ELynah Forum

Quote from: billhowardWhereas as Reunion you can drive up and down libe slope and nothing happens to you. That was about the first thing I captured when I got my first GoPro.

If Cornell has convinced you to leave them something in your will they might even encourage the practice.

"But oh, BTW. Since you brought up Stalin and Mao's murders, for consistency wouldn't you also need to mention Pinochet's? "

As bloody as Pinochet was, he was a minor league player when compared to Stalin & Mao (or Pol Pot or the various Kim's). The death toll under Pinochet was on the order of 10,000. Stalin racked up between 7,000,000 and 20,000,000 (not counting WWII) and Mao (generally considered the Babe Ruth of murder) killed somewhere between 18,000,000 and 70,000,000 (nobody really knows, they are all dead).

You can't complain about the real problems that result from Capitalism, and then even remotely suggest that Communism produces better results.

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of one million is a statistic." - Stalin

Well, I guess you have exposed my North Eastern elitist bias. That statement was based in my reading "The First Tycoon" by T J Stiles, the biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt (an excellent biography by the way). Vanderbilt, at least in the US, was the pioneer in developing modern corporate capitalism, selling stock in a corporation to raise sufficient capital for projects (eg the NY Central Rail Network) that were too large to be funded by traditional partnership arrangements. These Northeastern/Midwestern rail networks were not built by slaves.

It is interesting to compare the density of rail networks in the North and South at the time of the Civil War.

http://railroads.unl.edu/maps/map1lg.jpg

This is the functional equivalent of looking at the Korean Peninsula from space at night and a comparison of 2 economic systems:

http://www.gamefishin.com/threads/map-of-korea-at-night.39167/

" both the Soviet Union & China industrialized at a rate faster than most capitalist countries" - This is not really a valid comparison. It is always faster to play "catch up" than it is to do something new. Now, if you were going to compare the capacity to slaughter their own people then the communists are in a league of their own. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the rest even pass the Nazi's in their ability to torture and kill.

I am not sure that Cuba's health care and education system is better than Chile's which is the only Latin American country in the OECD (ie they are a first world country). Chile adopted free market/capitalist principles and prospered.

As for capitalism being built on the backs of slaves, there may be an element of truth in that but so were a lot of other systems built on the backs of slaves. The slave trade existed millenia before modern capitalism. Capitalism in the US (as opposed to industrialization) can be traced to the rail roads, the first enterprises that required more capital than could be raised by a simple partnership. That was not built on the back of slaves. (The backs of poor day laborers is a different thing).

If you want to lead the world in prosperity, free market capitalism is the horse you want to ride.

"although one might want to consider if industrialization under a different set of social relations might have been similar albeit perhaps a bit slower."

The alternative systems that have been tried socialism, national socialism, communism, imperialism, all produced positive results at a slower pace but also produced far far greater negative results.

Free market capitalism requires markets, markets in return require well established systems of property rights and the ability to enforce trading rules. That system of rights and rules happens in a social context driven by the norms of the particular society they exist in. For most of human history the owning and trading of human beings was considered perfectly normal (still is in some cultures). Capitalism was not responsible for slavery, the social norms were responsible for it. Capitalism and markets just provided a mechanism for trading. (I am not defending slavery just dealing with facts). Even after the US made it illegal to import slaves slavery and slave trading went on because it was an accepted social practice.

College students (or their parents) are buying a product pure and simple. That product is at it's simplest, a diploma that confers a credential which increases the students human capital. Colleges are in the business (yes, business) of selling "Diploma's", constrained by the need to maintain some level of brand recognition. (Eg Cornell is a premium brand and strives to maintain that premium). As rational economic actors colleges engage in production of "Diplomas" at the lowest cost consistent with the need to protect their brand. It is really just that simple, no different than making cars. Ford and Mercedes strive to purchase their inputs at the best price consistent with their brand goals and Cornell and Cortland do the same it just happens that their inputs are mostly labor.

You are correct, Professors are not really measured on teaching, they are measured on how much money they can generate for the institution. Rainmakers get tenure not scholars.

