Au contraire. Oil companies' goals are simple and "good." To take and keep as much of my money as legally possible. And that's why they are "good."

You can get around the bad vegetables if you study the courses offered and think creatively.

Example: I knew Lit. students who hated/feared math. But math was required for their degree. So they found a class called "The History of Math." Little to no computation, formulas, etc. was involved. The course instead involved almost exclusively reading and writing.

It was an Elizabethan numberphobe's dream come true. :)

Oh, and I know your defiance for college sports runs hard and deep, but for an example of students never eating the brussel sprouts, just look at some of the classes the team sports students take...

...unless, of course, those athletes have already declared as their major the painfully specialized and all elite "Undecided." :D

I know several lawyers who were philosophy majors as undergrads. It's a very honorable degree which teaches deduction and correlation of fact. The only thing wrong with philosophy is it's a dying art with today's general intellect being so...well...non-intellectual.

Lawyers are trained to mislead and obfuscate. Part and parcel of the job. No surprise that Coulter writes like she does. If you ask a lawyer any question, if they are good, the first thing out of their mouth will be, "it depends." They never make a clear argument, so as to provide wiggle room. Her article here is just such a piece. It implies a number of things, but never comes out and says anything. The reader is left to make their own inferences, which can no doubt be countered with, "that wasn't the point." And that is becuase there was no valid argument. Only vieled implications and connections.

Perhaps time to start a more "to the point" thread on what is wrong with post secondary education that actually has a premise and better yet, some ideas on how to move forward instead of just bashing things.

Just FYI, Finstone, I am not in a tenure position, or in a tenure track position. I am not in favor of tenure either. Indeed, I take a lot of pride in bringing my own salary, supporting others, and doing some good reserach in the process. And I don`t teach either. As Todd mentioned, research is the principal duty of faculty. And what did you do when you worked in a college?

Aurel

The CEO had a much better education than the Professor/Dept head...LOL Obviously one profession attracted a much higher caliber talent than the other. i guess it is true...those who cannot do...teach.

Obviously supply and demand causes a great difference in salary. Great CEOs are very valuable and rare. They receive their position, salary, and tenure based on performance and fierce competition. Liberal professors are a dime a dozen....and are virtually secure from any performance review and their tenure is pretty well assured regardless of performance. They get exactly what they should expect for a profession with such liberal entry requirements and such low performance expectations.

If you really cannot understand the simple points made in this article, you are clearly a victim of the low quality professors that you all seem to want to defend. Instead of insulting those who have no reading comprehension/logic problems...you should demand a refund.

I suspected that you were not tenured. I also was ready to discuss the issue and all you wanted to do was insult me.....so you should not be surprised that I returned the favor.

Research is considered the primary duty in some schools in some disciplines....but I personally believe that is not the proper way to do business.

I have worked in admissions and as adjunct faculty...and I still tutor....for free. No, I was not the janitor.

I gues Bernie Ebbers and kennith Lay are excellent examples of truly outstanding CEO who very much deserved the compensation they got. I only hope that Lay gets some time in jail too.

What you don't know about University education as a profession is a lot Fint. Every profession has its losers. Univerisities are not an exception. Claiming that most professors are "liberals" is pretty lame. It easy for you to simple decide what an entire class of individuals thinks based on your vast expertise in the field.

The bottom line is that Coulter's essay makes no sense at all. It isn't consistent and it is at best deliberately misleading. At worst it shows how sloppy her thinking is.

You certainly are one narrow-minded person. But what's worse is, by the tone in your writing, you sound proud to be so narrow minded.

What do you tutor?

Aaaah, only got about this far in the thread and couldn't be bothered any more.

Last I checked, college tuition was wasn't an oligopoly and therefore has a different supply/demand relationship, and thus pricing implications.

Moreover, college tuition is (at a guess) an elastic good, whereas oil is about as inelastic as you get.

So, expecting the same proposed solution to the "problem" of price increases is naive, even for Coulter.

I also think trying to restrict oil company profits is a naive response, so I'm being kinda fair.

Tell me, Island dude...how many years did you work in the "University education" business that you are such an expert? I suspect my experience in education far exceeds most poster's experience with the military or government...yet they advance ignorant theories on those subjects daily.

My question is the same for you....why would you advocate different treatment (even jail time?) for CEO's that make a solid profit in the open market while expecting no one to scrutinize the almost obscene cost increases in tuition of your "sacred cow".....education which is funded by tax dollars?

Come on Cam. Coulter was not recommending the solution of fixing prices for professors....she was wondering why there was not a call for investigation or congressional hearings due to large price increases....as were called for regarding oil prices. Clearly one is a "sacred cow" and the other is not.

Certainly the pot calling the kettle...
If you cannot come up with a reasonable argument...there is alway the tactic of calling you opponent stupid or narrow-minded. It might make you feel better, but it doesn't make you look any smarter...or help your argument....or lack therof.

Nah, one is an oligopoly and one isn't. The issue is whether there are abuses of market power (which I believe should be regulated, if appropriate - and it isn't always appropriate).

as it happens, I suspect there may not even be abuses of market power. I don't see a problem with it being investigated...

