Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Academia's Indentured Servants
73 views
Skip to first unread message
eridanus
Apr 14, 2013, 6:01:28 PM4/14/13
to
Academia's Indentured Servants
Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
<http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=10323.273394.bvHnJD&rd=1&src=newsletter824300&t=9>
April 12, 2013 |
On April 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line. Some are on welfare or homeless. Others depend on charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
-------
My comment: It was a curious piece of news
Times are changing.
Bob Casanova
Apr 15, 2013, 1:45:36 PM4/15/13
to
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
Sounds a good bit like everyone else who doesn't work for
the government.
>My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>Times are changing.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
the government.
>My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>Times are changing.
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Stockwell
Apr 15, 2013, 6:14:15 PM4/15/13
to
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 4:01:28 PM UTC-6, eridanus wrote:
> Academia's Indentured Servants
>
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
>
>
> <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=10323.273394.bvHnJD&rd=1&src=newsletter824300&t=9>
>
>
>
> April 12, 2013 |
>
>
>
> On April 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
Typically adjuncts, known as "freeway faculty" teach 2 or 3 courses in
> Academia's Indentured Servants
>
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
>
>
> <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=10323.273394.bvHnJD&rd=1&src=newsletter824300&t=9>
>
>
>
> April 12, 2013 |
>
>
>
> On April 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
a semester, which does add up. It doesn't make you rich, but you do get
to do what you like doing, which is to teach. And, you don't have to go
to faculty meetings.
-John
Burkhard
Apr 15, 2013, 6:29:18 PM4/15/13
to
On Apr 14, 11:01 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Academia's Indentured Servants
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
> <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
> Academia's Indentured Servants
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
>
> April 12, 2013 |
>
> On April 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line. Some are on welfare or homeless. Others depend on charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
> -------
> My comment: It was a curious piece of news
> Times are changing.
Ahh, based on a common mistake. Just because adjuncts look a bit like
> April 12, 2013 |
>
> On April 8, 2013, the New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>
> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line. Some are on welfare or homeless. Others depend on charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
> -------
> My comment: It was a curious piece of news
> Times are changing.
humans doesn't mean they are - they don't have a soul, something you
get at your inaugural lecture, so they simply don;t feel pain like we
people do. Really, it is better for them to be treated like this,
they could not cope with the safety that comes from a tenured job and
would give themselves to sloth and gin, so it really is a kindness to
keep them in that state of innocence. They are also prone to deeply
irrational behaviour "at that time of the month (when th mortgage is
due) and heaven knows what they woudl do in state state in faculty
meetings. No, better let things be, in the order decreed by the Dean,
and while they may suffer in this life a bit, there will be jam in the
next.
Paul J Gans
Apr 15, 2013, 8:22:05 PM4/15/13
to
a real-life example: back in the days of student revolts (in
the late 1960's or so) we (NYU that is) began to have huge
enrollments in Political Science as a major. The faculty
was totally inadequate in numbers to handle it. So the college
of arts and sciences went out and hired a number of tenure-
track faculty in that department.
Time passed. Many of the new faculty got tenure. And then
political science became as unpopular as a (place least
favorite object here). And the political science department
was stuck with a large faculty and no students.
This sort of thing happened in many other departments and
at many many schools. Enrollments were no longer relatively
stable, but instead were subject to faddism.
The cure was to hire "temporary" non-tenure track faculty
whose numbers could be increased or decreased essentially
at will.
There are other reasons for this as well. In my department
(as in most science departments) hiring research faculty
(the only full-time folks wanted these days) means supplying
them with a lab. Being in the heart of New York City we have
a finite number of labs and so are very limited.
Put all together, there is today a sea change in higher
education going on. There are other factors feeding into
this as well, but there is really very little choice.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Apr 15, 2013, 8:29:30 PM4/15/13
to
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On April 8, 2013, the ?New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>>
>> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the ?poverty line. Some are on ?welfare or homeless. Others depend on ?charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally ?not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be ?fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
Which explains why the good die young and the evil die old and
rich. Note that in the event these two groups take different
elevators.
>On Apr 14, 11:01?pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Academia's Indentured Servants
>> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>>
>> <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
>>
>> April 12, 2013 ?|
>> Academia's Indentured Servants
>> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>>
>> <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
>>
>>
>> On April 8, 2013, the ?New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>>
>> Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the ?poverty line. Some are on ?welfare or homeless. Others depend on ?charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally ?not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be ?fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
>> -------
>> My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>> Times are changing.
>Ahh, based on a common mistake. Just because adjuncts look a bit like
>humans doesn't mean they are - they don't have a soul, something you
>get at your inaugural lecture, so they simply don;t feel pain like we
>people do. Really, it is better for them to be treated like this,
>they could not cope with the safety that comes from a tenured job and
>would give themselves to sloth and gin, so it really is a kindness to
>keep them in that state of innocence. They are also prone to deeply
>irrational behaviour "at that time of the month (when th mortgage is
>due) and heaven knows what they woudl do in state state in faculty
>meetings. No, better let things be, in the order decreed by the Dean,
>and while they may suffer in this life a bit, there will be jam in the
>next.
AHA! Another supporter of my theory that *this life* is purgatory.
>> My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>> Times are changing.
>Ahh, based on a common mistake. Just because adjuncts look a bit like
>humans doesn't mean they are - they don't have a soul, something you
>get at your inaugural lecture, so they simply don;t feel pain like we
>people do. Really, it is better for them to be treated like this,
>they could not cope with the safety that comes from a tenured job and
>would give themselves to sloth and gin, so it really is a kindness to
>keep them in that state of innocence. They are also prone to deeply
>irrational behaviour "at that time of the month (when th mortgage is
>due) and heaven knows what they woudl do in state state in faculty
>meetings. No, better let things be, in the order decreed by the Dean,
>and while they may suffer in this life a bit, there will be jam in the
>next.
Which explains why the good die young and the evil die old and
rich. Note that in the event these two groups take different
elevators.
Walter Bushell
Apr 15, 2013, 9:06:29 PM4/15/13
to
In article <kki61a$1rn$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Well that explains my advanced age.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Richard Norman
Apr 15, 2013, 10:33:40 PM4/15/13
to
why adjunct facult are needed. That still doesn't explain why they
are treated like shit from academics, administrators, and staff. I
had been for many years in a position to hire, evaluate, and fire
adjuncts and even if you try to adopt a sympathetic attitude about
their plight, the fact remains that they are still generally treated
like shit. My son-in-law taught as an adjunct for many years before
finally landing a tenure track appointment, not to mention actual
tenure. He fully concurs: adjuncts are treated like shit.
Please note: saying, "gee your position is really not very good -- is
there anything I can do to help?" is not a very useful comment to
people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
administrative reasons.
