I have dear friends on the list.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-announces-layoffs-to-trim-costs-b99209206z1-246186681.html
They need to re-think the necessity of tenure. Nearly 200k to get a 4 year diploma. It cost my parents 12K for 4 years at MU and we thought that was outrageous back then in the 60s.
Hope your friend lands something soon; getting laid off can be a great opportunity to find something better.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 19, 2014, 01:01:43 PM
They need to re-think the necessity of tenure. Nearly 200k to get a 4 year diploma. It cost my parents 12K for 4 years at MU and we thought that was outrageous back then in the 60s.
Hope your friend lands something soon; getting laid off can be a great opportunity to find something better.
Exactly. How they need to cut employees with the price of tuition is absolutely beyond me. Disheartening.
While it's awful for anyone to lose their job, Marquette needs to relentlessly pursue cost saving measures.
I'll say it to anyone who'll listen: The universe of people who can or are willing to pay for MU (or any private school) tuition as it increases, drops to zero in the long term. When my 5 year old wants to go to Marquette in 14 years and the tuition is $106,000 a year .. forget it. Even at 50% aid, forget it.
They must bend their cost curve.
Quote from: jsglow on February 19, 2014, 12:40:56 PM
I have dear friends on the list.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/marquette-university-announces-layoffs-to-trim-costs-b99209206z1-246186681.html
What departments do they work for?
As I understand it is limited to administrators. No full time faculty involved.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 19, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
While it's awful for anyone to lose their job, Marquette needs to relentlessly pursue cost saving measures.
I'll say it to anyone who'll listen: The universe of people who can or are willing to pay for MU (or any private school) tuition as it increases, drops to zero in the long term. When my 5 year old wants to go to Marquette in 14 years and the tuition is $106,000 a year .. forget it. Even at 50% aid, forget it.
They must bend their cost curve.
They do. But it should not be done on the backs on non-tenured folks who work their butts off to support those are employed for life.
The tenure system needs to be reevaluated. It is not sustainable.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 19, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
While it's awful for anyone to lose their job, Marquette needs to relentlessly pursue cost saving measures.
I'll say it to anyone who'll listen: The universe of people who can or are willing to pay for MU (or any private school) tuition as it increases, drops to zero in the long term. When my 5 year old wants to go to Marquette in 14 years and the tuition is $106,000 a year .. forget it. Even at 50% aid, forget it.
They must bend their cost curve.
Absolutely correct. And the university fully understands this.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 19, 2014, 01:06:44 PM
I'll say it to anyone who'll listen: The universe of people who can or are willing to pay for MU (or any private school) tuition as it increases, drops to zero in the long term. When my 5 year old wants to go to Marquette in 14 years and the tuition is $106,000 a year .. forget it. Even at 50% aid, forget it.
As someone who is much closer to starting to write checks to a college, I'll second this. I was fortunate enough to attend Marquette to obtain a degree that, frankly, I could have gotten pretty much anywhere. My son is now looking at colleges, and we're having an lot of talks about whether a private liberal arts education has any reasonable value. For some of the colleges he's looking at, even with 50% aid they would be well above other options available to us (some of which are very good schools). There's one state school where an ACT score that I'm sure is attainable will automatically qualify him for a full tuition scholarship. It's kind of hard to justify the cost of private school tuition -- even with significant aid. I've had to tell him that if he wants to attend some of the schools he really likes, he's going to need a lot of help from somewhere other than us. That's a really hard conversation to have with your kid.
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
When I went to school my parents told me that they would pay the in-state rate (U of I for me) and anything above that would be on me. Luckily I had significant scholarship money which made the price of education at MU roughly equivalent to that at U of I. With the rate MU tuition has risen, that would no longer be the case today.
I loved everything about my Marquette experience.
Academics
Theology, Philosophy, etc.
College of Business
Friends
Basketball
Cura Personalis
Everything
Having said all that, with costs of a Marquette education rising significantly above the cost of inflation, I have a really hard time reconciling cost with benefit. Sad, because the Marquette message is not passing to everyone. It is going to those whose parents are of means. I know many kids who are unwilling to apply because of the $$ involved. I always encourage the app and tell them Marquette has $$ for good students, but usually it falls on deaf ears.
Sad story. Feel bad for those affected.
Quote from: spartan3186 on February 19, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
That's the sticker price, but far fewer people pay the sticker price at MU compared to UW due to financial aid and scholarships. Also, UW is more likely to take 5 years due to class availability, which tacks on a little more. MU is obviously more, but the advertised price makes it seem worse than it is.
Quote from: spartan3186 on February 19, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
When I went to school my parents told me that they would pay the in-state rate (U of I for me) and anything above that would be on me. Luckily I had significant scholarship money which made the price of education at MU roughly equivalent to that at U of I. With the rate MU tuition has risen, that would no longer be the case today.
In-state tuition for U of I next year can be up to $20,176, per their website. Take Marquette's tuition and subtract a typical Ignatius Scholarship, and you are pretty close to apples and apples.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 19, 2014, 02:14:15 PM
In-state tuition for U of I next year can be up to $20,176, per their website. Take Marquette's tuition and subtract a typical Ignatius Scholarship, and you are pretty close to apples and apples.
The Iggy was only $8,000 ten years ago. What are they giving away now?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 19, 2014, 02:22:19 PM
The Iggy was only $8,000 ten years ago. What are they giving away now?
I think it tops out at $14,000 or so.
Quote from: spartan3186 on February 19, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
When I went to school my parents told me that they would pay the in-state rate (U of I for me) and anything above that would be on me. Luckily I had significant scholarship money which made the price of education at MU roughly equivalent to that at U of I. With the rate MU tuition has risen, that would no longer be the case today.
UW sucks tons of taxpayers money to keep it going. MU is a private institution.
Not a fair comparsion.
Boston College and NYU are nearly $60k/year. NYU housing could run another $30 to $40k/year because Greenwich Village is so expensive.
---------------
Also from the JS article:
Marquette University is eliminating 25 staff positions — its first workforce reduction since the mid-1990s — as part of an effort to cut costs and create efficiencies so that a Marquette education will continue to be affordable, Interim President Father Robert Wild announced in a letter Wednesday to faculty and staff.So MU is eliminating 25 people. We offer prayers.
A few years ago when Walker offered up cuts, UW student took over the capital, sh!t on the floor and caused tens of thousands of damage.
UW is a bunch of out of touch entitled lefties.
Let's just say that each of these people cost $100,000. Salary, benefits, etc. (Which is likely high...)
Spread out across 12,000 students, this would save each student...just over $200.
Drop in a bucket.
Do we know what areas/departments have been affected? I have friends working at a few different places within the university.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 19, 2014, 01:01:43 PM
They need to re-think the necessity of tenure. Nearly 200k to get a 4 year diploma. It cost my parents 12K for 4 years at MU and we thought that was outrageous back then in the 60s.
Hope your friend lands something soon; getting laid off can be a great opportunity to find something better.
Tenure is non-negotiable. Marquette will never, ever consider eliminating the tenure system.
But Marquette, like any enterprise, must manage costs. While I feel for the people getting laid off I am confident Fr Wild made this decision for sound business reasons.
I also question the need for prayers in this case. Beseeching the Almighty because educated middle class people were laid off trivializes prayer. There is a long line of people in need before the Lord gets around to ensuring a place kicker makes a field goal or a guy gets another job. The great thing about adversity of this sort is that people find that inner reservoir of strength and overcome what is essentially a manageable problem. Save prayers of the real problems.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 19, 2014, 02:50:40 PM
UW sucks tons of taxpayers money to keep it going. MU is a private institution.
Not a fair comparsion.
Boston College and NYU are nearly $60k/year. NYU housing could run another $30 to $40k/year because Greenwich Village is so expensive.
---------------
Also from the JS article:
Marquette University is eliminating 25 staff positions — its first workforce reduction since the mid-1990s — as part of an effort to cut costs and create efficiencies so that a Marquette education will continue to be affordable, Interim President Father Robert Wild announced in a letter Wednesday to faculty and staff.
So MU is eliminating 25 people. We offer prayers.
A few years ago when Walker offered up cuts, UW student took over the capital, sh!t on the floor and caused tens of thousands of damage.
UW is a bunch of out of touch entitled lefties.
Its fair in that we compete with them. Taxpayer money or not, people aren't going to go to MU if there is a quality school 60 miles west for 1/3 the price. That's just reality.
Don't make this a political thing either.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 02:59:49 PM
Tenure is non-negotiable. Marquette will never, ever consider eliminating the tenure system.
But Marquette, like any enterprise, must manage costs. While I feel for the people getting laid off I am confident Fr Wild made this decision for sound business reasons.
I also question the need for prayers in this case. Beseeching the Almighty because educated middle class people were laid off trivializes prayer. There is a long line of people in need before the Lord gets around to ensuring a place kicker makes a field goal or a guy gets another job. The great thing about adversity of this sort is that people find that inner reservoir of strength and overcome what is essentially a manageable problem. Save prayers of the real problems.
That's a little presumptuous to judge who needs prayers and who doesn't.
What if someone who just got laid off has a spouse with cancer, and the couple now loses their health insurance? Still not worth our prayers?
