NationStates Jolt Archive

"The most obvious way to fix academia would be to give university presidents the kind of hiring and firing authority that most executives have." - JOHN TIERNEY

Hello! What's up w'dis?'

Yes, we must "free" Academia by taking away the Academic right to freely express oneself. Oh, the glorious freedom!

So professors could be terminated for having unapproved thoughts? I think that would be the opposite of freedom.

Wow! Now, the scary thing is that this thread is about to be crashed by some idiot who actually agrees with that statement.

5... 4... 3... 2...

Wow! Now, the scary thing is that this thread is about to be crashed by some idiot who actually agrees with that statement.

5... 4... 3... 2...
Sure, why not? Executive hiring and firing isn't all powerful, anyway, and if the guy in charge of the University were known to be hostile to free expression, he would not only find it hard to get respectable proffesors, but he would have a hard time gathering proficient students.

Sure, why not? Executive hiring and firing isn't all powerful, anyway, and if the guy in charge of the University were known to be hostile to free expression, he would not only find it hard to get respectable proffesors, but he would have a hard time gathering proficient students.

that, or he'd get a hell of a lot of people who agreed with him, thus creating a rather bland university where everyone thinks in a similair way.

that, or he'd get a hell of a lot of people who agreed with him, thus creating a rather bland university where everyone thinks in a similair way.

and it would become a key place to stop for republicans seeking national political office...

that, or he'd get a hell of a lot of people who agreed with him, thus creating a rather bland university where everyone thinks in a similair way.

We already have a good number of them. Bob Jones University for starters. Though it's not fully acredidted, the campus is literally packed with students. And, what's worse, the majority of them are going into politics, and have a fast track on getting political internships after thier "schooling".

and it would become a key place to stop for republicans seeking national political office...

I think it's the primary reason they bitch so much about it. They don't like that people in Academia don't like them, so they'll make them like them.

"The most obvious way to fix academia would be to give university presidents the kind of hiring and firing authority that most executives have." - JOHN TIERNEY

makes sense to me - for certain values of 'fix'.

the most obvious one being when you 'fix' a dog.

that, or he'd get a hell of a lot of people who agreed with him, thus creating a rather bland university where everyone thinks in a similair way.
Na und? We've already got Liberty University and that hasn't brought the nation to its knees.

and it would become a key place to stop for republicans seeking national political office...
or for democrats.

I think it's the primary reason they bitch so much about it. They don't like that people in Academia don't like them, so they'll make them like them.
No, Republicans just like to see people get fired. The last 6 years in the US should have taught everyone that by now.

or for democrats.

well, maybe. but i just don't think they have the ability to build up the machine like the republicans do. maybe someday. it's the republicans that already have a number of rigidly ideological 'universities'.

No, Republicans just like to see people get fired. The last 6 years in the US should have taught everyone that by now.

zing!

or for democrats.

That's what makes little sense - the notion that tenure keeps the "liberals" safe, because they need to be kept safe in this "liberal" strong hold that Academia is claimed to be. It would seem to me then, that if Academia truly were "liberal" the "non-liberals" would be the ones in need of tenure.

We already have a good number of them. Bob Jones University for starters. Though it's not fully acredidted, the campus is literally packed with students. And, what's worse, the majority of them are going into politics, and have a fast track on getting political internships after thier "schooling".
That place shouldn't even be considered an institute of learning. Unless learning to be a complete and total fucktard is learning.

Unless learning to be a complete and total fucktard is learning.

Just because some are born, doesn't mean all are.

That place shouldn't even be considered an institute of learning. Unless learning to be a complete and total fucktard is learning.

I couldn't agree more. I had a friend apply there as a total joke, just to see what materials they send out to prospctive students.

The stuff he got back was an even bigger joke, though I'm sure the freaks at BoJo didn't realize it.