Roger Shrubber
Apr 15, 2013, 11:02:24 PM4/15/13
to
On Apr 16, 11:33�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
> >><leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>
> >>>Academia's Indentured Servants
> >>>Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
> >>><http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
> >>>Academia's Indentured Servants
> >>>Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
fact. Those who train new PhDs lack a structural incentive to pay
attention to, or to pass on this information. It is arguable that
their
incentive runs in the opposite direction. Those pursuing PhDs
often suffer from a passion induced myopia or are otherwise not
especially pragmatic in their outlook. Dangling the dream that they
are special and needed for their specific talents turns out to be
like fishing in a barrel.
Mind you, I have no objection to the pursuit of higher learning.
But I have suspicions about linking it with gainful employment.
Michael Siemon
Apr 15, 2013, 11:17:52 PM4/15/13
to
In article
<adcc5a89-ae92-4a68...@i20g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
Math Department) called a meeting of graduate students. I attended
(as an undergraduate, but I was taking graduate courses my last two
years...) He _pointedly_ observed the (already, then) dismal prospects
for the classical "math professor" career, and more or less ordered
those present to think in terms of other options. (I, of course, like
most of the grad students there, nodded sagely and ignored his advice.
After 5 happy years as a math grad student at Berkeley, I wound up
getting a job -- in computer programming.)
<adcc5a89-ae92-4a68...@i20g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:33�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
> On Apr 16, 11:33�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Please note: �saying, "gee your position is really not very good -- is
> > there anything I can do to help?" is not a very useful comment to
> > people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
> > and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
> > Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
> > tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
> > administrative reasons.
>
> We produce more PhDs than we have jobs for PhDs. It's a simple
> fact. Those who train new PhDs lack a structural incentive to pay
> attention to, or to pass on this information. It is arguable that
> their
> incentive runs in the opposite direction. Those pursuing PhDs
> often suffer from a passion induced myopia or are otherwise not
> especially pragmatic in their outlook. Dangling the dream that they
> are special and needed for their specific talents turns out to be
> like fishing in a barrel.
>
> Mind you, I have no objection to the pursuit of higher learning.
> But I have suspicions about linking it with gainful employment.
Back in the mid-60s, Irving Kaplansky (then Dept. chair of the Chicago
> > there anything I can do to help?" is not a very useful comment to
> > people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
> > and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
> > Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
> > tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
> > administrative reasons.
>
> We produce more PhDs than we have jobs for PhDs. It's a simple
> fact. Those who train new PhDs lack a structural incentive to pay
> attention to, or to pass on this information. It is arguable that
> their
> incentive runs in the opposite direction. Those pursuing PhDs
> often suffer from a passion induced myopia or are otherwise not
> especially pragmatic in their outlook. Dangling the dream that they
> are special and needed for their specific talents turns out to be
> like fishing in a barrel.
>
> Mind you, I have no objection to the pursuit of higher learning.
> But I have suspicions about linking it with gainful employment.
Math Department) called a meeting of graduate students. I attended
(as an undergraduate, but I was taking graduate courses my last two
years...) He _pointedly_ observed the (already, then) dismal prospects
for the classical "math professor" career, and more or less ordered
those present to think in terms of other options. (I, of course, like
most of the grad students there, nodded sagely and ignored his advice.
After 5 happy years as a math grad student at Berkeley, I wound up
getting a job -- in computer programming.)
eridanus
Apr 16, 2013, 6:41:35 AM4/16/13
to
El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 01:22:05 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
this is a most perfect argument defining for the root of the problem.
I would add also, and excess of tittles can be also to blame, for
some graduates to accept a job as as cashier lady or storage worker,
in a wall mart store by example.
I do not mention the present economic crisis.
Eridanus
I would add also, and excess of tittles can be also to blame, for
some graduates to accept a job as as cashier lady or storage worker,
in a wall mart store by example.
I do not mention the present economic crisis.
Eridanus
eridanus
Apr 16, 2013, 6:46:06 AM4/16/13
to
El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 04:02:24 UTC+1, Roger Shrubber escribi�:
Yeah. But this is a sweet fantasy for many.
Eridanus
Eridanus
Tim Norfolk
Apr 16, 2013, 9:32:07 AM4/16/13
to
find enough qualified part-time teachers.
chris thompson
Apr 16, 2013, 10:45:44 AM4/16/13
to
On Apr 15, 6:14�pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 4:01:28 PM UTC-6, eridanus wrote:
> > Academia's Indentured Servants
>
> > Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
> > <http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 4:01:28 PM UTC-6, eridanus wrote:
> > Academia's Indentured Servants
>
> > Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>
>
> > April 12, 2013 �|
>
> > On April 8, 2013, the �New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>
> Typically adjuncts, known as "freeway faculty" teach 2 or 3 courses in
> a semester, which does add up. It doesn't make you rich, but you do get
> to do what you like doing, which is to teach. And, you don't have to go
> to faculty meetings.
>
> -John
>
Here in NY, they're called "Rodes Scholars". I was one for many years.
> > April 12, 2013 �|
>
> > On April 8, 2013, the �New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>
> Typically adjuncts, known as "freeway faculty" teach 2 or 3 courses in
> a semester, which does add up. It doesn't make you rich, but you do get
> to do what you like doing, which is to teach. And, you don't have to go
> to faculty meetings.
>
> -John
>
Chris
Bob Casanova
Apr 16, 2013, 1:28:41 PM4/16/13
to
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:33:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
None of that surprises me, given the fact that *something*
must be done to keep the staffing consistent with demand.
But it doesn't refute my original statement that this is the
sort of situation which confronts nearly every worker not in
government, specifically including those in unions in which
seniority (analogous to tenure) is supreme (although in that
case pay is not the issue it apparently is WRT adjunct
faculty). "Sorry, but we're downsizing. Have a nice day."
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
must be done to keep the staffing consistent with demand.
But it doesn't refute my original statement that this is the
sort of situation which confronts nearly every worker not in
government, specifically including those in unions in which
seniority (analogous to tenure) is supreme (although in that
case pay is not the issue it apparently is WRT adjunct
faculty). "Sorry, but we're downsizing. Have a nice day."
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 1:42:35 PM4/16/13
to
attempting to show where the current trend comes from. In
my department they are treated as second class citizens, which
is at least one step up from shit and one down from human.
>Please note: saying, "gee your position is really not very good -- is
>there anything I can do to help?" is not a very useful comment to
>people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
>and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
>Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
>tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
>administrative reasons.
slightly. I know that you are fairly representing the majority
of schools.
It is a terrible situation. In the face of all this, faculty
salaries have stagnated, barely if at all keeping up with
inflation. The administration view is that if you want to
leave, you are free to do so. You can be replaced by an
adjunct or two.