God never made some socioeconomic threshold that you have to be below to ask for grace and strength. All humans can have that.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 02:59:49 PM
Tenure is non-negotiable. Marquette will never, ever consider eliminating the tenure system.
But Marquette, like any enterprise, must manage costs. While I feel for the people getting laid off I am confident Fr Wild made this decision for sound business reasons.
I also question the need for prayers in this case. Beseeching the Almighty because educated middle class people were laid off trivializes prayer. There is a long line of people in need before the Lord gets around to ensuring a place kicker makes a field goal or a guy gets another job. The great thing about adversity of this sort is that people find that inner reservoir of strength and overcome what is essentially a manageable problem. Save prayers of the real problems.
God can handle it. I pray about a lot of things more trivial than this.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 19, 2014, 03:08:16 PM
Its fair in that we compete with them. Taxpayer money or not, people aren't going to go to MU if there is a quality school 60 miles west for 1/3 the price. That's just reality.
Don't make this a political thing either.
Ok, maybe the better metric is not UW but private BE schools along with Northwestern and ND.
When MU's tuition and costs are compared against these schools, it is better than average.
UW is best compared against the other large taxpayer support public schools like the B1G (excluding NU).
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 19, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Ok, maybe the better metric is not UW but private BE schools along with Northwestern and ND.
When MU's tuition and costs are compared against these schools, it is better than average.
UW is best compared against the other large taxpayer support public schools like the B1G (excluding NU).
You have to compare to your competitors for students. My guess is that Madison is one of Marquette's top, if not *the* top, competitor for students.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 19, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Ok, maybe the better metric is not UW but private BE schools along with Northwestern and ND.
When MU's tuition and costs are compared against these schools, it is better than average.
UW is best compared against the other large taxpayer support public schools like the B1G (excluding NU).
No one is arguing that MU's tuition must be equal to UW's. But it needs to be competitive, when factoring in financial aid
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 19, 2014, 02:56:58 PM
Let's just say that each of these people cost $100,000. Salary, benefits, etc. (Which is likely high...)
Spread out across 12,000 students, this would save each student...just over $200.
Drop in a bucket.
They also plan to eliminate 80 other positions through retirement and attrition.
.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 19, 2014, 03:31:32 PM
No one is arguing that MU's tuition must be equal to UW's. But it needs to be competitive, when factoring in financial aid
Wrong ... that is exactly what was being argued.
Quote from: spartan3186 on February 19, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
When I went to school my parents told me that they would pay the in-state rate (U of I for me) and anything above that would be on me. Luckily I had significant scholarship money which made the price of education at MU roughly equivalent to that at U of I. With the rate MU tuition has risen, that would no longer be the case today.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 19, 2014, 03:38:48 PM
Wrong ... that is exactly what was being argued.
Did you even read what I just wrote?
Quote from: spartan3186 on February 19, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
As much as I despise the Badgers, for in-state kids the value proposition at UW-Madison is significantly better than that of MU.
2013/14 Tuition
UW-Madison: $10,400
Marquette: $35,480
When I went to school my parents told me that they would pay the in-state rate (U of I for me) and anything above that would be on me. Luckily I had significant scholarship money which made the price of education at MU roughly equivalent to that at U of I. With the rate MU tuition has risen, that would no longer be the case today.
Were your parents my parents??? Had the exact same scenario.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 19, 2014, 02:58:17 PM
Do we know what areas/departments have been affected? I have friends working at a few different places within the university.
IMO, this wouldn't even be newsworthy unless the cuts were being made to high-dollar staffers. If I had to guess, I would say endowment & fundraising will be hit the hardest... money management can be easily outsourced and the University has already "laid off" two high-profile fundraisers who weren't getting the job done.
I would be surprised if MU was laying off custodians and ass't librarians.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 19, 2014, 03:11:17 PM
That's a little presumptuous to judge who needs prayers and who doesn't.
What if someone who just got laid off has a spouse with cancer, and the couple now loses their health insurance? Still not worth our prayers?
God never made some socioeconomic threshold that you have to be below to ask for grace and strength. All humans can have that.
+1.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 02:59:49 PM
Tenure is non-negotiable. Marquette will never, ever consider eliminating the tenure system.
But Marquette, like any enterprise, must manage costs. While I feel for the people getting laid off I am confident Fr Wild made this decision for sound business reasons.
I also question the need for prayers in this case. Beseeching the Almighty because educated middle class people were laid off trivializes prayer. There is a long line of people in need before the Lord gets around to ensuring a place kicker makes a field goal or a guy gets another job. The great thing about adversity of this sort is that people find that inner reservoir of strength and overcome what is essentially a manageable problem. Save prayers of the real problems.
Sadly your right; but they could freeze a tenured professors salary and benefits to keep costs down. If the tenured professor does not like it he can look else where. I am sure that will not happen and that is why the cost of education is so high.
young lady from LegsJr's grade school graduating class (co-validictorian in grade school, fwiw) attended Northside and just matriculated to Stanford. Smart cookie, great school.
Quote from: Heisenberg on February 19, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
Ok, maybe the better metric is not UW but private BE schools along with Northwestern and ND.
When MU's tuition and costs are compared against these schools, it is better than average.
UW is best compared against the other large taxpayer support public schools like the B1G (excluding NU).
ND tuition room and board for next year came out today. $59,480.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 19, 2014, 03:11:17 PM
That's a little presumptuous to judge who needs prayers and who doesn't.
What if someone who just got laid off has a spouse with cancer, and the couple now loses their health insurance? Still not worth our prayers?
God never made some socioeconomic threshold that you have to be below to ask for grace and strength. All humans can have that.
The scenario you outline is materially different.
In any event, I don't care who prays to what god for what purpose. Personally, I find that most prayers are narcissistic. And if you look at many requests there is a shrugging of personal responsibility.
If you didn't have Fr Davitt at Marquette read Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant for their thoughts on this subject.
Can someone smarter than I evaluate the highlighted material here and tell me how accurate it is?
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1y4a3j/why_is_tuition_rising_so_much_new_analysis_shows/cfhg0l8?context=3
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 19, 2014, 02:58:17 PM
Do we know what areas/departments have been affected? I have friends working at a few different places within the university.
The biggest cuts from what I hear come from the office of adminstration. Plus others. Sad day at Marquette.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on February 19, 2014, 06:55:20 PM
young lady from LegsJr's grade school graduating class (co-validictorian in grade school, fwiw) attended Northside and just matriculated to Stanford. Smart cookie, great school.
grade school validictorian? WTF??
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 19, 2014, 08:33:54 PM
grade school validictorian? WTF??
I saw that, too. Not sure how a 12 year old can provide meaningful insight on the elementary school experience.
Guys, my stock portfolio was down 1.4% today. That's a lot of dough.
Also my steak at lunch.. ordered medium and it was too pink. I was running low on time so I ate it as is.
Been a rough day.
Prayers 4 me. thx!
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 19, 2014, 10:04:13 PM
Guys, my stock portfolio was down 1.4% today. That's a lot of dough.
Also my steak at lunch.. ordered medium and it was too pink. I was running low on time so I ate it as is.
Been a rough day.
Prayers 4 me. thx!
Man up bro, rare is the only way to go on good beef.
Layoffs suck. I've had to layoff 100+ ees...look them in the eye and tell them. And none of these were my decision. It came, ultimately, from shareholders.
I can tell you first hand that most laid off employees end up better off. Not all do, but many end up in a better place.
The best thing you can do for them...is not prayer (respectfully), it's help them network. I guarantee you know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who wants to hire your friend. Help them understand the power of networking.
Trust me on this.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 19, 2014, 10:04:13 PM
Guys, my stock portfolio was down 1.4% today. That's a lot of dough.
Also my steak at lunch.. ordered medium and it was too pink. I was running low on time so I ate it as is.
Been a rough day.
Prayers 4 me. thx!
Just got off my knees. Jesus said to sell your NVIDIA. He also told me Blue Horseshoe likes Anacott Steel.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 06:57:16 PM
The scenario you outline is materially different.
In any event, I don't care who prays to what god for what purpose. Personally, I find that most prayers are narcissistic. And if you look at many requests there is a shrugging of personal responsibility.
If you didn't have Fr Davitt at Marquette read Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant for their thoughts on this subject.
I guess my point was just that we don't know the unique life circumstances of each person in a layoff, so why minimize it?
I've read Confessions and City of God, the Summa Theologica, Decartes' meditations, and Kants categorical imperatives. Beyond that, what would you recommend?
I like two specific references in the Bible on prayer. The first is in Ecclesiastes. 'God is in heaven, you are on Earth. Keep your words to Him few.' It is my understanding that the Church interprets this with an emphasis on 'yours' so that you do not ramble on in your prayers, which is congruent with the reference below.
Second, as Christ Himself says, 'God knows your wants and needs even before you do. Therefore, when you pray, do not babble like a pagan, but instead pray 'Our Father''. I believe the Church would add on certain other prayers and recitations like the Nicene Creed, Hail Mary, etc.
