Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):


Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

Laugh?

Cry?

(10-26-2010 01:09 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

As someone actually pursuing a philosophy PhD, grumble-grumble-grumble, things will get better, I am the smartest man alive, and pass the kool-aid.

But seriously, for LAOwl, the situation is not as bad as the clip makes it out to be. Some humanities disciplines (I don't know about history) are going to actually go up in job opportunities as society keeps changing, becoming more skilled and dependent on good thinking and communication and less dependent on niche-wise expertise, and as the crazy pseudo-libertarianism of today dies its inevitable death.

Are cuts really being made over the long-term in higher education? My impression is no. Seems like you're comparing the last couple of years, where budgets have been slashed everywhere, against a long-term rise in athletic costs, which in general don't seem to be at least publicly going down as much in the last couple of years. But higher education costs are up well over the rise in inflation over the past decade-plus, probably even over the increase in enrollment currently at many (most?) schools (due in part to the timing of another baby boomlet). And think about the public fundraising going on at many universities, as well. Lots of them are going in for the billion-dollar-plus fundraising commitments outside of athletics.

I'm not seeing higher education being that much of a victim here. They've had plenty of fat years before the last couple of years, where pretty much every institution has had to tighten the belt.

But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

(10-26-2010 01:31 PM)gsloth Wrote:  But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

I guess that's what I was getting at. We can find a way to justify giving someone like Mack Brown $4 million but can't find a way to keep tuition costs low or keep some academic departments from getting cut altogether. As my master's alma mater Cal showed, athletic programs are making cuts, but to lower level sports. At the same time, the football team is getting a $300 million+ stadium renovation.

(10-26-2010 01:09 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

I had a conversation with a history professor at Rice a while ago who mentioned that serious historians can have very nice careers and make a lot of money -- but generally, not as academicians. Guys like William Manchester and David McCullough (just to name to particular famous exampls) make a lot of money as serious historians because they are able to focus on writing serious books that will sell, as opposed to academic publications.

A related comment I heard from another historian is that there is more money to be made in history in the U.S. market than in Europe. One reason, of course, is that the U.S. is a gigantic, single-language market. But this historian also seemed to think that Americans are just heavier consumers of serious history; Europeans, though surrounded by history, buy less of it. Anyway, it's certainly true that in America there is a strong market for good history writing -- which is kinda reassuring.

(10-26-2010 01:30 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:09 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

As someone actually pursuing a philosophy PhD, grumble-grumble-grumble, things will get better, I am the smartest man alive, and pass the kool-aid.

But seriously, for LAOwl, the situation is not as bad as the clip makes it out to be. Some humanities disciplines (I don't know about history) are going to actually go up in job opportunities as society keeps changing, becoming more skilled and dependent on good thinking and communication and less dependent on niche-wise expertise, and as the crazy pseudo-libertarianism of today dies its inevitable death.

Can you point to any evidence supporting this outlook?

(10-26-2010 01:09 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

It is and should be frightening.

It's not that cuts are being made all around in the long term -- they are being made to the humanities in the long term. What THAT says about society, I'm not sure.

(10-26-2010 01:31 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Are cuts really being made over the long-term in higher education? My impression is no. Seems like you're comparing the last couple of years, where budgets have been slashed everywhere, against a long-term rise in athletic costs, which in general don't seem to be at least publicly going down as much in the last couple of years. But higher education costs are up well over the rise in inflation over the past decade-plus, probably even over the increase in enrollment currently at many (most?) schools (due in part to the timing of another baby boomlet). And think about the public fundraising going on at many universities, as well. Lots of them are going in for the billion-dollar-plus fundraising commitments outside of athletics.

I'm not seeing higher education being that much of a victim here. They've had plenty of fat years before the last couple of years, where pretty much every institution has had to tighten the belt.

But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

You're right, not all depts are/will experiencing losses long-term, but the humanities are.

(10-26-2010 01:47 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:31 PM)gsloth Wrote:  But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

I guess that's what I was getting at. We can find a way to justify giving someone like Mack Brown $4 million but can't find a way to keep tuition costs low or keep some academic departments from getting cut altogether. As my master's alma mater Cal showed, athletic programs are making cuts, but to lower level sports. At the same time, the football team is getting a $300 million+ stadium renovation.

Cal's football and basketball programs are very profitable. They have a slate long as your arm of other athletic programs that are purely expense, however, dragging down the bottom line to a negative overall number ($7 Mil in the red, iirc). As such, the decision was made to cut a handful of them.

The UT football/basketball program is HUGELY profitable, particularly when you add in donations. It actually gives a big chunk of money each year back to the university for academic scholarship purposes, so I've read.

If I had to bet, it would be that Cal's stadium expansion will be funded primarily thru private donations. UT Memorial Stadium expansions were privately funded.

(10-26-2010 05:20 PM)Bigoldtackle Wrote:  If I had to bet, it would be that Cal's stadium expansion will be funded primarily thru private donations. UT Memorial Stadium expansions were privately funded.

Here's a link to Cal's news release on the funding for renovating Memorial Stadium.

Note:

Quote:No public monies will be used for any part of the renovation, including the preliminary funding which will be financed through the Athletic Department's gross revenues.

Through the Endowment Seat Program (ESP), an innovative approach to financing the renovation and retrofit of Memorial Stadium, Cal Athletics has already obtained more than 650 letters of intent with a present value over $160 million. In addition to supporting the CMS-West project, ESP will secure the financial future of the department by creating a long-term, sustaining endowment that could grow to $1 billion over the next 30 years and will be used to fund the annual operating needs for Cal's more than 800 student-athletes.