Once this eternal "recession" ends, if it ever really does,
I expect some real trouble at many universities. The NYU
faculty is already rambunctious, as you know if you've been
reading the newspapers lately.
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 1:48:04 PM4/16/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >a real-life example: ?back in ?the days of student revolts (in
>> >was totally inadequate in numbers to handle it. ?So the college
>> are treated like shit from academics, administrators, and staff. ?I
>>
>> Please note: ?saying, "gee your position is really not very good -- is
the sciences is that there often *are* jobs in some areas.
Right now any field with "bio" in it is in demand. That's
not just biochemistry, but biophysics, biomathematics, etc.
But it does nothing for the proverbial english major.
>On Apr 16, 11:33?am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>> >><leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >>>Academia's Indentured Servants
>> >>>Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>>
>> >>><http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>> >><leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >>>Academia's Indentured Servants
>> >>>Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the poverty line.
>>
>> >>><http://www.alternet.org/education/academias-indentured-servants?akid=...>
>>
>> >>>April 12, 2013 ?|
>>
>> >>>On April 8, 2013, the ?New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>>
>> >>>Most adjuncts teach at multiple universities while still not making enough to stay above the ?poverty line. Some are on ?welfare or homeless. Others depend on ?charity drives held by their peers. Adjuncts are generally ?not allowed to have offices or participate in faculty meetings. When they ask for a living wage or benefits, they can be ?fired. Their contingent status allows them no recourse.
>>
>> >>>On April 8, 2013, the ?New York Times reported that 76 percent of American university faculty are adjunct professors - an all-time high. Unlike tenured faculty, whose annual salaries can top $160,000, adjunct professors make an average of $2,700 per course and receive no health care or other benefits.
>>
>>
>> >>Sounds a good bit like everyone else who doesn't work for
>> >>the government.
>>
>> >>>My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>> >>>Times are changing.
>>
>> >This change has been going on (slowly) for years. ?Let me give
>> >>Sounds a good bit like everyone else who doesn't work for
>> >>the government.
>>
>> >>>My comment: It was a curious piece of news
>> >>>Times are changing.
>>
>> >a real-life example: ?back in ?the days of student revolts (in
>> >the late 1960's or so) we (NYU that is) began to have huge
>> >enrollments in Political Science as a major. ?The faculty
>> >was totally inadequate in numbers to handle it. ?So the college
>> >of arts and sciences went out and hired a number of tenure-
>> >track faculty in that department.
>>
>> >Time passed. ?Many of the new faculty got tenure. ?And then
>> >track faculty in that department.
>>
>> >political science became as unpopular as a (place least
>> >favorite object here). ?And the political science department
>> >was stuck with a large faculty and no students.
>>
>> >This sort of thing happened in many other departments and
>> >at many many schools. ?Enrollments were no longer relatively
>>
>> >This sort of thing happened in many other departments and
>> >stable, but instead were subject to faddism.
>>
>> >The cure was to hire "temporary" non-tenure track faculty
>> >whose numbers could be increased or decreased essentially
>> >at will.
>>
>> >There are other reasons for this as well. ?In my department
>>
>> >The cure was to hire "temporary" non-tenure track faculty
>> >whose numbers could be increased or decreased essentially
>> >at will.
>>
>> >(as in most science departments) hiring research faculty
>> >(the only full-time folks wanted these days) means supplying
>> >them with a lab. ?Being in the heart of New York City we have
>> >(the only full-time folks wanted these days) means supplying
>> >a finite number of labs and so are very limited.
>>
>> >Put all together, there is today a sea change in higher
>> >education going on. ?There are other factors feeding into
>>
>> >Put all together, there is today a sea change in higher
>> >this as well, but there is really very little choice.
>>
>> There may truly be important financial factors and educational factors
>> why adjunct facult are needed. ?That still doesn't explain why they
>>
>> There may truly be important financial factors and educational factors
>> are treated like shit from academics, administrators, and staff. ?I
>> had been for many years in a position to hire, evaluate, and fire
>> adjuncts and even if you try to adopt a sympathetic attitude about
>> their plight, the fact remains that they are still generally treated
>> like shit. ?My son-in-law taught as an adjunct for many years before
>> adjuncts and even if you try to adopt a sympathetic attitude about
>> their plight, the fact remains that they are still generally treated
>> finally landing a tenure track appointment, not to mention actual
>> tenure. ?He fully concurs: adjuncts are treated like shit.
>>
>> Please note: ?saying, "gee your position is really not very good -- is
>> there anything I can do to help?" is not a very useful comment to
>> people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
>> and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
>> Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
>> tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
>> administrative reasons.
>We produce more PhDs than we have jobs for PhDs. It's a simple
>fact. Those who train new PhDs lack a structural incentive to pay
>attention to, or to pass on this information. It is arguable that
>their
>incentive runs in the opposite direction. Those pursuing PhDs
>often suffer from a passion induced myopia or are otherwise not
>especially pragmatic in their outlook. Dangling the dream that they
>are special and needed for their specific talents turns out to be
>like fishing in a barrel.
>Mind you, I have no objection to the pursuit of higher learning.
>But I have suspicions about linking it with gainful employment.
You have made a very serious point. One of the problems in
>> people who work their butts off for virtually no money, no benefits,
>> and at a position where they can be fired at will with no recourse.
>> Many adjuncts even can be fired after the first week of class if a
>> tenured faculty turns out to need a teaching assignment for
>> administrative reasons.
>We produce more PhDs than we have jobs for PhDs. It's a simple
>fact. Those who train new PhDs lack a structural incentive to pay
>attention to, or to pass on this information. It is arguable that
>their
>incentive runs in the opposite direction. Those pursuing PhDs
>often suffer from a passion induced myopia or are otherwise not
>especially pragmatic in their outlook. Dangling the dream that they
>are special and needed for their specific talents turns out to be
>like fishing in a barrel.
>Mind you, I have no objection to the pursuit of higher learning.
>But I have suspicions about linking it with gainful employment.
the sciences is that there often *are* jobs in some areas.
Right now any field with "bio" in it is in demand. That's
not just biochemistry, but biophysics, biomathematics, etc.
But it does nothing for the proverbial english major.
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 1:54:48 PM4/16/13
to
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 01:22:05 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
Thank you. It is history I lived through.
>I would add also, and excess of tittles can be also to blame, for
>some graduates to accept a job as as cashier lady or storage worker,
>in a wall mart store by example.
>I do not mention the present economic crisis.
In the US we call such people "overqualified". And you are
right, the very often cannot get jobs of the sort you mention
and similar ones.