Praying the rosary is always, always a good thing, regardless of what prompted you.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 19, 2014, 01:01:43 PM
They need to re-think the necessity of tenure. Nearly 200k to get a 4 year diploma. It cost my parents 12K for 4 years at MU and we thought that was outrageous back then in the 60s.
Hope your friend lands something soon; getting laid off can be a great opportunity to find something better.
If they would get rid of tenure you can immediately expect one of two possible outcomes.
1. Faculty salary nearly doubles and tuition rises substantially. Your average professor could go out into industry (notably exceptions being pure liberal arts categories) and make double what they make in academia. Tenure is one of the perks that makes it enticing. If that is gone, talented professors say screw it.
2. Universities replace professors with adjuncts, who largely are not qualified to teach the classes. Tuition stays the same but the quality of the education plummets.
Those calling for the end of tenure have zero understanding of how universities work and what is causing increases in tuition. The absolute last cause of tuition increases is faculty pay and tenure.
Augustine wrote that one does not pray to God for what one needs for God already knows. Rather, we ought to pray to increase our desire for God so that we are better prepared to receive His grace.
In Augustine's construct, prayer should permeate every aspect of one's life and our desire for God should be constant if one is living in His grace. To pray for something specific, especially in a time of need, was much too mercenary and cynical in Augustine's view.
In Summa Theologica, Aquinas makes clear that one ought not to pray for anything specific, definitive, or even temporal. He reiterates Augustine's position that to do so is vulgar since the flow of events is God's Plan and it is improper to ask that the Divine Plan be altered. Rather, one should ask for the fulfillment of God's Plan.
But as I said earlier, I really do not care if people want to ask God for whatever they desire. I agree that Augustine and Aquinas got it right and that God already knows if a place kicker is going to make the field goal to win the game. And no matter how much we pray He isn't going to make the guy miss.
Quote from: forgetful on February 19, 2014, 11:32:43 PM
If they would get rid of tenure you can immediately expect one of two possible outcomes.
1. Faculty salary nearly doubles and tuition rises substantially. Your average professor could go out into industry (notably exceptions being pure liberal arts categories) and make double what they make in academia. Tenure is one of the perks that makes it enticing. If that is gone, talented professors say screw it.
2. Universities replace professors with adjuncts, who largely are not qualified to teach the classes. Tuition stays the same but the quality of the education plummets.
Those calling for the end of tenure have zero understanding of how universities work and what is causing increases in tuition. The absolute last cause of tuition increases is faculty pay and tenure.
+1
And intellectual progress would take a back seat to political correctness.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on February 19, 2014, 11:46:22 PM
+1
And intellectual progress would take a back seat to political correctness.
Precisely. There is a reason for academic tenure. And it works by ensuring intellectual freedom.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 08:41:50 PM
I saw that, too. Not sure how a 12 year old can provide meaningful insight on the elementary school experience.
True (but age 14), but some grade schools do it.
Intended point only was to confirm Northside's credentials -- maybe it's the tallest midget award, but it is "rated" as one of the top 5 high schools in Illinois.
University of Illinois at Chicago faculty on strike today and tomorrow. Tenured faculty and non-tenured joining together in a move to protest/raise awareness of the low wages of part-time faculty.
It is interesting how the schools more and more are using part-time and non-tenured positions to address the market (they can hire and fire those positions as market demands dictate--demand for nano-tech courses is up, hire three new instructors in the field, and lay off or cut back the time of three humanities instructors). Reserve the tenured positions for the research beasts.
My simple understanding from a report I heard on the radio this morning is that the tenured faculty has joined in part because the non-tenured are doing less and less "extra" work (admnistrative, committtees and even office hours), and so a greater burden for that administrative work and (gasp) helping students has fallen to the tenured faculty.
Quote from: real chili 83 on February 19, 2014, 10:25:37 PM
Layoffs suck. I've had to layoff 100+ ees...look them in the eye and tell them. And none of these were my decision. It came, ultimately, from shareholders.
I can tell you first hand that most laid off employees end up better off. Not all do, but many end up in a better place.
Trust me on this.
So you're the evil bastard! ;)
As one that has twice been laid off due to plant closures, it ain't all roses as you imply. A ton of stress especially if the job searching is fruitless after 6 months of pounding the pavement looking knowing that the little bit of unemployment you were collecting is about to run out (and taxable nowadays).
Quote from: wadesworld on February 19, 2014, 01:04:36 PM
Exactly. How they need to cut employees with the price of tuition is absolutely beyond me. Disheartening.
Not sure I understand your comment. Usually its a simple matter of economics. It is always disheartening to lay someone off...never easy. What is at MU's disposal to cut costs? They can't cut tenured professors, if they cut programs that means job losses. I suppose the could take down the basketball budget a few million, that would get people here upset. Etc, etc.
Tough choices. I hope these folks land on their feet.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on February 20, 2014, 07:55:47 AM
Layoffs suck. I've had to layoff 100+ ees...look them in the eye and tell them. And none of these were my decision. It came, ultimately, from shareholders.
I can tell you first hand that most laid off employees end up better off. Not all do, but many end up in a better place.
Trust me on this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're the evil bastard! ;)
As one that has twice been laid off due to plant closures, it ain't all roses as you imply. A ton of stress especially if the job searching is fruitless after 6 months of pounding the pavement looking knowing that the little bit of unemployment you were collecting is about to run out (and taxable nowadays).
Was laid off for almost 7 months in 2009. A simple victim of LIFO. Thank God UI was more than 6 months then. The stress of barely anything to even apply for the first 3 months was very hard. While full-time job searching I made sure to squeeze in a lot of work on my house simply to stay sane. I attended weekly job network meetings which didn't lead to a job, but was very helpful psychologically as it was more like "Unemployment Anonymous". Being in a room of very talented people who were in the same boat was eye opening. I finally landed a contract job to get back to work which worked out great as it was a cool job and I almost made the same salary in 7 months of work as I did in my laid off job. Two weeks after it ended, it lead to another contract job where the company ended up hiring me full-time 3 months later. I got screwed on vacation time, but I'm way ahead salary wise and it's nice place to work and there is opportunity for advancement. I'm only doing a slice of the work I was previously and I'm missing out on some the really fun job duties and occasional travel that I enjoyed, but I can't really complain.
Overall I'm probably better off, but what I miss isn't a negative - just different. As a weird side note and very strangely, I was contacted by a recruiter just this week inquiring if I'd be interested in returning to the place I was laid off from 5 years ago to take over for a guy who is retiring.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 19, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
Sadly your right; but they could freeze a tenured professors salary and benefits to keep costs down. If the tenured professor does not like it he can look else where. I am sure that will not happen and that is why the cost of education is so high.
This is already routinely done.
I'll also note at some Universities, raises had been frozen, and now that they are unfrozen barely meet inflation. That has already led to some very good professors deciding enough is enough and moving to industry or other opportunities for more lucrative pay.
Quote from: keefe on February 19, 2014, 11:43:00 PM
Augustine wrote that one does not pray to God for what one needs for God already knows. Rather, we ought to pray to increase our desire for God so that we are better prepared to receive His grace.
In Augustine's construct, prayer should permeate every aspect of one's life and our desire for God should be constant if one is living in His grace. To pray for something specific, especially in a time of need, was much too mercenary and cynical in Augustine's view.
In Summa Theologica, Aquinas makes clear that one ought not to pray for anything specific, definitive, or even temporal. He reiterates Augustine's position that to do so is vulgar since the flow of events is God's Plan and it is improper to ask that the Divine Plan be altered. Rather, one should ask for the fulfillment of God's Plan.
But as I said earlier, I really do not care if people want to ask God for whatever they desire. I agree that Augustine and Aquinas got it right and that God already knows if a place kicker is going to make the field goal to win the game. And no matter how much we pray He isn't going to make the guy miss.
A Lutheran theo professor I had at MU said that he started every day with "Dear God, I believe. Help me with my unbelief."
In this case though, I think jsglow isn't asking us to pray for his friend to get another job, but for peace of mind as he goes through a turbulent point in his life. I have never really prayed for material items, but mostly "please be with me as I go through this" kind of stuff.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 09:11:22 AM
A Lutheran theo professor I had at MU said that he started every day with "Dear God, I believe. Help me with my unbelief."
In this case though, I think jsglow isn't asking us to pray for his friend to get another job, but for peace of mind as he goes through a turbulent point in his life. I have never really prayed for material items, but mostly "please be with me as I go through this" kind of stuff.
+1
Quote from: Benny B on February 19, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
IMO, this wouldn't even be newsworthy unless the cuts were being made to high-dollar staffers. If I had to guess, I would say endowment & fundraising will be hit the hardest... money management can be easily outsourced and the University has already "laid off" two high-profile fundraisers who weren't getting the job done.
I would be surprised if MU was laying off custodians and ass't librarians.
My understanding is they laid off fund raising and alumni outreach employees.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on February 20, 2014, 07:35:23 AM
University of Illinois at Chicago faculty on strike today and tomorrow. Tenured faculty and non-tenured joining together in a move to protest/raise awareness of the low wages of part-time faculty.