"Many lesser ranked schools used to hire people with masters degrees to instruct only 15 or 20 years ago. Now, they can often find adjuncts with PhDs from decent schools and with fairly impressive scholarship. The industry has created this unbalance by their unwillingness to pay and hire. It is not a supply and demand issue. "

This is the essence of supply and demand" ie too much supply and too little demand. The results are very predictable, downward pressure on prices (wages). The bleating here is because some people made bad career decisions and don't want to be accountable for their bad decisions.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: TowerroadDoes anyone else get tired of this academic bleating? No one put a gun to the heads of all these PHD's and said, "You must work for crappy wages in a demeaning job." For that matter, no one put a gun to their heads and said "You must go to grad school and get a PHD." Sorry, but if you are a 22 year old BS or BA and you decide to get a PHD there is no shortage of information about what the job market looks like when you make your decision. If you made the decision just to avoid the "real world" why should the rest of us care, it is your life. If you do not like what is on offer in the world of academia the find something else. Millions of other workers in this country have had to. Time to grow up.

Typical. ::roll eyes::

"My life sucks, so yours might as well too!"

All occupations are under attack; academia is yet another sector of society from under which the rug continues to be pulled, i.e., where the conditions of employment are going through such rapid disruptive change that many of those who signed up under a different set of rules are feeling cheated. Most academics, regardless of what people like you and much of the rest of society erroneously parrot, did not choose to do what they did in order to "avoid the 'real world'"; rather, they chose, because of aptitude and interest, to pursue a relatively narrow academic path in order to do great research or teach well. (One might hope both.) It's the nature of the business that academics are not exactly well-suited to a variety of career paths—that's why they're rewarded, in a proper world, with things like tenure and the flexible scheduling necessary to pursue material deeply. Let me tell ya, they ain't doing it for the power and big money—that's for the academic administrator class.

Your vocation is likely the next against the wall as this anti-revolution goes on and on. And who will be out there trying to warn you before it happens? Those lousy academics. Who's trying to get your children to think more clearly so they might be able to help all our sorry asses? Those lousy academics.

Just for the record, my life does not suck, it is actually pretty good but I have had to adapt over the course of my career which has included being laid off, changing jobs, and changing roles. It is not easy but no one every promised me easy. As for being rewarded in a proper world that is complete baloney. There is no such thing. Nature hates species that are over specialized, they get creamed when things change. If your argument is that academics are only fit to do one thing then they are in a very very high risk profession.

Does anyone else get tired of this academic bleating? No one put a gun to the heads of all these PHD's and said, "You must work for crappy wages in a demeaning job." For that matter, no one put a gun to their heads and said "You must go to grad school and get a PHD." Sorry, but if you are a 22 year old BS or BA and you decide to get a PHD there is no shortage of information about what the job market looks like when you make your decision. If you made the decision just to avoid the "real world" why should the rest of us care, it is your life. If you do not like what is on offer in the world of academia the find something else. Millions of other workers in this country have had to. Time to grow up.

Quote from: Scersk '97

Quote from: upprdeckthey seem to price things in ways that make you wonder.  but part of me understands it too.

there is x% that will come because the team they follow is in it.  if it was $15 or $40 it really wont make a difference thats very large since travel hotel make a much larger piece of the puzzle.
 
there is y% that will come on a whim and for them price does matter.  

if they sold the tickets for $15 they get a few more of the Y but do they make up the money they lose on the X? i dont think so.

you also have to think that being in LP there are far less of the casual fans showing up on a whim.

Yeah, I understand those types of calculations, but I feel like the same thing is going on here that has gone on with the D-I Lacrosse Championship—ticket prices have risen so much that the casual fan doesn't even think of going. Hell, I'm not even a casual fan, really.

I don't know how the numbers are set, but I feel like there is still money being left "on the table," particularly when you factor in concessions. Whatever happened to "butts in seats?" They're going for the sure money rather than trying to make it an event. It's a choice, I suppose.