Roughly 3,000 seats in Memorial Stadium (less than 5 percent of total capacity) are impacted by ESP. During the charter sign-up period, which lasted from Jan. 1 through June 30, the Athletic Department received donor commitments for more than 60 percent of the ESP seats, well above the stated goal of 35 percent.

I visited with Steve Daniel, a philosophy professor at A&M, at Hidalgo Falls, last Saturday. We did not talk about philosophy, but about the property we both worked on to get for whitewater boaters with the Texas River Protection Association. Also, I told him about seeing him quoted in a book about the Bonfire disaster. He said he agreed to be faculty sponsor for an anti-bonfire group before the 1999 disaster because the students could not find anyone else to sponsor them. At that time, no one mentioned anyuthing about safety issues. The student group opposed bonfire for environmental reasons, i.e. it burned up tto many trees.

My favorite reading subject is history (for the general public, not academia) but I make my living in law formerly accounting.

(10-26-2010 01:30 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:09 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 12:26 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Check out this acerbic yet endearing assessment of the future of college-professor careers in the Humanities (with English as the example):

"So You Want to Get a PhD in the Humanities?" -- http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7451115/

Of particular note to Parliamentarians is this passage, which starts at about the 3:20 mark:

Quote:"Being a college professor means ... you will serve on 5-6 committees at your school, where you will discuss just how much of your salary the administrators believe you can do without and how many more classes they believe you can teach, so they can increase the millionaire salary of the football coach. ..."

As someone considering a History PhD, that was a tad bit frightening.

Also, it does say alot about society that while heavy cuts are being made to higher education in general, the costs of college athletics continue to rise.

As someone actually pursuing a philosophy PhD, grumble-grumble-grumble, things will get better, I am the smartest man alive, and pass the kool-aid.

But seriously, for LAOwl, the situation is not as bad as the clip makes it out to be. Some humanities disciplines (I don't know about history) are going to actually go up in job opportunities as society keeps changing, becoming more skilled and dependent on good thinking and communication and less dependent on niche-wise expertise, and as the crazy pseudo-libertarianism of today dies its inevitable death.

Does a fault line pass through Cal's football stadium?

(10-26-2010 05:20 PM)Bigoldtackle Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:47 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:31 PM)gsloth Wrote:  But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

I guess that's what I was getting at. We can find a way to justify giving someone like Mack Brown $4 million but can't find a way to keep tuition costs low or keep some academic departments from getting cut altogether. As my master's alma mater Cal showed, athletic programs are making cuts, but to lower level sports. At the same time, the football team is getting a $300 million+ stadium renovation.

Cal's football and basketball programs are very profitable. They have a slate long as your arm of other athletic programs that are purely expense, however, dragging down the bottom line to a negative overall number ($7 Mil in the red, iirc). As such, the decision was made to cut a handful of them.

The UT football/basketball program is HUGELY profitable, particularly when you add in donations. It actually gives a big chunk of money each year back to the university for academic scholarship purposes, so I've read.

If I had to bet, it would be that Cal's stadium expansion will be funded primarily thru private donations. UT Memorial Stadium expansions were privately funded.

(10-26-2010 05:20 PM)Bigoldtackle Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:47 PM)LAOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 01:31 PM)gsloth Wrote:  But don't take me as a fan of the multi-million dollar coach salaries, either. Yes, in a supply and demand world, particularly in looking at the revenues generated by the most successful teams, you can probably justify it. Doesn't make it right.

I guess that's what I was getting at. We can find a way to justify giving someone like Mack Brown $4 million but can't find a way to keep tuition costs low or keep some academic departments from getting cut altogether. As my master's alma mater Cal showed, athletic programs are making cuts, but to lower level sports. At the same time, the football team is getting a $300 million+ stadium renovation.

Cal's football and basketball programs are very profitable. They have a slate long as your arm of other athletic programs that are purely expense, however, dragging down the bottom line to a negative overall number ($7 Mil in the red, iirc). As such, the decision was made to cut a handful of them.

The UT football/basketball program is HUGELY profitable, particularly when you add in donations. It actually gives a big chunk of money each year back to the university for academic scholarship purposes, so I've read.

If I had to bet, it would be that Cal's stadium expansion will be funded primarily thru private donations. UT Memorial Stadium expansions were privately funded.

Whatever money athletics programs give to the university is puny compared to the money REGULAR STUDENTS provide.

Let's look at the University of Texas. 50,000 students, and let's just assume each has a 25% scholarship (aside from loans). Cost per year is $9,418. (50,000 x $9,418 x 0.75) = $353,175,000

Let's assume around 300 full scholarships at U.T. @ $9,418 = $2,825,400 (cost to the University). Room and board for those 300 @ $10,000 each = $3,000,000. Total cost = approximately $6,000,000.

Football revenues (ignoring salary, facilities upkeep, etc): 100,000 x $75 (ticket cost average) x 6 home games = $ 45,000,000. With the associated costs, I could believe that this number would come in at about $35,000,000.

There are tremendous costs for the many "non-revenue" sports, but I would have no idea how much they eat away at the football revenue (even with basketball and baseball money).

(10-26-2010 06:03 PM)75src Wrote:  Does a fault line pass through Cal's football stadium?

Yes, the Hayward Fault. I'd posted some images/info on that in some other thread in the last month or two.

(10-26-2010 11:04 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 06:03 PM)75src Wrote:  Does a fault line pass through Cal's football stadium?

Yes, the Hayward Fault. I'd posted some images/info on that in some other thread in the last month or two.

But I hear the "fault line" runs from end zone to end zone instead of pointing directly at the head coach.