It is interesting how the schools more and more are using part-time and non-tenured positions to address the market (they can hire and fire those positions as market demands dictate--demand for nano-tech courses is up, hire three new instructors in the field, and lay off or cut back the time of three humanities instructors). Reserve the tenured positions for the research beasts.
My simple understanding from a report I heard on the radio this morning is that the tenured faculty has joined in part because the non-tenured are doing less and less "extra" work (admnistrative, committtees and even office hours), and so a greater burden for that administrative work and (gasp) helping students has fallen to the tenured faculty.
MU business has a significant amount of associate professors, essentially part time instructors who get $5000 for a 3 credit semester class (undergrad or grad). Eliminating some of those positions would be an even smaller drop in the bucket than the staff positions they eliminated. The fat so to speak is in the tenure professors which is nearly untouchable.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 19, 2014, 10:04:13 PM
Guys, my stock portfolio was down 1.4% today. That's a lot of dough.
Also my steak at lunch.. ordered medium and it was too pink. I was running low on time so I ate it as is.
Been a rough day.
Prayers 4 me. thx!
I know a stock that has beaten the S&P 6 straight years....up large again today....nice earnings report today.....again. ;)
Quote from: forgetful on February 19, 2014, 11:32:43 PM
If they would get rid of tenure you can immediately expect one of two possible outcomes.
1. Faculty salary nearly doubles and tuition rises substantially. Your average professor could go out into industry (notably exceptions being pure liberal arts categories) and make double what they make in academia. Tenure is one of the perks that makes it enticing. If that is gone, talented professors say screw it.
2. Universities replace professors with adjuncts, who largely are not qualified to teach the classes. Tuition stays the same but the quality of the education plummets.
Those calling for the end of tenure have zero understanding of how universities work and what is causing increases in tuition. The absolute last cause of tuition increases is faculty pay and tenure.
Professors, generally are not risk takers. That is why they gravitate to academia and tenure. Low risk, safe. Many would not survive in industry.
Adjuncts with good, practical experience can be very good teachers. The most interesting professors I had in the COB had practical experience.
Salary is the largest expense, by a long distance, for every institution. C'mon man, the last cause. Are you a university professor?
Quote from: mu-rara on February 20, 2014, 10:08:37 AM
Professors, generally are not risk takers. That is why they gravitate to academia and tenure. Low risk, safe. Many would not survive in industry.
Adjuncts with good, practical experience can be very good teachers. The most interesting professors I had in the COB had practical experience.
Salary is the largest expense, by a long distance, for every institution. C'mon man, the last cause. Are you a university professor?
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the PhD candidates and PhDs I know. Once you are tenured, sure it is safe. But the path to getting there is full of risks and it is very cuthroat. I have been in both academia and industry. I will tell you right now I prefer industry. It is much more regular, and to be honest low pressure. You do your job, and you do it well, get a good salary and have relative job security. If you get laid off, you find another job in your field. It might take a few months, but its predictable. You can predict the paycheck you are going to get.
In order to just get a full time job in academia, you have to work crazy hours doing research, full time school, AND get published. You piece together part time jobs, while doing this, essentially working 80 hours a week between classes, research and employment. And your first full time job pays peanuts. And then in order to get tenure to make a middle class wage, you have to be a rock star in your field and get lots of publications. It is very very competitive. You also have to navigate through tons of political bullsh!t to get anywhere.
In short, academia is different from private sector industry, but I wouldn't say its safer.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 20, 2014, 10:08:37 AM
Adjuncts with good, practical experience can be very good teachers. The most interesting professors I had in the COB had practical experience.
Completely agree with this, best prof I had as part of MU MBA was a full time venture capitalist teaching entrepreneurial finance...awesome class and learned a ton.
CoE ungrad on the other had, I had a ton of long term profs that just didn't get it when it came to the real world. In fact, for senior design one of our assignments was a risk assessment, which was suppose to be a 5 by 5. I'd done some for my internship and my dad as a defense contractor program manager had done them for years. So in talking with the SD team, we agreed we had a lot of risks so we wanted to get some good resolution to take action on it. We decided to do a 10 by 10 and got some very actionable information that was helpful on the project. Turned in our risk assessment assignment.....we lost points because we didn't do the assigned 5 by 5!!!!
I think turn over between academia and industry would be a very good things especially in the CoB and CoE.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 20, 2014, 11:04:05 AM
Completely agree with this, best prof I had as part of MU MBA was a full time venture capitalist teaching entrepreneurial finance...awesome class and learned a ton.
Mark Zellmer's class, right?
I couldn't agree more. One of the most valuable courses I took as well, grad or undergrad... minimal theory but a boatload of application. The textbook was nothing more than a compilation of various HBS & TBird case studies. To this day, there are two things in my office that have been here every day since I took this job... an inscribed clock given to me by my grandmother and my three-ring binder from Zellmer's class.
We all knew this guy was being paid next-to-nothing but were pretty certain he didn't care one bit. He was teaching for the joy of teaching... too bad guys like this are so few and far between.
I love everything about Marquette and both my wife's family and my family have had over twenty family members attend MU. I currently have two kids at MU and am paying closer to retail than wholesale and honestly it breaks my heart everytime I write a check to the school. Have a great level of pride having my two youngest going where they wanted to be, but I question my sanity in paying what I believe is way too much.
All private schools have a need to evaluate their costs and why they need the tuition they do. Have stated here many times that I believe these schools got greedy. Over the past couple decades easy re-fi on homes and grandparents helping out allowed kids to go places they normally could not afford. In addition, student loans were too easy and people stopped questioning the increases.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 20, 2014, 09:45:43 AM
My understanding is they laid off fund raising and alumni outreach employees.
Wouldn't surprise me. That field is going through a real challenge right now. Especially alumni relations...back in the day, the attitude was "as long as we get a some alumni together, the event is good because it gets people to think positively about their alma mater." However without a more objective pay-back than that, such programming can be hard to justify.
Quote from: Benny B on February 20, 2014, 12:05:33 PM
Mark Zellmer's class, right?
I couldn't agree more. One of the most valuable courses I took as well, grad or undergrad... minimal theory but a boatload of application. The textbook was nothing more than a compilation of various HBS & TBird case studies. To this day, there are two things in my office that have been here every day since I took this job... an inscribed clock given to me by my grandmother and my three-ring binder from Zellmer's class.
We all knew this guy was being paid next-to-nothing but were pretty certain he didn't care one bit. He was teaching for the joy of teaching... too bad guys like this are so few and far between.
Yep, Mark is simply fantastic. He has three main strengths: passion for the subject, ability to articulate his experience to others, and a huge network of industry experts he could bring in to talk to the class. Two of those things can be taught, the last though has to be developed and I think thats very difficult in academia. I actually bailed on a work trip to make sure I didn't miss one of his lecture/guess speakers. Even the end of the year project was great because it was a real world analysis of an actual company.
With a couple of exceptions I've learned way more from associate professors than I have PhD profs, especially at the grad level.
Quote from: Goose on February 20, 2014, 01:02:01 PM
I love everything about Marquette and both my wife's family and my family have had over twenty family members attend MU. I currently have two kids at MU and am paying closer to retail than wholesale and honestly it breaks my heart everytime I write a check to the school. Have a great level of pride having my two youngest going where they wanted to be, but I question my sanity in paying what I believe is way too much.
All private schools have a need to evaluate their costs and why they need the tuition they do. Have stated here many times that I believe these schools got greedy. Over the past couple decades easy re-fi on homes and grandparents helping out allowed kids to go places they normally could not afford. In addition, student loans were too easy and people stopped questioning the increases.
Again, it's important to look not at the listed tuition, but what the average student pays. As I have mentioned, I have a former co-worker who is a consultant at this. Private schools hire her firm. They figure out how many students they need and the average price per student. She then builds a model for list tuition, and how to discount from that list given certain GPA and test scores. She said the model is remarkably easy to implement - but of course how the model is built is proprietary.
I agree with you Goose on the refis and the greediness. However student and parent loans sill make borrowing for college very easy. Too easy? I don't know...there are pluses and minuses.
But containing costs is a problem. You have to be competitive salary and benefit wise. And you need the infrastructure as well.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 09:11:22 AM
In this case though, I think jsglow isn't asking us to pray for his friend to get another job, but for peace of mind as he goes through a turbulent point in his life. I have never really prayed for material items, but mostly "please be with me as I go through this" kind of stuff.
Yes. Thank you.
One other thing....the vast majority of any college's annual costs are its employees. Salary and benefits.
Everytime you look at containing costs, you run into a myriad of other problems. More students in a classroom. Less student services. IT shortages. Less competitive wages for competitive positions. (And it MU wants to up its national profile, try to be non-competitive salary wise. And do so while dumping tenure? No chance.)
And unlike in previous generations, there isn't a cadre of priests to take over administrative and faculty positions at little cost.
It is a big problem that public as well as private education is dealing with. And some schools (like MU) are in much better shape than others. I would like to see in another generations if some of the smaller privates can make it...Silver Lake...Mount Mary...Viterbo... Those are the ones that are in even rougher shape.
Quote from: forgetful on February 19, 2014, 11:32:43 PM
If they would get rid of tenure you can immediately expect one of two possible outcomes.