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 01:22:05 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
>I would add also, and excess of tittles can be also to blame, for
>some graduates to accept a job as as cashier lady or storage worker,
>in a wall mart store by example.
>I do not mention the present economic crisis.
right, the very often cannot get jobs of the sort you mention
and similar ones.
eridanus
Apr 16, 2013, 4:02:27 PM4/16/13
to
El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:42:35 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
I am rather pessimist in the recession ending. You must think
of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
tigers, including China and India.
If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
here is little text on the style of the article
"October 3 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) --
Human beings (like all other animals) draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.
It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth. Solar energy has a limited rate of flow into this planet. To increase your food production, you had to increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace your competitors. There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and appropriating more and more of the available solar energy. "
> I expect some real trouble at many universities. The NYU
> faculty is already rambunctious, as you know if you've been
> reading the newspapers lately.
While this crisis last, you will not see much trouble in universities.
These are not the times of the Viet Nam, where people was fearing to be
sent to war. The troubles that existed in European universities were
because... the government was paying very little per student. Then the
universities reacting by accepting "too many students". Too many students
that never would end the career, for those that were able to finish one
had be repeating several years. So many years as ten years for a career
of only five courses. Most of the students soon realized that the would
never finish the career, then they had motives to make troubles and
protests. In such a country as Sweden or Norway, the universities had
a strict "numerus clausus" and those that entered were those that finished
the career. The state was paying for the career of a limited number
of students. Just the real amount that it cost. In other countries more
to the south governments wanted to hide that existed a great number of
young people unemployed by declaring them "students".
I am not sure how it was run this thing in the US. You can tell.
Eridanus
of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
tigers, including China and India.
If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
here is little text on the style of the article
"October 3 , 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) --
Human beings (like all other animals) draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.
It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth. Solar energy has a limited rate of flow into this planet. To increase your food production, you had to increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace your competitors. There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and appropriating more and more of the available solar energy. "
> I expect some real trouble at many universities. The NYU
> faculty is already rambunctious, as you know if you've been
> reading the newspapers lately.
These are not the times of the Viet Nam, where people was fearing to be
sent to war. The troubles that existed in European universities were
because... the government was paying very little per student. Then the
universities reacting by accepting "too many students". Too many students
that never would end the career, for those that were able to finish one
had be repeating several years. So many years as ten years for a career
of only five courses. Most of the students soon realized that the would
never finish the career, then they had motives to make troubles and
protests. In such a country as Sweden or Norway, the universities had
a strict "numerus clausus" and those that entered were those that finished
the career. The state was paying for the career of a limited number
of students. Just the real amount that it cost. In other countries more
to the south governments wanted to hide that existed a great number of
young people unemployed by declaring them "students".
I am not sure how it was run this thing in the US. You can tell.
Eridanus
eridanus
Apr 16, 2013, 4:09:40 PM4/16/13
to
El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:54:48 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
You meant, they must accept these sort of jobs, for it gets even
worse for the future if he cannot tell he was working in some place
or other. He lie a little not telling them what work were doing.
Where have you been working previously?
I have been working in a retail store.
Which one?
Wall Mart.
The potential employer cannot believe a person with this curriculum
had been cleaning the floors at a wall mart, in a turn of 4 hours a
day. At $5 per hour. It could even be worse.
Eridanus
worse for the future if he cannot tell he was working in some place
or other. He lie a little not telling them what work were doing.
Where have you been working previously?
I have been working in a retail store.
Which one?
Wall Mart.
The potential employer cannot believe a person with this curriculum
had been cleaning the floors at a wall mart, in a turn of 4 hours a
day. At $5 per hour. It could even be worse.
Eridanus
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 5:48:49 PM4/16/13
to
was originally that faculty would accept lower wages for
tenure, which gave job security. This is similar to the
actual contractual arrangements that gave workers medical
and retirement benefits in return for lower salaries.
The breaking of these social contracts has produced
bad results in the industrial world and one can expect
the same in the academic world.
Of course right now the economic situation damps all that
down. But if we are ever allowed to emerge from the
current jobs situation, all hell might break lose.
A few people are making tons of money. Most everyone else
has suffered real salary erosion. It won't end well, it
never has in history.
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 6:57:05 PM4/16/13
to
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:42:35 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
[snip]
I am not quite as pessimistic as you are about the recession. I
was born in the middle of a worse one.
Higher education in the US is run in a complicated way. The
main reason for this is that the central government does not
run any universities other than the three acadamies that train
officers for the military.
The others break into two major groups: public universities
and private ones. The public universities are run by the
states or sometimes by cities within states. They range
from excellent (the large research universities) down to
small two-year training schools.
Private universities are privately run and again, range from
excellent down to very small training schools.
After that it gets complicated as research universities are
partially funded by research grants from federal and
sometimes the state or private funds, even if they are
public or private. Further, the States subsidize a number
of private universities.
Beyond that some universities, mainly private ones, have
large endowments. These are funds given to the universities
by private groups for whatever purpose. Most universities,
including public ones, have small endowments.
Beyond this, schools collect tuition money. This can range
from very small to very large amounts of money.
My university has large research funds, a small endowment,
and a large tuition. It is largely tuition driven, so we
do not want to ever discourage the enrollment of qualified
students.
Other schools have different pressures on them.
So it is often hard to generalize about US universities, as
you will see when folks criticize what I've written for being
too condensed and missing important factors.
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:42:35 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
[snip]
was born in the middle of a worse one.
Higher education in the US is run in a complicated way. The
main reason for this is that the central government does not
run any universities other than the three acadamies that train
officers for the military.
The others break into two major groups: public universities
and private ones. The public universities are run by the
states or sometimes by cities within states. They range
from excellent (the large research universities) down to
small two-year training schools.
Private universities are privately run and again, range from
excellent down to very small training schools.
After that it gets complicated as research universities are
partially funded by research grants from federal and
sometimes the state or private funds, even if they are
public or private. Further, the States subsidize a number
of private universities.
Beyond that some universities, mainly private ones, have
large endowments. These are funds given to the universities
by private groups for whatever purpose. Most universities,
including public ones, have small endowments.
Beyond this, schools collect tuition money. This can range
from very small to very large amounts of money.
My university has large research funds, a small endowment,
and a large tuition. It is largely tuition driven, so we
do not want to ever discourage the enrollment of qualified
students.
Other schools have different pressures on them.
So it is often hard to generalize about US universities, as
you will see when folks criticize what I've written for being
too condensed and missing important factors.
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 6:58:59 PM4/16/13
to
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:54:48 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
I understand what you are saying. Many here have similar
experiences. I was lucky and only worked during summers.
Not counting that, until last year I've been going to school
ever since 1938.
