tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426239.post111652457946141905..comments2023-06-12T10:08:26.187-05:00Comments on Lake Winneblogo: More Bad News for AcademiaLake Winneblogohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09063703316063246957noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426239.post-1116787595279181272005-05-22T13:46:00.000-05:002005-05-22T13:46:00.000-05:00Tenure is also an economic safety net to compensat...Tenure is also an economic safety net to compensate for low pay. A company might fire an employee at will, even after relocating that person. The fired person was likely highly compensated while working. Compare this to a professor, who would be paid much lower (than a corporate employee an organization moves for employment). At the rates universities pay faculty and under-reimburse for moving, tenure becomes the economic reason to be a faculty member. If we were fired so easily, few of us could afford working in this field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426239.post-1116565942751109822005-05-20T00:12:00.000-05:002005-05-20T00:12:00.000-05:00I am currently reading a book by Seymour Melman, ...I am currently reading a book by Seymour Melman, "from managerialism to workplace democracy". In the book, Melman clearly tracks the growth of top down managerial control for the manufacturing sector . Here take a hit off this, The ratio of managers to production workers in 1899 was 10:100, in 1947 22:100, and check this out in 1996 53:100, these are averages in manufacturing (pp 178-179 Melman). I wonder if this top down growth has also been occurring in academia. Question, for every professor teaching how many people are administrating? If there has been a great rise in centralized control, would it not also be true that tenor would threaten such control? Last but not least, with the rise of administration wouldn't such rise take a greater slice of the pie, therefore leaving less for professors. <BR/> I really must stop reading books like Melmans, they tend to get under my skin, especially statistics like the following, us government outlays by function, 1940 to 1996: defense 16.31 trillion, nuclear weapons and infrastructure 5.83 trillion,...education, employment and social services 1.55 trillion (p 144 Melman). I mentioned these statistics during a call in to NPR when they had some nut job professor from AEI . He hemmed and hawed then stated, “traditionally it is the states that fund universities and education.” That may be true, but I think numbers do not lie and these numbers tell a tale of Americas true priorities. I cannot remember the professors name ,but he was proposing that universities all become privatized.<BR/> Next semester i need to not read stuff like Melmans and just stick to classwork. I also need to stop thinking, shut my mouth and just hand in my work on time. I think if I do the former my GPA should get better.<BR/>Frank mccandlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426239.post-1116565654246990642005-05-20T00:07:00.000-05:002005-05-20T00:07:00.000-05:00I am currently reading a book by Seymour Melman, ...I am currently reading a book by Seymour Melman, "from managerialism to workplace democracy". In the book, Melman clearly tracks the growth of top down managerial control for the manufacturing sector . Here take a hit off this, The ratio of managers to production workers in 1899 was 10:100, in 1947 22:100, and check this out in 1996 53:100, these are averages in manufacturing (pp 178-179 Melman). I wonder if this top down growth has also been occurring in academia. Question, for every professor teaching how many people are administrating? If there has been a great rise in centralized control, would it not also be true that tenor would threaten such control? Last but not least, with the rise of administration wouldn't such rise take a greater slice of the pie, therefore leaving less for professors. <BR/> I really must stop reading books like Melmans, they tend to get under my skin, especially statistics like the following, us government outlays by function, 1940 to 1996: defense 16.31 trillion, nuclear weapons and infrastructure 5.83 trillion,...education, employment and social services 1.55 trillion (p 144 Melman). I mentioned these statistics during a call in to NPR when they had some nut job professor from AEI . He hemmed and hawed then stated, “traditionally it is the states that fund universities and education.” That may be true, but I think numbers do not lie and these numbers tell a tale of Americas true priorities. I cannot remember the professors name ,but he was proposing that universities all become privatized.<BR/> Next semester i need to not read stuff like Melmans and just stick to classwork. I also need to stop thinking, shut my mouth and just hand in my work on time. I think if I do the former my GPA should get better.<BR/>Frank mccandlessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com