1. Faculty salary nearly doubles and tuition rises substantially. Your average professor could go out into industry (notably exceptions being pure liberal arts categories) and make double what they make in academia. Tenure is one of the perks that makes it enticing. If that is gone, talented professors say screw it.
2. Universities replace professors with adjuncts, who largely are not qualified to teach the classes. Tuition stays the same but the quality of the education plummets.
Those calling for the end of tenure have zero understanding of how universities work and what is causing increases in tuition. The absolute last cause of tuition increases is faculty pay and tenure.
I don't necessarily disagree with #2, I have a lot of issues with #1, but you have caveated it with certain fields so you get a pass.
As for it being the "LAST CAUSE OF TUITION increases". Do not agree with this...I agree it is not the main driver of late. G & A is always going to be a major reason. However, to your point it is not the primary driver or even in the top 5 drivers of costs, but to say it is the ABSOLUTE LAST CAUSE is not true either.
""Faculty salaries were
not the leading cause of rising college tuitions during the past decade," the report says. "Increased benefits costs, nonfaculty positions added elsewhere on campus, declines in state and institutional subsidies, and other factors all played a role."
Budget cuts from states \ feds have an impact for a state school which requires them to cut costs or raise revenue (or both). At private schools, the drop in fund raising and endowments has caused some schools to raise tuition to keep their net revenue in line. See graph below from Wa. Post.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/delta_private_bachelors.png)
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on February 20, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Was laid off for almost 7 months in 2009. A simple victim of LIFO.
LIFO...nothing infuriates me more. You shouldn't be a victim of that, no one should. Meritocracy be damned, of course. Grrrrr
I will say, MU plows a TON of money into student activity staff, residence life, AMU staff, etc. etc.
I know there are good people who work in those positions, so its not an indictment of them personally, but do we really need that many people in these types of positions? Were there that many 40 years ago?
Do we really need to pay people to plan programming for bingo at the Annex on weekends? Or to have a full-time hall director in each dorm?
Students can find their own things to do. MU is an academic institution. Money should be spent on academics. Athletics pays for itself. Activities that aren't self-funded should be the first to go.
one point, associate profs are tenure track positions. assistant profs usually aren't. adjuncts (Mr. Collins of biz stats fame) aren't (though that dude is way too awesome for a PhD.)
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 09:11:22 AM
A Lutheran theo professor I had at MU said that he started every day with "Dear God, I believe. Help me with my unbelief."
In this case though, I think jsglow isn't asking us to pray for his friend to get another job, but for peace of mind as he goes through a turbulent point in his life. I have never really prayed for material items, but mostly "please be with me as I go through this" kind of stuff.
I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.
Let's be honest - people most often think about God in times of crisis. But how many see divine inspiration in the natural flow of daily life? I used to visit with Fr Sheehan back in the day and I asked about his personal commitment to faith. He told me that he could not prove the existence of God but the beauty of Mozart reaffirmed his faith. We were married by Corbett Walsh at Gesu and he said that Joyce's prose and an Irishman playing the pipes was his divine inspiration for finding the good in all things.
How many of us watch charismatic Christian faith healing on television with a jaundiced eye? And yet, how materially different is that charade from one suddenly reaching out to God because he lost his job, is getting divorced, was told he has cancer, or is cowering at the bottom of a foxhole? One can rationalize it in many ways but narcissistic prayer is a corruption of faith. While one might draw some solace from prayer God doesn't reach down to inject strength serum in your buttocks. One's faith should be constant and solid before the storm hits a weathered shore.
Quote from: keefe on February 20, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.
Let's be honest - people most often think about God in times of crisis. But how many see divine inspiration in the natural flow of daily life? I used to visit with Fr Sheehan back in the day and I asked about his personal commitment to faith. He told me that he could not prove the existence of God but the beauty of Mozart reaffirmed his faith. We were married by Corbett Walsh at Gesu and he said that Joyce's prose and an Irishman playing the pipes was his divine inspiration for finding the good in all things.
How many of us watch charismatic Christian faith healing on television with a jaundiced eye? And yet, how materially different is that charade from one suddenly reaching out to God because he lost his job, is getting divorced, was told he has cancer, or is cowering at the bottom of a foxhole? One can rationalize it in many ways but narcissistic prayer is a corruption of faith. While one might draw some solace from prayer God doesn't reach down to inject strength serum in your buttocks. One's faith should be constant and solid before the storm hits a weathered shore.
Of course I agree with all this in theory. But humans are flawed, emotional beings. While it may be narcissistic to reach out to God in times of need, can you really hold that against someone? Would God? I doubt it. Any turn towards God is good, regardless of the circumstance that brought it. Remember the father's response (and the other brother's) to the Prodigal Son...
Of course, this faith should be sustaining, and not simply disappear when happy times are here again. I imagine that is what you are really criticizing. I think we agree there.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on February 20, 2014, 08:52:19 AM
Was laid off for almost 7 months in 2009. A simple victim of LIFO. Thank God UI was more than 6 months then. The stress of barely anything to even apply for the first 3 months was very hard. While full-time job searching I made sure to squeeze in a lot of work on my house simply to stay sane. I attended weekly job network meetings which didn't lead to a job, but was very helpful psychologically as it was more like "Unemployment Anonymous". Being in a room of very talented people who were in the same boat was eye opening. I finally landed a contract job to get back to work which worked out great as it was a cool job and I almost made the same salary in 7 months of work as I did in my laid off job. Two weeks after it ended, it lead to another contract job where the company ended up hiring me full-time 3 months later. I got screwed on vacation time, but I'm way ahead salary wise and it's nice place to work and there is opportunity for advancement. I'm only doing a slice of the work I was previously and I'm missing out on some the really fun job duties and occasional travel that I enjoyed, but I can't really complain.
Overall I'm probably better off, but what I miss isn't a negative - just different. As a weird side note and very strangely, I was contacted by a recruiter just this week inquiring if I'd be interested in returning to the place I was laid off from 5 years ago to take over for a guy who is retiring.
Perhaps the most significant change to the American Social Contract was the elimination of lifetime employment. It was once understood that joining a firm or company was a dual commitment. That began to crumble in the '70's and is now largely gone from the American commercial landscape.
Most of my corporate work was in Asia and it is still very much a part of the societal fabric in that region. It is virtually impossible to eliminate staff, even when addressing fundamental changes in the marketplace. In recessionary times in Japan you don't lay off the rank and file; rather, they are put to work in public service projects (cleaning beaches, shoring up hillsides from erosion, planting trees, etc...) until such time as the business climate changes.
We did the financial and operational restructuring of a large Indonesian kretek enterprise which had a massive amount of foreign debt on its books. President Soeharto's office was involved and we were directed that there were to be no layoffs of Pribumis (ethnic Indonesians) who numbered over 40,000. Interestingly, that office did make clear that the ethnic Chinese management were fair game since they had created the mess.
Layoffs in America are part of the deal which is a shame because loyalty, in both directions, is now largely non-existent. It has made the American corporate workplace far more mercenary than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 20, 2014, 04:10:28 PM
one point, associate profs are tenure track positions. assistant profs usually aren't. adjuncts (Mr. Collins of biz stats fame) aren't (though that dude is way too awesome for a PhD.)
Good call Ziggy, I meant Adjucts were the ones that deserved the glowing praise.
Quote from: keefe on February 20, 2014, 04:28:21 PM
I am fairly certain that was glow's request but Augustine and Aquinas would say that prayer is an affirmation of faith and is never about the individual. Man most commonly seeks out the Lord in the hospital, the battlefield, and the prison; these efforts are almost always narcissistic by nature and are contrary to prayer's raison d'être.
Well maybe Augustine and Aquinas were simply wrong.
IMO, reaching out to God in times of troubles may be narcissistic, but if its genuine, I have been taught to believe that its better late than never.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 20, 2014, 10:15:35 AM
I'm not sure that's an accurate portrayal of the PhD candidates and PhDs I know. Once you are tenured, sure it is safe. But the path to getting there is full of risks and it is very cuthroat. I have been in both academia and industry. I will tell you right now I prefer industry. It is much more regular, and to be honest low pressure. You do your job, and you do it well, get a good salary and have relative job security. If you get laid off, you find another job in your field. It might take a few months, but its predictable. You can predict the paycheck you are going to get.
In order to just get a full time job in academia, you have to work crazy hours doing research, full time school, AND get published. You piece together part time jobs, while doing this, essentially working 80 hours a week between classes, research and employment. And your first full time job pays peanuts. And then in order to get tenure to make a middle class wage, you have to be a rock star in your field and get lots of publications. It is very very competitive. You also have to navigate through tons of political bullsh!t to get anywhere.
In short, academia is different from private sector industry, but I wouldn't say its safer.
I work with a number of full and assistant professors at U Dub and from what I have seen it is indeed a very steep slope to get tenure. I would say that it is more difficult to get tenure in a major university than it is to get P&L responsibility in the private sector.
A sure guarantor of getting tenure is no longer just publish or perish; rather, winning grants from prestigious sources is a far more important criterion. If I look at the track record of my Materials Science professorial colleagues the one's with tenure have been awarded millions of dollars from the Natl Academy of Science, NSF, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Gates, DoE, and DoD.