>El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 18:54:48 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
experiences. I was lucky and only worked during summers.
Not counting that, until last year I've been going to school
ever since 1938.
Roger Shrubber
Apr 16, 2013, 7:20:10 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 17, 2:48�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
People keep telling me that "bioinformatics" is in big demand.
That's somewhat true, unless you have more than 20+ years experience.
And I have written enough letters for people looking for work
to know that the current market is poor, probably still the worst
it's been in the last 30 years. Even worse, I know something
about the companies that are hiring. They are poorly managed
and part of a "me too" third wave that happens in science/tech.
They all need to ponder Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science,
because they are effectively setting up a mock radio shack on a
dirt runway, with a traffic control paddle dance, awaiting gifts
from heaven and are unwilling to listen to people who know
anything about actual aviation.
That's somewhat true, unless you have more than 20+ years experience.
And I have written enough letters for people looking for work
to know that the current market is poor, probably still the worst
it's been in the last 30 years. Even worse, I know something
about the companies that are hiring. They are poorly managed
and part of a "me too" third wave that happens in science/tech.
They all need to ponder Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science,
because they are effectively setting up a mock radio shack on a
dirt runway, with a traffic control paddle dance, awaiting gifts
from heaven and are unwilling to listen to people who know
anything about actual aviation.
Paul J Gans
Apr 16, 2013, 10:26:20 PM4/16/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have made a very serious point. ?One of the problems in
like... ;-)
You are right. There is a huge amount of ageism going on
as well. And what you call the third wave and I call
the "exploiters" are going at it. But nevertheless, some
fields have it worse than others.
For over a decade I had a second, simultaneous career as
a medievalist teaching a course in my school's program
in Medieval Studies. Although it's been about 10 years
since I was really active, I still keep in touch with
many medievalists.
I bring this up because there are essentially NO JOBS
at all for medievalists. What that means is that
any real knowlege of the European Middle Ages is slowly
dying out (except for a few dedicated amateurs). If
this keeps up, 20 years from now people will think
"Braveheart" is real history.
There are many fields in this situation. The brief
golden age in which there was an explosion of knowlege
in the US in all sorts of areas, complete with
synergy, is over. We USians will become a dumber,
coarser people with a rich/poor income ratio more
characteristic of an oligarchy than a vibrant democracy.
It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
"on top" for very long. I just hope that the US
will find a comfortable niche that will not embarrass
us relative to Western Europe.
>> the sciences is that there often *are* jobs in some areas.
>> Right now any field with "bio" in it is in demand. ?That's
>> not just biochemistry, but biophysics, biomathematics, etc.
>>
>> But it does nothing for the proverbial english major.
>People keep telling me that "bioinformatics" is in big demand.
>That's somewhat true, unless you have more than 20+ years experience.
>And I have written enough letters for people looking for work
>to know that the current market is poor, probably still the worst
>it's been in the last 30 years. Even worse, I know something
>about the companies that are hiring. They are poorly managed
>and part of a "me too" third wave that happens in science/tech.
>They all need to ponder Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science,
>because they are effectively setting up a mock radio shack on a
>dirt runway, with a traffic control paddle dance, awaiting gifts
>from heaven and are unwilling to listen to people who know
>anything about actual aviation.
Roger, you are giving your age away! Cargo cults and the
>>
>> But it does nothing for the proverbial english major.
>People keep telling me that "bioinformatics" is in big demand.
>That's somewhat true, unless you have more than 20+ years experience.
>And I have written enough letters for people looking for work
>to know that the current market is poor, probably still the worst
>it's been in the last 30 years. Even worse, I know something
>about the companies that are hiring. They are poorly managed
>and part of a "me too" third wave that happens in science/tech.
>They all need to ponder Feynman's lecture on cargo cult science,
>because they are effectively setting up a mock radio shack on a
>dirt runway, with a traffic control paddle dance, awaiting gifts
>from heaven and are unwilling to listen to people who know
>anything about actual aviation.
like... ;-)
You are right. There is a huge amount of ageism going on
as well. And what you call the third wave and I call
the "exploiters" are going at it. But nevertheless, some
fields have it worse than others.
For over a decade I had a second, simultaneous career as
a medievalist teaching a course in my school's program
in Medieval Studies. Although it's been about 10 years
since I was really active, I still keep in touch with
many medievalists.
I bring this up because there are essentially NO JOBS
at all for medievalists. What that means is that
any real knowlege of the European Middle Ages is slowly
dying out (except for a few dedicated amateurs). If
this keeps up, 20 years from now people will think
"Braveheart" is real history.
There are many fields in this situation. The brief
golden age in which there was an explosion of knowlege
in the US in all sorts of areas, complete with
synergy, is over. We USians will become a dumber,
coarser people with a rich/poor income ratio more
characteristic of an oligarchy than a vibrant democracy.
It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
"on top" for very long. I just hope that the US
will find a comfortable niche that will not embarrass
us relative to Western Europe.
Tim Norfolk
Apr 16, 2013, 10:56:34 PM4/16/13
to
our state. Then we got a union,
and got 16% raises over 3 years, putting us in the middle. The faculty are now
being shamed for making those gains.
eridanus
Apr 17, 2013, 6:10:57 AM4/17/13
to
El martes, 16 de abril de 2013 23:57:05 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
Ok. I think this recession must be different that the one in
30's or others that came later. In general a recession occurs,
I am just guessing, when a limited number of speculators push
most people into debt, making them to buy a shit or other.
Like very high pitched shares in Wall Street, or the recent
bubble of Real State.
There had been other smaller bubbles before. But I think this
crisis is different, when you see that the perspectives of oil
prices are at rising. This must be coupled with a giant like
China, that has already some over 100 million cars, and going
up. Not even keeping the salaries of US workers on a level
with the Chinese level, will be western nations able to compete,
in the global markets to buy oil.
Think that only 10 years ago, the oil cost $30 a gallon. Now Brent
oil cost $100 and WTI (West Texas Intermediate) is around $90
In spite of the crisis, that started officially in 2007/2008 the
average rise of oil has been like 11.6% on average.
You can calculate it yourself. It passed from 30 to 90 that is
it multiplied by 3 then 10^(log 3/10)= 1.116 take out 1 and you
get .116 that is 11.6 percent.
Then, I think this shit of the exhaustion of oil will become a
serious threat to the near future, and to get out of this crisis.
Remember that the economic depression of the 30's stopped because
a great war about to start. Then, the government started to borrow
money like crazy to pay the industry to start working again. If
it were not by the war, the economic crisis would had lasted to the
present times. What is my argument? Well, if people had not money
to expend on consumer shit, nobody with money would dream of earning
a buck by investing some dollars. You have to shower money over the
people fort the people start to buy things. Then, when you see the
people have money to expend you can start anew some venture at
producing some consumerism shit for people to buy. Like this computer.
