....it is trolling, but if not......anything goes. I imagine if the post was trashing an oil executive and not a college professor (which you have been)...you would have seen no problem with the post.

Coulter was clear about the source of the 40% increase in tuition number. I am sure if you are really concerned, you can easily find the source she refers to.

Oh, I don't know; perhaps a Republican politician...or a Republican-slanted hack journalist...

Well, there is always what we wish for and what we get. I prefer OT to be whatever the community becomes, free of expectations.

Who could anticipate Fastpat and Mul (both on my must NOT ignore list) in the same space?

Concerning tuition: 40% may be off, but not by a signifiant factor. What the article tried to say, without much success in my opinion, is that the tie between the rise in oil prices and tuition are jointed at the hip: because they can.

I'll go get the inflation to tuition ratios...aggregate measures to be sure, but reflective for this venue.

I suppose my main issue is that Fint does a cut and paste job, then sits back. People refute what they believe is his (or Coulters argument), then he chimes back in and says, "I didn't say that..." Therein lies the problem...there never seems to be anything said. If I get his posts correctly, his real beef is with liberal professors and tenure. But it isn't until 60 some odd posts in the thread that he mentions the "t" word.

This to me is lame. Tossing something out, then shifting what the "point" of it was as the discussion unfolds.

And btw I am against tenure.

Nostatic...I find it odd that you find it odd for me to correct people who misstate my position...and attribute their words to me. I am not responsible for a general lack of reading comprehension here, but I do reserve the right to correct those who misquote me.

This is my post....the 6th one in this thread...and before any of yours....and before jyl insinuated I was stupid...and you called me a troll. It seems pretty clear to me that I posted what I thought the point of the article was (seemed obvious to me). Read my post below again and see if you agree:

"Gee it is funny that you guys complain about everything but the real point of the article....the difference in how the similar problems are addressed. If gas prices go up due to effective management and supply and demand...clearly people are paid too much
If tuition goes up...and their product/efficiency goes down...clearly people are paid too little.
Defending a professor's $120k a year salary who only has his position (Indian studies) because he apparently misrepresented himself as a native american...is just a ridiculous as defending a better paid, but effective manager at an oil company...or whatever."

Pasting and then defending anything written by Coulter is foolish. Entertaining, but foolish.

I cannot beleive how you guys are treating this, totaly ignoring what Flint is pointing out.

Well, the point keeps shifting (or implied points), but let me address the most recent claimed point:

That is ridiculous. Do gas prices go up by effective management and supply and demand? "Effective management" implies that the management *wants* prices to increase. Is that the case with education? What is the typical salary of a high level manager or executive in big oil? A LOT higher than $120K.

A single loser faculty (who is under investigation and may lose tenure) is presented. He does not represent the average or even one or two standard deviations from the average wrt pay and qualifications. I don't see anyone here "defending his position." Issues of effective management and supply/demand do function in the education world. But education and oil are not equivalent businesses, so to apply a simplistic arguement is specious and inflammatory. And that is almost always Coulter's (and by extension Fint's) M.O.

Education clearly needs to reform. I'm in the thick of it. I am against tenure and in fact walked away from it. But to juxtapose oil prices and tuition prices and make thinly vieled attacks against faculty salaries and qualifications does not help up transform what is perhaps the single most important "industry" in this nation (education). Instead it polarizes people and demonizes the wrong parties with sweeping generalizations.

Higher education is a tricky one. There is a need to balance "efficiency" with open inquiry. You are educating our future leaders and thinkers, but that does not necessarily mean you are "training" them. Especially given the current and future economy and businesses. College cannot be a trade school. You should not be learning "job skills" there. One needs to learn critical thinking and analysis, have their horizons expanded so they can consider different possibilities than what they have so far experienced, and most importantly, they need to learn how to learn for themselves. That is the only way they will be able to succeed in the workforce. This is NOT the world that you and I (those who are 30-something and older) grew up in. And to try and continue to force our sometimes limited view of what constitutes "education" is dangerous and regressive.

My experiences in the corporate world leads me to believe that a "pure business" approach to education will not lead to this environment. Higher Ed has lost its way in some areas, but it still gets some things right. Education is a business, but it is not business. It is a combination of business, art, science, and irreverent thinking.

Well I have clearly posted....over and over...ad infinitum what my point was. If you don't want to argue that....so be it....but it is pretty weak to impugn my argument by claiming my position is other than that which I clear posted...Almost as bad as dismissing people with different positions as a "Troll,"
But if you want to discuss your agendas instead.....so be it. I am game.

First I will address this atatement of your's: "But education and oil are not equivalent businesses, so to apply a simplistic arguement is specious and inflammatory. And that is almost always Coulter's (and by extension Fint's) M.O."
Obviously thais was not my point nor Coulter's...and one I never attempted to make...Once again you attempt to define my argument as one you feel you can debate instead of debating what I actually posted...not very sportsmanlike. Clearly the point was:
"it is funny that you guys complain about everything but the real point of the article....the difference in how the similar problems are addressed."

So your position is that higher education is "a tricky one" but global oil prices are not? LOL. I guess it only depends on what business you are in. Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you made similar "troll" remarks when other's livlihoods were attacked. But you have not. Nor have you indicated why they are different and why education should be treated as a scared cow.
It appears to me...that education is one of...if not the most mismanaged industry in the US......while the oil industry is incredibly well managed.

Please explain why you feel that "Issues of effective management and supply/demand do function in the education world." Although apparently I have a bit less time teaching in a university than you, it seems obvious to me that they should and do. how exacly do you justify an increase of 40% increase in tuition without an increase...or even an attempt to measure an increase in product quality....other than supply and demand?

forget it. hopeless. the point shifts again. I'm out...cheers! :)