That's what makes little sense - the notion that tenure keeps the "liberals" safe, because they need to be kept safe in this "liberal" strong hold that Academia is claimed to be. It would seem to me then, that if Academia truly were "liberal" the "non-liberals" would be the ones in need of tenure.
Exactly

Exactly

So why do they tend to be so opposed to it, shooting themselves in the foot thusly?

So why do they tend to be so opposed to it, shooting themselves in the foot thusly?
Because it is based on the stereotype that all professors are Democrats and everyone in management is a Republican.

So why do they tend to be so opposed to it, shooting themselves in the foot thusly?

'cause getting tenure is hard and doesn't pay well anyways, so they largely don't bother with it. but they want to put the fear of god into the hearts of those damn liberals who can't currently be fired merely for voicing an opinion. that just ain't natural - firing those that don't toe the neo-fascist line is a moral virtue, and should therefore be expanded to all segments of society. particularly those segements that view themselves as semi-independent nodes of social and political power.

Also, I'm curious as to why intellectuals shouldn't be running academia in the first place. I mean, it's where people go to become intellectuals, isn't it? That's kinda the point. Who else would be better suited to run the place?

Also, I'm curious as to why intellectuals shouldn't be running academia in the first place. I mean, it's where people go to become intellectuals, isn't it? That's kinda the point. Who else would be better suited to run the place?
Me.
And I'd run it right, none of this touchy-feely stuff. Every college student would have to take classes in Hand to Hand Combat, Firearms, Infiltration, and Complete and Unwavering Loyalty to Fearless Leader Fiddlebottoms.

Also, I'm curious as to why intellectuals shouldn't be running academia in the first place. I mean, it's where people go to become intellectuals, isn't it? That's kinda the point. Who else would be better suited to run the place?
Due to the fact that many intellectuals are simply miserable at resource management. This is definitely not the general case, yet it would always be preferrable to have someone with the appropriate amount of savoir-faire in the position.

Also, I'm curious as to why intellectuals shouldn't be running academia in the first place. I mean, it's where people go to become intellectuals, isn't it? That's kinda the point. Who else would be better suited to run the place?

party apparatchiks

Due to the fact that many intellectuals are simply miserable at resource management. This is definitely not the general case, yet it would always be preferrable to have someone with the appropriate amount of savoir-faire in the position.
How are intellectuals miserable at resource management? I know my school does a hell of a lot of research (it was voted best canadian research university afterall) as do many others, a lot of new, important and useful scientific theories and concepts come out of universities, I fail to see how these intellectuals running the place are miserable with resource management.

How are intellectuals miserable at resource management? I know my school does a hell of a lot of research (it was voted best canadian research university afterall) as do many others, a lot of new, important and useful scientific theories and concepts come out of universities, I fail to see how these intellectuals running the place are miserable with resource management.
I never said that all are. However, what I did say is that the person best suited for a management position should be there. Obviously, if an intellectual cannot fulfil this position, it makes little sense to put them there. Researching theories and concepts is one thing, managing humans and money at a university-wide scale is another. I concede that the said research may involve this, but it's further complicated the higher one moves up in management.

I never said that all are. However, what I did say is that the person best suited for a management position should be there. Obviously, if an intellectual cannot fulfil this position, it makes little sense to put them there. Researching theories and concepts is one thing, managing humans and money at a university-wide scale is another. I concede that the said research may involve this, but it's further complicated the higher one moves up in management.

But what is it in intellectualism that would make one unsuited? And what is it about management that is unintellectual? You're being quite dismissive of managers.

'cause getting tenure is hard and doesn't pay well anyways, so they largely don't bother with it. but they want to put the fear of god into the hearts of those damn liberals who can't currently be fired merely for voicing an opinion. that just ain't natural - firing those that don't toe the neo-fascist line is a moral virtue, and should therefore be expanded to all segments of society. particularly those segements that view themselves as semi-independent nodes of social and political power.
You give an entirely new interpretation to the term "weird." :rolleyes:

But what is it in intellectualism that would make one unsuited? And what is it about management that is unintellectual? You're being quite dismissive of managers.
Hardly. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I just do not believe that a person should be made manager merely due to intellectuality, if they are not capable of management.