What is now the difference? Two main variables. I have mentioned
them already. Salaries in China, and the price of the barrel of oil.
Unless the discover a whole pacific ocean full of oil, we will buried
in a pool of shit till this civilization would blow up in pieces.
Then, I had the suspicion that this crisis had been made on purpose,
to prepare us to exhaustion of oil. It started buy ruining the local
economies, importing goods from China. Then, the retailer chains
had ruin the old smaller retailers, by importing cheap goods from
China, while the old retailers were buying goods manufactured in
the US. It was a sort of pushing us fast to plunge in the freezing
waters of the next oil crisis. We are already on our way there.
A similar case occurred in Europe.
Have a different analysis to explain how the present crisis could
soon end? You must have some logical device to explain this
crisis will end in... as soon as... lets us say in... ten years?
Eridanus
30's or others that came later. In general a recession occurs,
I am just guessing, when a limited number of speculators push
most people into debt, making them to buy a shit or other.
Like very high pitched shares in Wall Street, or the recent
bubble of Real State.
There had been other smaller bubbles before. But I think this
crisis is different, when you see that the perspectives of oil
prices are at rising. This must be coupled with a giant like
China, that has already some over 100 million cars, and going
up. Not even keeping the salaries of US workers on a level
with the Chinese level, will be western nations able to compete,
in the global markets to buy oil.
Think that only 10 years ago, the oil cost $30 a gallon. Now Brent
oil cost $100 and WTI (West Texas Intermediate) is around $90
In spite of the crisis, that started officially in 2007/2008 the
average rise of oil has been like 11.6% on average.
You can calculate it yourself. It passed from 30 to 90 that is
it multiplied by 3 then 10^(log 3/10)= 1.116 take out 1 and you
get .116 that is 11.6 percent.
Then, I think this shit of the exhaustion of oil will become a
serious threat to the near future, and to get out of this crisis.
Remember that the economic depression of the 30's stopped because
a great war about to start. Then, the government started to borrow
money like crazy to pay the industry to start working again. If
it were not by the war, the economic crisis would had lasted to the
present times. What is my argument? Well, if people had not money
to expend on consumer shit, nobody with money would dream of earning
a buck by investing some dollars. You have to shower money over the
people fort the people start to buy things. Then, when you see the
people have money to expend you can start anew some venture at
producing some consumerism shit for people to buy. Like this computer.
What is now the difference? Two main variables. I have mentioned
them already. Salaries in China, and the price of the barrel of oil.
Unless the discover a whole pacific ocean full of oil, we will buried
in a pool of shit till this civilization would blow up in pieces.
Then, I had the suspicion that this crisis had been made on purpose,
to prepare us to exhaustion of oil. It started buy ruining the local
economies, importing goods from China. Then, the retailer chains
had ruin the old smaller retailers, by importing cheap goods from
China, while the old retailers were buying goods manufactured in
the US. It was a sort of pushing us fast to plunge in the freezing
waters of the next oil crisis. We are already on our way there.
A similar case occurred in Europe.
Have a different analysis to explain how the present crisis could
soon end? You must have some logical device to explain this
crisis will end in... as soon as... lets us say in... ten years?
Eridanus
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 9:37:57 AM4/17/13
to
In article <kkkl3j$41j$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
[1] "Goodness gracious, how absurd, everyone knows the wing is on the
bird."
> >Where have you been working previously?
> >I have been working in a retail store.
> >Which one?
> >Wall Mart.
> >The potential employer cannot believe a person with this curriculum
> >had been cleaning the floors at a wall mart, in a turn of 4 hours a
> >day. At $5 per hour. It could even be worse.
>
> I understand what you are saying. Many here have similar
> experiences. I was lucky and only worked during summers.
> Not counting that, until last year I've been going to school
> ever since 1938.
End well. It's not very nice now and lo the bird is on the wing.[1]
> >I have been working in a retail store.
> >Which one?
> >Wall Mart.
> >The potential employer cannot believe a person with this curriculum
> >had been cleaning the floors at a wall mart, in a turn of 4 hours a
> >day. At $5 per hour. It could even be worse.
>
> I understand what you are saying. Many here have similar
> experiences. I was lucky and only worked during summers.
> Not counting that, until last year I've been going to school
> ever since 1938.
[1] "Goodness gracious, how absurd, everyone knows the wing is on the
bird."
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 9:43:02 AM4/17/13
to
In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
> "on top" for very long.
I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
> "on top" for very long.
colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 10:21:10 AM4/17/13
to
In article <8156598e-83d6-4b2e...@googlegroups.com>,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c&feature=related>
"Arithmetic, Population, and Energy Dr. Albert A. Bartlett from the
University of Colorado in Boulder gives a simple, and fully
comprehensive lecture on the most important issues facing humans today
and demonstrates that "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is
our inability to understand the exponential function."
Gives a talk based on the application of the properties of the real
valued exponential function using the rule of 70 aka, 69, or 72.
The real formula for doubling time is ln(2)/ln(1 +r) where ln is the
natural logarithm and r is the percentage divided by 100. (Logs to any
base will work if that is more convenient in the previous formula.)
However it turns out that ln(1+r) is approximately r for r<<1 as r is
the first term in the Taylor series and the error is less than r^2/2
(second term of the Taylor series) as will be covered in any
introductory Calculus course.
Much more information can be had at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72>
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am rather pessimist in the recession ending. You must think
> of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
> that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
> year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
> finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
> well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
> and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
> tigers, including China and India.
> If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
> here is little text on the style of the article
See
> I am rather pessimist in the recession ending. You must think
> of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
> that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
> year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
> finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
> well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
> and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
> tigers, including China and India.
> If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
> here is little text on the style of the article
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c&feature=related>
"Arithmetic, Population, and Energy Dr. Albert A. Bartlett from the
University of Colorado in Boulder gives a simple, and fully
comprehensive lecture on the most important issues facing humans today
and demonstrates that "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is
our inability to understand the exponential function."
Gives a talk based on the application of the properties of the real
valued exponential function using the rule of 70 aka, 69, or 72.
The real formula for doubling time is ln(2)/ln(1 +r) where ln is the
natural logarithm and r is the percentage divided by 100. (Logs to any
base will work if that is more convenient in the previous formula.)
However it turns out that ln(1+r) is approximately r for r<<1 as r is
the first term in the Taylor series and the error is less than r^2/2
(second term of the Taylor series) as will be covered in any
introductory Calculus course.
Much more information can be had at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72>
Bob Casanova
Apr 17, 2013, 1:34:24 PM4/17/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
No argument here; I was merely noting that the situation in
academia is hardly unique.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
academia is hardly unique.