The plain fact is that they are into revenue maximization rather than attendance maximization. To do that they have to be able to make sure that the people that will travel do think they can get a $40 ticket for $15 when they get there. This is about money not sport.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: dbilmesBig puff piece on Q in today's NY Times. Let's hope it jinxes them, similar to the way the Sports Illustrated jinx has worked over the years.

"Before Quinnipiac first got in touch with Garteig about playing collegiate hockey, he had no clue where the university was, let alone where Connecticut was on a map."

Ladies and gentlemen, your Quinnipiac University scholars.

Westerners have no clue where eastern states are.  Dr. Mrs. still mixes up all the New England states.  As far as they're concerned it's like Greek city states -- yeah, you know there are a bunch of them, but they're all tiny and interchangeable and pretty much all of them are irrelevant anyway.  You'd be ashamed to feed a New England state to Arizona for more than a snack.

You could make a meal out of Maine but RI would just be the stuff stuck Az's teeth

Given the turmoil at the head of the University I suspect that no one is thinking about changes in Athletics in the very near term. Regardless of the record the current AD will not make any changes in the Men's Hockey leadership this year since that would bring the Eye of Day Hall on him. Doing nothing is probably his best bet, the only question is how long the extension will be.

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: Ken711

Quote from: TrotskyIt would cost a ton, but if we devoted comparable resources to HYP we would probably dominate the Ivies in football.  It is the best sport for us to use our admissions advantages.

Cost a ton?  How so?  Upgrades to athletic facilities would benefit all sports.

I was referring to refurbing Schoelkopf.  From what I understand the cross-sport facilities (weights and conditioning, etc) are state of the art.

It would be interesting to try to estimate whether Ivy football is cost effective even if you're running a winning program, by trying to piece together the data from say Penn's run.  On the one hand, there are still the Monty Burns types who the school fellates for donations, and football is appealing to those elderly alums who actually distantly remember when Ivy football was not a national joke.  On the other hand, we might be able to parlay "the only Ivy serious enough about academics to not carry a football team" into some sort of snobbish cache in the same way the conference as a whole does by its "ban" on athletic scholarships.

Last year football had a total attendance of about 40,000. At $10/ticket that is $400,000. It is hard to argue that the gate is a meaningful contributor to the economic picture.

Quote from: Swampy

Quote from: marty

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: CASIt's possible to have both academic and athletic excellence.  Look at Harvard's recent football and basketball run.  Is there a reason we can't compete with other Ivies in football and basketball?

Cornell is going to fall behind H/Y/P in athletics because we are behind H/Y/P in financial aid guarantees. It isn't athletic scholarships that are going to do us in, it's regular old financial aid. Being able to guarantee a full ride to middle class kids (actual middle class, not responds-to-a-survey-"I am middle class"-middle class) is a huge advantage in recruiting.

This translates into unlimited athletic scholarships for much of the middle class.

An expensive idea perhaps, but is it a bad one?

Related: Bernie Sanders is proposing that all public higher education be made free. Presumably this will come through federal subsidies. Whether or not Sanders is elected, if this idea carried the day in this election or a subsequent one, how might tuition at the private land grants be affected?

Cornell's relation to New York state is through contracts. I'm not sure what MIT's is. Are there any other private land grants?

https://www.quora.com/How-did-MIT-become-a-private-university-given-that-it-was-one-of-the-two-Land-Grant-schools-of-Massachusetts-the-other-being-UMass-Amherst

Quote from: CASNot satisfied with 9-11 in football - want to compete for titles.  But Austin's last 2 years are a far cry from consecutive 1-9 records.  If alums care about fielding competitive teams, it's far more likely the trustees and administration will as well.

While I agree that a good housecleaning is in order, we should look at the bright side. For better and worse, mostly better, the athletics dept does not run the university. Cornell is a school where academics are clearly a priority over athletics which is a claim that cannot be made at a lot of schools with big time football and basketball programs. Yes it would be nice if our football team did not suck but at the end of the day when I write my check every year it is not impacted by the results of the athletics programs.