Hardly. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I just do not believe that a person should be made manager merely due to intellectuality, if they are not capable of management.

And you claim that they are?

And you claim that they are?
Yet I had set out the term that they be capable of management. Thus if one is not capable, no, most obviously not.

I never said that all are. However, what I did say is that the person best suited for a management position should be there. Obviously, if an intellectual cannot fulfil this position, it makes little sense to put them there. Researching theories and concepts is one thing, managing humans and money at a university-wide scale is another. I concede that the said research may involve this, but it's further complicated the higher one moves up in management.

And what exactly does this have to do with universities anyway? It's not like the Dean of the Philosophy dept. is automatically the University Regent Board and President at one fell swoop.

And what exactly does this have to do with universities anyway? It's not like the Dean of the Philosophy dept. is automatically the University Regent Board and President at one fell swoop.
So when exactly did I say that they become head of all the aforementioned positions in one fell swoop?

I never said that all are. However, what I did say is that the person best suited for a management position should be there. Obviously, if an intellectual cannot fulfil this position, it makes little sense to put them there. Researching theories and concepts is one thing, managing humans and money at a university-wide scale is another. I concede that the said research may involve this, but it's further complicated the higher one moves up in management.
I was saying that the research done at universities that is productive and contributes to society is hardly indicative of a mismanagement of resources...

I was saying that the research done at universities that is productive and contributes to society is hardly indicative of a mismanagement of resources...
Which would be a completely different matter to what I am arguing, no? I even validated what you said my post you quoted. If now you were referring strictly to research resource management, then yes it should be mostly left up to those conducting it.

So when exactly did I say that they become head of all the aforementioned positions in one fell swoop?

You were a bit vague and unclear, but you seemed to imply that liberal academics had also moved into managerial positions to which they might be unfit, which leads to some unspecified disadvantage. I was simply asking for clarification on how you know academics are making that move, because it's my experience that the President and Board of Regents are selected independently of their academic qualifications.

You were a bit vague and unclear, but you seemed to imply that liberal academics had also moved into managerial positions to which they might be unfit, which leads to some unspecified disadvantage. I was simply asking for clarification on how you know academics are making that move, because it's my experience that the President and Board of Regents are selected independently of their academic qualifications.
My point was merely this: for one to fill in a management position, they should be fit to manage, intellectual or not.

My point was merely this: for one to fill in a management position, they should be fit to manage, intellectual or not.

Okay. It's my experience that management skill (or at the very least political savvy) is what we select for in managers of universities.

Okay. It's my experience that management skill (or at the very least political savvy) is what we select for in managers of universities.
And I do not question this. I think that it should continue being so (referring more to management skill than political savvy).

My point was merely this: for one to fill in a management position, they should be fit to manage, intellectual or not.
If one is going to manage an intellectual institution, then one should know something about it though. Usually being an intellectual is a requirement for such knowledge.

"The most obvious way to fix academia would be to give university presidents the kind of hiring and firing authority that most executives have." - JOHN TIERNEY

Hello! What's up w'dis?'
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The USA has some of the best universities in the world. The graduates churned out are unparalleled. What's the problem?

But what is it in intellectualism that would make one unsuited? And what is it about management that is unintellectual? You're being quite dismissive of managers.
What is intellectualism?

You give an entirely new interpretation to the term "weird." :rolleyes:

then what is your explanation?

If one is going to manage an intellectual institution, then one should know something about it though. Usually being an intellectual is a requirement for such knowledge.
Then you refer to actual experience of how it works, and to this I agree.

What's the problem?

independent thought and ability to call lies what they are.

Yet I had set out the term that they be capable of management. Thus if one is not capable, no, most obviously not.

Let me rephrase.

I just do not believe that a person should be made manager merely due to intellectuality

And you claim that they are?

And you claim that they are?
No. My point was related to a theoretical situation where they would be.