Bob Casanova
Apr 17, 2013, 1:39:42 PM4/17/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>> "on top" for very long.
>
>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
Does it? The Ottoman Empire lasted considerably longer, and
they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
longer than both together, ran on wine.
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>> "on top" for very long.
>
>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
longer than both together, ran on wine.
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 2:31:54 PM4/17/13
to
In article <hcntm8h3tjap5kohl...@4ax.com>,
different. Entrepreneur[1] with capital loans is quite a different
system and wine would dampen irrational exuberance I should think.
[1] What's French for entrepreneur again?
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:02 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
> >> "on top" for very long.
> >
> >I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
> >colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
> >coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
>
> Does it? The Ottoman Empire lasted considerably longer, and
> they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
> longer than both together, ran on wine.
Well the economic systems of Rome and the Ottoman empire were quite
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:02 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
> >> "on top" for very long.
> >
> >I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
> >colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
> >coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
>
> Does it? The Ottoman Empire lasted considerably longer, and
> they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
> longer than both together, ran on wine.
different. Entrepreneur[1] with capital loans is quite a different
system and wine would dampen irrational exuberance I should think.
[1] What's French for entrepreneur again?
eridanus
Apr 17, 2013, 3:52:37 PM4/17/13
to
El mi�rcoles, 17 de abril de 2013 15:21:10 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
common logarithms of base 10. I think they work as well, but I was doing
the operations differently.
> Gives a talk based on the application of the properties of the real
> valued exponential function using the rule of 70 aka, 69, or 72.
>
> The real formula for doubling time is ln(2)/ln(1 +r) where ln is the
> natural logarithm and r is the percentage divided by 100. (Logs to any
> base will work if that is more convenient in the previous formula.)
> However it turns out that ln(1+r) is approximately r for r<<1 as r is
> the first term in the Taylor series and the error is less than r^2/2
> (second term of the Taylor series) as will be covered in any
> introductory Calculus course.
>
> Much more information can be had at
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72>
I see what you say. I had never used these rules
I never had used the Neperian logarithms, for I taught myself maths
and never felt the need of using the natural log.
I started to use the common logarithms, when I was doing some
calculations on population growth. I had not any problems.
My knowledge of math are not advanced. I never had to prepare
myself for any maths examinations. I made only primary school.
I suppose that Nep logarithms are similar but in base e, not 10
Eridanus
> In article <8156598e-83d6-4b2e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am rather pessimist in the recession ending. You must think
> > of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
> > that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
> > year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
> > finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
> > well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
> > and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
> > tigers, including China and India.
> > If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
>
> > http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
>
> > here is little text on the style of the article
>
> See
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c&feature=related>
>
> "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy Dr. Albert A. Bartlett from the
> University of Colorado in Boulder gives a simple, and fully
> comprehensive lecture on the most important issues facing humans today
> and demonstrates that "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is
> our inability to understand the exponential function."
I had downloaded this videos of Bartlett and watched them. But I use the
>
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am rather pessimist in the recession ending. You must think
> > of this shit state of the economy as a rehearsal for worst years
> > that are awaiting us. Think that oil is getting scarcer by the
> > year, for several reasons. One of the reasons is they are not
> > finding new reservoirs of oil, and China and India are fast as
> > well buying cars. Then, the oil would keep going up in prices
> > and we should have shitty salaries to compete with the Asiatic
> > tigers, including China and India.
> > If you can digest pessimist information there is a site called
>
> > http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
>
> > here is little text on the style of the article
>
> See
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vII-GxsrR2c&feature=related>
>
> "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy Dr. Albert A. Bartlett from the
> University of Colorado in Boulder gives a simple, and fully
> comprehensive lecture on the most important issues facing humans today
> and demonstrates that "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is
> our inability to understand the exponential function."
common logarithms of base 10. I think they work as well, but I was doing
the operations differently.
> Gives a talk based on the application of the properties of the real
> valued exponential function using the rule of 70 aka, 69, or 72.
>
> The real formula for doubling time is ln(2)/ln(1 +r) where ln is the
> natural logarithm and r is the percentage divided by 100. (Logs to any
> base will work if that is more convenient in the previous formula.)
> However it turns out that ln(1+r) is approximately r for r<<1 as r is
> the first term in the Taylor series and the error is less than r^2/2
> (second term of the Taylor series) as will be covered in any
> introductory Calculus course.
>
> Much more information can be had at
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72>
I never had used the Neperian logarithms, for I taught myself maths
and never felt the need of using the natural log.
I started to use the common logarithms, when I was doing some
calculations on population growth. I had not any problems.
My knowledge of math are not advanced. I never had to prepare
myself for any maths examinations. I made only primary school.
I suppose that Nep logarithms are similar but in base e, not 10
Eridanus
Paul J Gans
Apr 17, 2013, 9:04:15 PM4/17/13
to
Tim Norfolk <tims...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
>We had several years with no raises, while we were at the lowest salaries in
>our state. Then we got a union,
>and got 16% raises over 3 years, putting us in the middle. The faculty are now
>being shamed for making those gains.
Your collegues are discovering why unions were created in the
first place. Individuals have zero bargaining power on their
own.
Stick it out.
[snip]
>We had several years with no raises, while we were at the lowest salaries in
>our state. Then we got a union,
>and got 16% raises over 3 years, putting us in the middle. The faculty are now
>being shamed for making those gains.
first place. Individuals have zero bargaining power on their
own.
Stick it out.
Paul J Gans
Apr 17, 2013, 9:16:55 PM4/17/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>> "on top" for very long.
>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
Well, that would get us into a long and somewhat tedious
>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>> "on top" for very long.
>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
between the appearance of "on toppedness" and the reality.
I'll not go into it because it would really be off-topic.
Paul J Gans
Apr 17, 2013, 9:19:17 PM4/17/13
to
>Much more information can be had at
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72>
>--
>Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
> me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Paul J Gans
Apr 17, 2013, 9:28:47 PM4/17/13
to
We don't need no steenking colleges. The Ivy League has
enough room to hold the children of the top 1% in the US.
The rest of the folks can go industrial schools.
Paul J Gans
Apr 17, 2013, 9:31:20 PM4/17/13
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:02 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>>> "on top" for very long.
>>
>>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
>Does it? The Ottoman Empire lasted considerably longer, and
>they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
>longer than both together, ran on wine.
Let's not get carried away. The Ottoman Empire, for example
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:02 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>>In article <kkl18c$jeb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It isn't the end of the world. No nation has been
>>> "on top" for very long.
>>
>>I thought the English had a long run. They were up during the
>>colonization of America right up to WWII. They ran on tea rather than
>>coffee which explains why they lasted longer.