I can't comment on the forces behind US college tuition fees, but in NZ they have risen fast is because:

- historically the govt paid about 75%, but
- the pressures on costs are quite high (here it isn't a wage/salary issue, it is other costs), but
- the govt won't increase funding by enough (for a variety of reasons), so
- fees - the balancing item - have gone up a lot.

So, in NZ, it is the govts fault, kinda, that fees are going up. The real question (I don't know the answer) is to ask why the costs are rising faster than the govt is prepared to increase funding.

But more to the point, I see no evidence in the US that there is a problem with abuses of market power in the provision of college tuition (or, in the supply of lecturers).

Oil companies are different - the outrage (IMHO) is that they benefit tremendously from factors impacting price through supply and demand which are largely outside their control (I guess they have some impact on supply, but long lead times). As long as they are not abusing market power, I don't see why they should be punished for this, but equally I would hope no-one wants to subsidise them when times are tough (if they ever are again).

So think that through (I'm doing it on the fly) - have they received subsidies in the past? I do believe they have. Should they be negatively subsidised now (lets call it tax)? Maybe?

That offends my market-driven principles though.

So why don't you see state funded Universities as essentially an oligopoly? Is that not a market situation where each of a few producers affects but does not control the market? Each state typically only has a handful to choose from.....and they set the prices more-or less in conjunction with each other. Private or out-of-state tuition would not reasonably be considered to be on the same playing field because of the much greater costs.

Defensive, aren't you? Not to mention steeped in cliche - vis-a-vis "the pot calling the kettle..." How dull and trite!

Anyway, back to proving you wrong:

Show me how you are NOT narrow-minded? You deride liberal arts based on the word "liberal," and give some terribly pejorative example of an oil chief as having more importance than what can be graduated from a liberal arts school. That is narrow-minded.

If you are not narrow-minded, you'll know that poets, playwrights and writers are historically the first killed in the event of a revolution. Not CEOs, not even royalty or presidents.

If you are not narrow-minded, you will see that one of the greatest threats to Republican presidencies since Reagan has been the NEA.

You will also understand that journalism (an art when not written by hacks such as Coulter), is an even larger threat to those in power, particularly Republicans.

So if you know these things, then you know they are all based in liberal arts, and are highly effective to making uneasy, simple souls such as you, Fint, who are afraid of what truths art and writing reveal of a society being taken advantage of by those who believe themselves to be in power.

But you take the typical tool's approach by casting aspersions toward liberal-arts education because they "might" have a liberal bias. Pathetic and ill-founded when the real truth is they are simply telling it like it is.

At any rate, if you want my reasonable argument, it's this: yours makes no sense -- whatever it is.

Not to mention, substantiating your lack of argument, but more your blind hatred by piggy-backing yourself onto a poor example of journalism, makes you look (read) decidedly foolish, poorly read, and just generally ignorant.

Now, again what is the subject that you are no longer PAID to tutor?

Not familiar enough with how it works there, but not really. Publicly provided or subsidised education is generally considered outside the normal framework anyway. Whadaya call them (Cam looks it up - collective good - private good provided by the govt for social reasons, ie the positive externalities of education).

I agree there is potentially market power - certainly there are monopoly elements when you exclude private college fees or travel out of state - but the reality is that education is heavily regulated (although it may not feel that way to you), including as to price.

Pretty funny from someone who resorts to name-calling as a debate technique..LOL When have you ever done that?

When did you stop beating your dog? Sheesh..you get more and more assinine.

Of course I did not. Try to quote me. Your misquoting me really borders on outright dishonesty. It is sad that when you cannot come up with anything else you can argue, you manufacture things that you think you have an argument for....and attribute it to me.

No, the Oil CEO had a technical Phd while the Professor only had a Master's degree. My, you are factually deficient.

Is that because of their inherent lack of value...or because they were the first to give up their guns? You really do not explain why you think this is so. Go back and reread your history before posting such stupidity...Clearly, the soldiers loyal to the government being overthrown were killed first. Duh.

I would agree...and it certainly is nothing to brag about. The NEA buys and pays for democrats to represent it...and it doesn't like any competition that might lead to their members having to meet any standards whaysoever.

Honest, fair, journalism would be refreshing. Let me know when you find some. When you write as well as Coulter...or even Mul...get back to me.

There you go again...making up my position for me so you have something to base your argument. Can't you debate honestly...something I actually posted? I have nothing against liberal arts education...never said I did. Anyone who has the money to pay for it and are not really concerned with a well-paying job in the future...good for them. Heck, most colleges could not field an academically qualified sports team without it. Every time someone gets a liberal arts education, it is just one less person to have to compete with in the workplace.

Buddy, look in the mirror if you want to see hate...or is it self-loathing? You are ranting again....and calling names. Surely there is some sorte of 12-step program for that sort of thing. Honestly, how you would deign to comment that someone was poorly read based on posts here only shows how silly and shallow your comments are.

[ It is really none of your business... but, generally speaking, I have tutored (always at no charge) many undergrad courses including english comp., english lit, a couple of languages, economics, management, calc, differential equations, physics, biology, quite a few electrical/electronic engineering courses, etc. I taught at two different universities and one community college. It is difficult since I am...as you say... "poorly read" and "generally ignorant."