Frankly, I would say that going into academia is a far more risky career venture than serving as a corporate soldier. You are essentially an entrepreneur hanging a shingle, similar to making partner in a legal or accounting firm.
My observation of the motivations of those choosing this career is not just a passion for learning but a zealous desire to master a very specific dimension of knowledge. My colleagues have spent decades trying to understand materials-based energy absorption or combustion theory of select materials. As one rises through the ranks of the corporate world one becomes more of a generalist while in academia one becomes much more of a specialist.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 20, 2014, 10:08:37 AM
Professors, generally are not risk takers. That is why they gravitate to academia and tenure. Low risk, safe. Many would not survive in industry.
Adjuncts with good, practical experience can be very good teachers. The most interesting professors I had in the COB had practical experience.
Salary is the largest expense, by a long distance, for every institution. C'mon man, the last cause. Are you a university professor?
You have this backwards. Most of the time Professors are in academia, because they are risk takers. Big business generally goes after safe targets and one's job is fairly regimented and safe. In academia one can and has to go after the high risk high reward targets. That's why when industry has problems they go to academia for the consultants. Business loves if they can steal an academic. Tenure allows them to continue to take big risks that business is unwilling to take. That is why a lot of the new big drugs stem from academic labs not big pharma.
In the COB your adjuncts are different than in most departments. They do have a lot of practical experience, but you pay for that. They are not going to cost 5k for a 3 hour class they are making between 10-20k per class they teach. For instance, I was once asked to come in to teach a 3 hour class. They offered me 10k for it, I swiftly told them no, not worth the time (and most of the COB or Law school adjuncts will be similar).
As for the salary being the largest expense, there is a difference between total salaries and the tenure-track professor salaries. For instance at MU, there are 481 either tenured or tenure track professors. If we assume an average salary of 100k with 32% fringe (132k total costs) that is 63.5M total for their compensation. About 10% of this value stems directly from grants the faculty have secured. So only about 57M is coming out to the MU budget.
MU's budget is currently around 370M, so tenured/tenure-track faculty make up about 15% of the budget. So a 3% increase across the board (about what they probably got as a raise) would be an increase of 1.7M or only .45% of the budget. Not the source of tuition increases.
In comparison, support staff and expenses make up 115M or 31% of the budget and Student Services is 14%. These are the aspects that are present today to make students lives easier and more fun and make MU competitive in attracting top students. If you want to know where the increases are coming from it is in making college more fun and comfortable compared to kind of roughing it back in the day.
$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high. Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much. You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.
But you are completely right with your last paragraph.
Quote from: forgetful on February 20, 2014, 05:11:51 PM
MU's budget is currently around 370M, so tenured/tenure-track faculty make up about 15% of the budget. So a 3% increase across the board (about what they probably got as a raise) would be an increase of 1.7M or only .45% of the budget. Not the source of tuition increases.
In comparison, support staff and expenses make up 115M or 31% of the budget and Student Services is 14%. These are the aspects that are present today to make students lives easier and more fun and make MU competitive in attracting top students. If you want to know where the increases are coming from it is in making college more fun and comfortable compared to kind of roughing it back in the day.
This is the crux of the issue. Most of the expense goes into making students' lives fun and comfortable. They come to expect it. They want all kinds of programs, activities, state of the art workout centers, etc. But then costs keep going up.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 05:14:44 PM
$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high. Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much. You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.
But you are completely right with your last paragraph.
I agree it is high, but would rather in this case overestimate than underestimate.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 05:14:44 PM
$100k for an average tenure track position might be a little high. Accounting, finance, engineering, yes...but I bet less than 10% of the A&S faculty make that much. You can get good humanities and social science professors for significantly less than that...because their options are limited.
But you are completely right with your last paragraph.
$100k for tenure seems way low.
At Michigan the
average Professor salary is $157k, Associate is $105K, Assistant is $92k, and non-tenure Instructor is $70k.
Public & Private University
average Professor Salaries:
UCLA $166k
Michigan $157k
Cal $156k
UNC $148k
UVA $146k
Harvard $212k
Princeton $207k
Chicago $206k
Quote from: keefe on February 20, 2014, 05:39:24 PM
$100k for tenure seems way low.
At Michigan the average Professor salary is $157k, Associate is $105K, Assistant is $92k, and non-tenure Instructor is $70k.
Public & Private University average Professor Salaries:
UCLA $166k
Michigan $157k
Cal $156k
UNC $148k
UVA $146k
Harvard $212k
Princeton $207k
Chicago $206k
You are referencing top 20 Research Universities here. The vast majority of tenure track professors aren't approaching anywhere near these numbers. Go away from the flagship Michigan university and you'll see means for Full professors at around 105k, with assistant professors under 70k. The average across the entire Michigan system is then very close to 105k and 70k, similar nationwide.
Also, the instructor at 70k is way off the actual average. Michigan reports only 1 instructor on staff (not sure how that is possible, probably means a title was created for them), whose salary was 70k...therefore the mean is also the minimum and the maximum.
All those schools have large medical schools, where the average is in excess of 200k per professor. Marquette does not have a medical school and as such there averages are much more comparable to the national average at around 100k per tenure track faculty member.
Nationwide averages
Full Professor 95k
Associate: 74k
Assistant 64k
Research Universities (MU qualifies here)
Full 115k
Associate 85k
Assistant 74k
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
One other thing....the vast majority of any college's annual costs are its employees. Salary and benefits.Quote
I trust that you're not a numbers person, but wonder what meets your definition of "vast majority"... it's either unusual/unreasonable or your beliefs in the operations of higher ed are off.
Quote from: forgetful on February 20, 2014, 07:24:07 PM
You are referencing top 20 Research Universities here. The vast majority of tenure track professors aren't approaching anywhere near these numbers. Go away from the flagship Michigan university and you'll see means for Full professors at around 105k, with assistant professors under 70k. The average across the entire Michigan system is then very close to 105k and 70k, similar nationwide.
Also, the instructor at 70k is way off the actual average. Michigan reports only 1 instructor on staff (not sure how that is possible, probably means a title was created for them), whose salary was 70k...therefore the mean is also the minimum and the maximum.
All those schools have large medical schools, where the average is in excess of 200k per professor. Marquette does not have a medical school and as such there averages are much more comparable to the national average at around 100k per tenure track faculty member.
Nationwide averages
Full Professor 95k
Associate: 74k
Assistant 64k
Research Universities (MU qualifies here)
Full 115k
Associate 85k
Assistant 74k
Hey! Don't let facts get in the way of a good spin job using skewed averages. What are you, the median police?
Quote from: keefe on February 20, 2014, 04:45:33 PM
Perhaps the most significant change to the American Social Contract was the elimination of lifetime employment. It was once understood that joining a firm or company was a dual commitment. That began to crumble in the '70's and is now largely gone from the American commercial landscape.
Most of my corporate work was in Asia and it is still very much a part of the societal fabric in that region. It is virtually impossible to eliminate staff, even when addressing fundamental changes in the marketplace. In recessionary times in Japan you don't lay off the rank and file; rather, they are put to work in public service projects (cleaning beaches, shoring up hillsides from erosion, planting trees, etc...) until such time as the business climate changes.
We did the financial and operational restructuring of a large Indonesian kretek enterprise which had a massive amount of foreign debt on its books. President Soeharto's office was involved and we were directed that there were to be no layoffs of Pribumis (ethnic Indonesians) who numbered over 40,000. Interestingly, that office did make clear that the ethnic Chinese management were fair game since they had created the mess.
Layoffs in America are part of the deal which is a shame because loyalty, in both directions, is now largely non-existent. It has made the American corporate workplace far more mercenary than its counterparts in Europe and Asia.
The first bold part is Lawrence Mishel's theory for explaining the widening income gap in the US. He claims that US policy has shifted from a focus on the American worker to focusing on the American consumer. That is to say, when evaluating policy, economists and policymakers' answer to the question "is this a good policy" is "yes, only if it benefits the average consumer [and not the average worker]"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/business/rethinking-the-income-gap-and-a-college-education.html
Mishel's theory is not without its detractors. See David Autor, for instance, who is a very well-respected economist.
The second bold part is a good thing, IMO.
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-11.cfm
^These authors show that in a recession, countries with rigid labor markets (either due to unions, e.g., France, or culture, e.g., Japan) do not see an increase in the unemployment rate. That is to say, the rigidity of their labor markets insulates the workforce from the brunt of recessions.
The cost of a rigid labor market, however, is that in economic booms, firms are reluctant to hire workers. Why? Because they know that when a recession hits, they will have trouble/shame in laying off workers. This is quite damning for the prospects of long-term unemployment. The authors show that long-term unemployment is much higher in countries with highly rigid labor markets vis-a-vis those with more flexible labor markets (e.g., the US).
Unions and loyalty to employees results in job security for the worker. This is a good thing, as it creates income certainty for that country's labor force. To be sure, the US also achieves this income certainty, but in a very different way--unemployment insurance, which, IMO, is a better policy because workers still get the benefit of income certainty in times of a recession ("automatic stabilizer") without the high long-term unemployment rate that is so prevalent in countries with a high degree of unionization/loyalty.