>Does it? The Ottoman Empire lasted considerably longer, and
>they ran on coffee. And the Roman Empire, which lasted
>longer than both together, ran on wine.
had been an empty shell for a long time. And it was never
really "on top" in terms of Europe, though it was stronger
than any single European nation.
And the Roman Empire started as a Republic, ended as an
Empire, and was falling apart by 350 AD, even if it took
another 200 years for that to become clear in the west.
But it was supreme in the west for a long period of time.
eridanus
Apr 18, 2013, 7:44:04 AM4/18/13
to
El jueves, 18 de abril de 2013 02:28:47 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi�:
Yeah
But do not remain any industries in the US. All goods
come from China.
Well, there is the industry of stocking the selves in Wall Mart
and to clean the toilets.
But you do not need a college to work on that.
Eridanus
But do not remain any industries in the US. All goods
come from China.
Well, there is the industry of stocking the selves in Wall Mart
and to clean the toilets.
But you do not need a college to work on that.
Eridanus
Walter Bushell
Apr 18, 2013, 7:49:16 AM4/18/13
to
In article <kknhml$1rb$5...@reader1.panix.com>,
By that logic it should be the Rule of 69! (not 69 factorial of
course). But it really doesn't matter from 69 to 72, in the video and
for general forecasting, when it comes down to dollars and sense one
uses the exact formula, but it's overly precise to apply to things
like economic or population growth because we expect variation. For
example oil consumption grew at 7% annually (doubling time 10 years,
about 10 years 3 months by exact formula) for decades, until it didn't
as the theory Dr. Bartlett proposed would predict.
Of course most people these days can do the exact math on their
phones.
course). But it really doesn't matter from 69 to 72, in the video and
for general forecasting, when it comes down to dollars and sense one
uses the exact formula, but it's overly precise to apply to things
like economic or population growth because we expect variation. For
example oil consumption grew at 7% annually (doubling time 10 years,
about 10 years 3 months by exact formula) for decades, until it didn't
as the theory Dr. Bartlett proposed would predict.
Of course most people these days can do the exact math on their
phones.
Walter Bushell
Apr 18, 2013, 7:54:13 AM4/18/13
to
In article <kkni8f$1rb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
About the size of it. And we can import the techies and doctors most
of whom are technicians note the symptoms prescribe the medicines the
detail person suggests. Exaggerated somewhat but more true than I
would like it to be. It's all insurance will pay for in most cases.
of whom are technicians note the symptoms prescribe the medicines the
detail person suggests. Exaggerated somewhat but more true than I
would like it to be. It's all insurance will pay for in most cases.
Bob Casanova
Apr 18, 2013, 12:42:43 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:31:20 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
You neglected to include the continuation of the Empire
based in Byzantium/Constantinople, which lasted longer than
the original Empire based in Rome.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:
based in Byzantium/Constantinople, which lasted longer than
the original Empire based in Rome.
Paul J Gans
Apr 18, 2013, 7:38:49 PM4/18/13
to
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>El jueves, 18 de abril de 2013 02:28:47 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
In the future you may need a college degree to do that.
:-(
>El jueves, 18 de abril de 2013 02:28:47 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
:-(
Paul J Gans
Apr 18, 2013, 7:49:40 PM4/18/13
to
nation. But again, they were not "top dogs".
I think we are discussing two different things: one is
major nations, where I agree that some have been major
for a long time; and "top dogs" where their dominance
meant that all who came into contact with them deferred
to them.
James Beck
Apr 18, 2013, 8:15:25 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>Yeah
>>But do not remain any industries in the US. All goods
>>come from China.
>>Well, there is the industry of stocking the selves in Wall Mart
>>and to clean the toilets.
>>But you do not need a college to work on that.
>
>In the future you may need a college degree to do that.
>
>:-(
Some of my friends in Utah have told me that Walmart employees there
need Masters degrees to earn the minimum wage. I haven't taken the
time to verify that claim.
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>El jueves, 18 de abril de 2013 02:28:47 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
>>> ><gan...@panix.com>:
>>> >>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >>>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:33:40 -0700, the following appeared
>>> >>>in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
>>> >>><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>>> >>>>On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> >>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> >>>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>>> >>>>>><leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
[snip]
>eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>El jueves, 18 de abril de 2013 02:28:47 UTC+1, Paul J Gans escribi?:
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:48:49 +0000 (UTC), the following
>>> >appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
>>> ><gan...@panix.com>:
>>> >>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >>>On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:33:40 -0700, the following appeared
>>> >>>in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
>>> >>><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>>> >>>>On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:05 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>>> >>>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> >>>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>>> >>>>>><leopoldo...@gmail.com>:
>>Yeah
>>But do not remain any industries in the US. All goods
>>come from China.
>>Well, there is the industry of stocking the selves in Wall Mart
>>and to clean the toilets.
>>But you do not need a college to work on that.
>
>In the future you may need a college degree to do that.
>
>:-(
need Masters degrees to earn the minimum wage. I haven't taken the
time to verify that claim.
Bob Casanova
Apr 19, 2013, 1:03:10 PM4/19/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:49:40 +0000 (UTC), the following
They were certainly a major actor in their area of
influence, which is all one can say of *any* empire. Sure,
they had rivals who were also major actors, but what empire
in Eurasia didn't?
>I think we are discussing two different things: one is
>major nations, where I agree that some have been major
>for a long time; and "top dogs" where their dominance
>meant that all who came into contact with them deferred
>to them.
*All* who came into contact with them deferred to them? I'm
not convinced that any such have ever existed.
influence, which is all one can say of *any* empire. Sure,
they had rivals who were also major actors, but what empire
in Eurasia didn't?
>I think we are discussing two different things: one is
>major nations, where I agree that some have been major
>for a long time; and "top dogs" where their dominance
>meant that all who came into contact with them deferred
>to them.
not convinced that any such have ever existed.
Paul J Gans
Apr 19, 2013, 2:19:07 PM4/19/13
to
Walmart employees have master's degrees.
Paul J Gans
Apr 19, 2013, 2:42:23 PM4/19/13
to
used "most all".
James Beck
Apr 19, 2013, 3:24:44 PM4/19/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:19:07 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
You may find this piece interesting.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/grad-student-who-shook-global-austerity-movement.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/grad-student-who-shook-global-austerity-movement.html
Paul J Gans
Apr 19, 2013, 3:59:46 PM4/19/13
to
it from reading Krugman, who has been all over the R&R paper.
I think this is crucially important. The austerity people really
have to rethink what they are doing. The piece on hunger in
Greece in yesterday's NYTimes illustrates what I hope are
unintended consequences.
0 new messages