Hey all you disgruntled University of California students who raised havoc over the increased tuition costs recently. Here's something that might interest you. The LA Times has (surprisingly) come out with an interesting article on the official residence of the University of California president.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/local/la-me-uc-house-20101004
The way I see it, the solution is a no-brainer. Just raise tuition costs.
No?
Well, how about getting rid of all those useless departments like womens' studies, gay, lesbian, transgender studies, ethnic studies, global warming studies, etc.?
Then they could identify all the professors at the UC campuses who indoctrinate their students with their own political beliefs-and fire their sorry asses.
Of course, none of that will come to pass, but one thing that has already come to pass is a plan to decrease the number of in-state students in favor of out-of-state and international students, you know, those who pay three times the in-state tuition? I think they call it the "enhanced revenue plan" or something like that.
That alone should help pay to renovate the haunted house outside of Berkeley.
Well, how about getting rid of all those useless departments like...global warming studies, etc.
ReplyDeleteIs there any wonder why Americans lag behind the rest of the civilized world when it comes to scientific knowledge? Nope.
I have no objection to providing a nice house for the President of the University. After all, its not a lifetime career position. Presidents come and go every several years, and its not a great bet to take out a mortgage then hope to resell. Also, its good to have the head honcho closely immersed in campus life, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Don't tell me, they WOULDN'T have built that in some DISTANT suburb, would they?????)
ReplyDeleteBut my original point was, the relevant U.S. government agencies paid with our tax dollars to figure these things out say that the average family should spend no more than 1/3 of their income on housing. So, deduct one third of what the President would otherwise be paid, to account for his free housing. If s/he's being housed for the convenience of his/her employer, its tax free.
As for reorganizing curriculum, I might quibble with you over exactly what to cut Gary, but I'd say most ______ studies could go. I wouldn't oppose a series of classes on the Historical Geography of North America, including the speech patterns traceable from southern Pennsylvania in the 1700s across southern Ohio and on out to Oregon, the speech patterns of early 17th century southern Devon which wound up in the mouths of Mississippi migrants on the south side of Chicago, and why subdivisions in souther California have that absurd faux mission architecture with olive trees in every front yard... but let's do some deep thinking on ALL that Adam Smith said first.
Behind what countries, Lance?
ReplyDeleteEngland, with theat Climate Research Center at E Anglia University?
How about India, which produced that Nobel guy, Rajendra?
But we still have Al Gore.
The Climate Research Center in East Anglia does excellent work. What's your problem with it? You've degenerated too much into vague insinuations and inferences, where you used to try to line up some facts to sustain your position.
ReplyDeleteThe best argument for climated change, however, remains a set of observations made from the top of one of the main peaks on the main island of Hawaii... part of the USA, except in the minds of those who claim President Obama was born a subject of the Hawaiian monarchy.
E Anglia Univ does excellent work? Then why was their boss, Jones, kicked out? (He has been reinstated I hear.) They cooked the books.
ReplyDeleteObama?
They cooked the books.
ReplyDeleteNo, they didn't. This is a lie that climate change deniers like to repeat when all they had were some out-of-context quotes from some emails.
If they "cooked the books" perhaps you can give some exact figures as to exactly what they changed. Funny thing is, nobody can do this - because it never happened.
They made some questionable off-hand references in emails. Nobody has ever come up with any sound basis to question the integrity of their published research. The brouhaha over the emails was a typical attempt to kick up clouds of dust without ever being accountable for factual precision, a tendency which unfortunately shows up in your own posts far too often. Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteDo the research. Their emails showed they manipulated figures to fit their agenda. What was the issue about not figuring in the Russian/China stats?
Do the research. Their emails showed they manipulated figures to fit their agenda.
ReplyDeleteI did and I found that they did no such thing. If you've done the research, then why can't you provide some specifics as to exactly what they manipulated? What are the actual figures and what were theirs? Nobody ever gives this information for the simple fact that it doesn't exist.
What was the issue about not figuring in the Russian/China stats?
I don't know, Gary. You're the one making the claim that they manipulated figures. Shouldn't you know?
Gary missed the overgrown juvenile at Alexandria who used to respond to any question with an off-hand reference "the facts are out there."
ReplyDeleteIndeed they are sir. Just which fact were you suggesting might sustain your case?