Quote from: Jay Bee on February 20, 2014, 08:07:40 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
One other thing....the vast majority of any college's annual costs are its employees. Salary and benefits.Quote
I trust that you're not a numbers person, but wonder what meets your definition of "vast majority"... it's either unusual/unreasonable or your beliefs in the operations of higher ed are off.
I think it's cute that you aren't able to quote me correctly.
But...it is probably over 80%.
Quote from: Benny B on February 20, 2014, 08:12:50 PM
Hey! Don't let facts get in the way of a good spin job using skewed averages. What are you, the median police?
Since Marquette has a stated goal of increasing its national profile it had better index faculty salaries against the best and not the median. Marquette will not attract and retain top professors if its pay scales approximate those of Eastern Michigan.
Quote from: keefe on February 20, 2014, 08:22:22 PM
Since Marquette has a stated goal of increasing its national profile it had better index faculty salaries against the best and not the median. Marquette will not attract and retain top professors if its pay scales approximate those of Eastern Michigan.
Correct. And the main source of those salaries? Tuition.
At research universities, the average professor salary is much higher than regional universities and liberal arts colleges.
I don't know the actual number, but my initial guess would be below $100,000 if we are pooling all universities and all fields. There are far more regional universities and liberal arts colleges than there are research universities. Accordingly, there are far more humanities profs than engineering and business profs, two groups that drastically increase the average.
Anyone curious can look up professor salary in the "Redbook," which lists the salary of all UW system professors. It used to be 100% publicly available, but it has since been available only to those accessing a computer from one of the UW system computers.
A new assistant professor at UW-Milwaukee's economics department (a research II school that offers a PhD in econ) started at $79k in 2006-08 ish. The top econ prof there made $149k (though this will vary based on subfield of economics). A new assistant professor at UW-Whitewater economics department (a liberal arts college) started at about $60k in 2006-08-ish and I think the most senior person there made roughly 85-90k, but had been there a long time. In other areas of the country, the average economics professor at a liberal arts college will make between $60k at the ultimate low end (eg Northeastern Central Oregon state) and $100k at the very high end (eg Vassar, Bowdoin, etc.)
Generally speaking, chemistry, engineering, and business earn the highest salaries. Economics is by far the highest of the social sciences. Humanities professors can make as low as $40k to start, and to my knowledge, there isn't much variation in the salary of a humanities prof, especially the ones at liberal arts and regional universities.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 20, 2014, 03:55:15 PM
As for it being the "LAST CAUSE OF TUITION increases". Do not agree with this...I agree it is not the main driver of late. G & A is always going to be a major reason. However, to your point it is not the primary driver or even in the top 5 drivers of costs, but to say it is the ABSOLUTE LAST CAUSE is not true either.
I agree, it is not really the ABSOLUTE LAST CAUSE, that was hyperbole. It is as you note though a ways down the list. Hyperbole is a talent I excel at.
Also, Sultan, you mentioned it earlier and it is a great point. A 3.75% increase in Tuition, does not equate a 3.75% increase in tuition income. In actuality, I believe at MU there is about a 33% haircut on tuition at MU, so revenue from tuition for the 3.75% increase would be around 2.5% after the haircut.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 08:24:48 PM
Correct. And the main source of those salaries? Tuition.
As it always has been. We had an earlier conversation about education, increasing disparity in wealth distribution, and the lack of educational alternatives to 4 year colleges for the under served.
ElDon just posted some great references on this subject. As the Times article says, more college graduates from third and fourth tier schools has the net effect of diluting professional wages. In conjunction with displacement through tech innovation the financial return from a college degree is reduced even further. Yet, from an opportunity stand point, the evaporation of technical training programs in North America leaves the under class with few legitimate choices for economic improvement.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 20, 2014, 04:10:28 PM
one point, associate profs are tenure track positions. assistant profs usually aren't. adjuncts (Mr. Collins of biz stats fame) aren't (though that dude is way too awesome for a PhD.)
Associate Professors are already tenured.
Assistant Professors are tenure-track, but have yet to earn tenure.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 20, 2014, 08:21:55 PM
I think it's cute that you aren't able to quote me correctly.
But...it is probably over 80%.
MU is under two-thirds. Repent.
I looked up tuition for Michigan and I was astounded at how much it now costs to attend a public university.
In-State Upper Division $ 28k
Out-State Upper Division $ 56k
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 20, 2014, 03:56:27 PM
LIFO...nothing infuriates me more. You shouldn't be a victim of that, no one should. Meritocracy be damned, of course. Grrrrr
There were approximately 115 people at the company and of the 15-20% let go most of the lay-offs were people all hired in like the 2 or 3 preceding years.
Quote from: forgetful on February 20, 2014, 05:11:51 PM
You have this backwards. Most of the time Professors are in academia, because they are risk takers. Big business generally goes after safe targets and one's job is fairly regimented and safe. In academia one can and has to go after the high risk high reward targets. That's why when industry has problems they go to academia for the consultants. Business loves if they can steal an academic. Tenure allows them to continue to take big risks that business is unwilling to take. That is why a lot of the new big drugs stem from academic labs not big pharma.
Professors are seeking the
relative safety of academia. I agree, younger academics are letting it all hang out there, as are entry level workers in corporate America. The end game for academics (a significant reason for going academic) is a job that they cannot be fired from. No such thing in corporate America anymore.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 21, 2014, 10:29:09 AM
Professors are seeking the relative safety of academia. I agree, younger academics are letting it all hang out there, as are entry level workers in corporate America. The end game for academics (a significant reason for going academic) is a job that they cannot be fired from. No such thing in corporate America anymore.
Business, science and engineering professors, yes... academia is
relative safety.
But if you're a professor of art, language or ancient civilizations... academia is the only safe place you have in the world.
Quote from: Benny B on February 21, 2014, 10:42:12 AM
Business, science and engineering professors, yes... academia is relative safety.
But if you're a professor of art, language or ancient civilizations... academia is the only safe place you have in the world.
You might be surprised at the number of Humanities PhDs working in the corporate world and for Non-profits.
One subject that hasn't been addressed in the cost of a Marquette education is that of providing tuition benefits to nearly every employee and their families. I don't know the hard and fast rules of what it takes to qualify, but I do know that nearly every full-time employee eventually does, from the Provost down to the maintenance staff.
According to the JS article, Marquette has 2,800 employees. Nearly every Marquette employee I know has taken advantage of the free tuition benefit, either personally or for one or more family members. I am sure it is often thought of as a no-cost benefit; just throwing an extra kid in a section doesn't incur any real expenses. However, if you have thousands of employees taking advantage of it, at some point you have to start adding extra classes and ancillary services. It would be interesting to know how much tuition is "written off" in a given semester because of the tuition benefit.
I understand that the tuition benefit is standard for teaching staff and higher-level administrators, and Marquette may need to keep that to stay competitive with other colleges. But Marquette isn't competing with UW and Notre Dame for public safety officers and secretaries. They are competing with other local employers outside of academia.
One of my kids has a friend whose father is a maintenance worker at Marquette. Both this kid and his brother were attending Marquette for free. I think it's great that these kids have this opportunity, but if you get down to the cold hard facts, Marquette is, in terms of value, paying around $130K a year for a semi-skilled worker.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 12:58:47 PM
One subject that hasn't been addressed in the cost of a Marquette education is that of providing tuition benefits to nearly every employee and their families. I don't know the hard and fast rules of what it takes to qualify, but I do know that nearly every full-time employee eventually does, from the Provost down to the maintenance staff.
According to the JS article, Marquette has 2,800 employees. Nearly every Marquette employee I know has taken advantage of the free tuition benefit, either personally or for one or more family members. I am sure it is often thought of as a no-cost benefit; just throwing an extra kid in a section doesn't incur any real expenses. However, if you have thousands of employees taking advantage of it, at some point you have to start adding extra classes and ancillary services. It would be interesting to know how much tuition is "written off" in a given semester because of the tuition benefit.
I understand that the tuition benefit is standard for teaching staff and higher-level administrators, and Marquette may need to keep that to stay competitive with other colleges. But Marquette isn't competing with UW and Notre Dame for public safety officers and secretaries. They are competing with other local employers outside of academia.
One of my kids has a friend whose father is a maintenance worker at Marquette. Both this kid and his brother were attending Marquette for free. I think it's great that these kids have this opportunity, but if you get down to the cold hard facts, Marquette is, in terms of value, paying around $130K a year for a semi-skilled worker.
Chick
This may have changed but there is a reciprocal agreement in place allowing children of Jesuit University staff to enjoy that benefit within the consortium. I knew two guys at MU who had a parent employed at BC and Regis. So the potential burden to Marquette goes well beyond its 2,800 employees.
Quote from: keefe on February 21, 2014, 01:06:37 PM
Chick
This may have changed but there is a reciprocal agreement in place allowing children of Jesuit University staff to enjoy that benefit within the consortium. I knew two guys at MU who had a parent employed at BC and Regis. So the potential burden to Marquette goes well beyond its 2,800 employees.
I was aware of that. However, it is also my understanding that procedures in place to make sure that everything evens out at the end (i.e., Marquette doesn't have to accept 500 kids from other schools if they are only sending 25 out to other colleges).
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I was aware of that. However, it is also my understanding that procedures in place to make sure that everything evens out at the end (i.e., Marquette doesn't have to accept 500 kids from other schools if they are only sending 25 out to other colleges).
A Quota System?? Does DoJ know about this?
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 12:58:47 PM
According to the JS article, Marquette has 2,800 employees.
This number floors me. That's roughly one employee required to educate four students. It seems like a it should not take that many employees to educate the students, but I admittedly have no expereince. I did some quick checking and DePaul's website says ~4000 FT and PT faculty and staff for 24,000 students at all campuses (roughly 6 employees per student). I also looked at school districts for easy to locate data and found Green Bay was about 7 employees per student.
Is it just me, or is that # on the high end. Thanks
Quote from: keefe on February 21, 2014, 12:33:25 PM
You might be surprised at the number of Humanities PhDs working in the corporate world and for Non-profits.
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-reasons-to-major-in-the-humanities-2013-6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/why-you-should-quit-your-tech-job-and-study-the-humanities/2012/05/16/gIQAvibbUU_story.html
http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/8-famous-ceos-who-were-liberal-arts-majors/
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/06/20/humanities/
Quote from: Archies Bat on February 21, 2014, 01:22:46 PM
This number floors me. That's roughly one employee required to educate four students. It seems like a it should not take that many employees to educate the students, but I admittedly have no expereince. I did some quick checking and DePaul's website says ~4000 FT and PT faculty and staff for 24,000 students at all campuses (roughly 6 employees per student). I also looked at school districts for easy to locate data and found Green Bay was about 7 employees per student.
Is it just me, or is that # on the high end. Thanks
I think it is really hard to compare apples to apples on with the raw totals. For example, the great majority of DePaul's students are commuters as opposed to Marquette's 10%. It takes a lot of bodies to provide housing and student activities. Are the PT and FT percentages similar? FTEs would be a more comparable number.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:35:02 PM
I think it is really hard to compare apples to apples on with the raw totals. For example, the great majority of DePaul's students are commuters as opposed to Marquette's 10%. It takes a lot of bodies to provide housing and student activities. Are the PT and FT percentages similar? FTEs would be a more comparable number.
Great points.
SLU might be a better comparison.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 21, 2014, 10:29:09 AM
Professors are seeking the relative safety of academia. I agree, younger academics are letting it all hang out there, as are entry level workers in corporate America. The end game for academics (a significant reason for going academic) is a job that they cannot be fired from. No such thing in corporate America anymore.
Except for executives that get re hired at even higher paying rates no matter how badly they failed before. Once you're in, you're in.
Quote from: Aughnanure on February 21, 2014, 01:40:15 PM
Except for executives that get re hired at even higher paying rates no matter how badly they failed before. Once you're in, you're in.
I don't know who you are working for, but that is certainly not true any more at any of the companies I'm familiar with. It's pretty brutal out there.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:35:02 PM
Are the PT and FT percentages similar? FTEs would be a more comparable number.
In my 15 minutes of Googling the internets, I was lucky to find the data I did. There was a little more data detail on faculty to student ratios, but the best I could find on the total number of employees was a gross number. I did not try SLU, but did try Creighton, and my search did not find employee data there.
I wholeheartly agree that FTEs is better, but I only halfheartedly searched for data while nibbling my lunch.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:14:25 PM
I was aware of that. However, it is also my understanding that procedures in place to make sure that everything evens out at the end (i.e., Marquette doesn't have to accept 500 kids from other schools if they are only sending 25 out to other colleges).
I was just speaking to an employee at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT on this subject. She said it's like frequent flyer tickets where the quantity is capped. She also said seniority matters as in the longer you were employed at a participating university the higher priority you get to take available slots. She mentioned her daughter could go to Fairfield U. or Fordham among many others, for example. She also mentioned she has a coworker who has a child that's a high school senior, was accepted to High Point University and it was the kid's first choice except the there were only two (2) slots available at High Point and they were already taken by someone with higher seniority.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
I don't know who you are working for, but that is certainly not true any more at any of the companies I'm familiar with. It's pretty brutal out there.
Don't hate on his hate WC.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
I don't know who you are working for, but that is certainly not true any more at any of the companies I'm familiar with. It's pretty brutal out there.
I don't know if you've been paying attention, but what CEOs and chairmen ever have trouble getting another way too high a paying job (much less getting huge golden parachutes and stock bonuses even when they're essentially fired for being s###*y)?
I'm talking about real high execs here.
Quote from: keefe on February 21, 2014, 12:33:25 PM
You might be surprised at the number of Humanities PhDs working in the corporate world and for Non-profits.
No I wouldn't... because most of them have a graduate or terminal degree in something other than the humanities as well.
Quote from: Benny B on February 21, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
No I wouldn't... because most of them have a graduate or terminal degree in something other than the humanities as well.
No, I actually mean PhDs in the Humanities. In other parts of the world it is far more common for people in commerce and research to have terminal degrees in the Arts and Sciences. There are more PhDs than MBAs in Europe.
I asked a German colleague once about this and he related that Uni is free in northern Europe so many become long term students. I noticed that Scandinavians really don't get serious about career until they turn 30. They spend 12 years studying, travelling, and exploring.
My wife followed a similar path. She had a terminal degree in Econ. While at Marquette I teased her for being an English major but I know she used her writing and analytical skills daily. She believed firmly in the value of her Liberal Arts education at Marquette.
An English Major
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSP4QZKw6eBY9fjRl1MnbhPWpH25pNPZ5LWIk_jTOjgkdSZRDf)
Quote from: warriorchick on February 21, 2014, 01:46:10 PM
I don't know who you are working for, but that is certainly not true any more at any of the companies I'm familiar with. It's pretty brutal out there.
Golden parachutes for executives are true at almost every major corporation in America.
It is brutal for the workers. On that you are correct.
Quote from: Benny B on February 21, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
No I wouldn't... because most of them have a graduate or terminal degree in something other than the humanities as well.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of execs with plain old humanities majors.
Quote from: mu-rara on February 21, 2014, 10:29:09 AM
Professors are seeking the relative safety of academia. I agree, younger academics are letting it all hang out there, as are entry level workers in corporate America. The end game for academics (a significant reason for going academic) is a job that they cannot be fired from. No such thing in corporate America anymore.
Its interesting that you state this. I know a lot of people both in industry and academia. If you ask many of those in industry why they didn't go the academic route the answers are usually.
1. Lower Pay
2. Higher Stress (in academia)
3. Longer hours (in academia)
4. Don't like teaching
5. Poor job security (you are a temp for 6 years, once you get tenure you are good for life, but during that window you sacrificed probably the equivalent of 6-12 years pay (see number 1) if you worked in industry. If you don't get tenure, you have a hard time finding a job some where else as many view you as a failure).
I know people who went the industry route because they couldn't get a job in academia, they don't want to leave, because the job is easy, low stress and pays fabulously in comparison to the academic route.
If you ask the academics why they went that route the answers are:
1. They are their own boss, they decide what they do.
2. Can tackle the grand problems and have more impact.
3. They enjoy teaching.
Quote from: forgetful on February 21, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Its interesting that you state this. I know a lot of people both in industry and academia. If you ask many of those in industry why they didn't go the academic route the answers are usually.
1. Lower Pay
2. Higher Stress (in academia)
3. Longer hours (in academia)
4. Don't like teaching
5. Poor job security (you are a temp for 6 years, once you get tenure you are good for life, but during that window you sacrificed probably the equivalent of 6-12 years pay (see number 1) if you worked in industry. If you don't get tenure, you have a hard time finding a job some where else as many view you as a failure).
I know people who went the industry route because they couldn't get a job in academia, they don't want to leave, because the job is easy, low stress and pays fabulously in comparison to the academic route.
If you ask the academics why they went that route the answers are:
1. They are their own boss, they decide what they do.
2. Can tackle the grand problems and have more impact.
3. They enjoy teaching.
Not sure where you are going with this topic. Are you making the case that academic life is tougher than working in corporate America? Your reasons for working in corporate America are off. 1 and 4 are valid. 2, 3 and 5 are way off.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 21, 2014, 02:39:30 PM
Golden parachutes for executives are true at almost every major corporation in America.
It is brutal for the workers. On that you are correct.
Supply and demand, pure and simple. If you have the skills, chops, etc to be an executive, you're going to get rewarded. Not many people have the ability, thus those that do are going to get those perks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2014, 01:48:36 AM
Supply and demand, pure and simple. If you have the skills, chops, etc to be an executive, you're going to get rewarded. Not many people have the ability, thus those that do are going to get those perks.
That's not my point, I was responding to warriorchick who said no such perks existed
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 22, 2014, 10:49:00 AM
That's not my point, I was responding to warriorchick who said no such perks existed
You're making things up.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 21, 2014, 02:40:35 PM
Not necessarily. There are plenty of execs with plain old humanities majors.
Yet there are exponentially more who majored in science and/or business.