More non-profit greed

Okay great.

I think that we can agree that over the past two years, there is no other person on the planet that has tried, with some minimal success against my limited resources, to lower the cost of legitimate online education. Not talk about it, express opinions on what other people should do, but actually gone out into the market and changed the cost utility of DL education with as of this date no personal financial benefits from it.

In doing that I learned a lot about how the system actually works, which is honestly pretty different than how it is represented here, but here is the only very active board I have found where every voice can be heard (sans the degreeinfo/porno scandal where censorship happened in mass and threads were being deleted to mask some business practices of the board principles).

Here is what I see as the difference in our focuses.

CSU, by all of my financial and administrative measurements, is not, as we stand here today right now, successful. Management should not be rewarded for failure. The two schools you mention, if either one of them had lost $3.6B dollars (what CSU lost in the salary year you reference), I can doubt that the management would have gotten raises. Rewarding business success is different from rewarding administrative failure, especially failure at the expense of the state workers jobs and the students tuition.

Further, if the new campus president were not greedy, if they were really the right person for the position, the press release would have been that they were offered $400k BUT ONLY ACCEPTED $200k, saving the school system $100k to be explicitly used to keep people working, and that this was the first step in a big turn around (this is what I would have done, press and all).

You didn’t tell me if you actually understand the CSU system, if you do, you will understand that the move raising the new campus presidents pay pretty much renders them a lame duck. The state works and faculty unions in the state are now going to be tough to deal with; and in the CSU system the faculty and deans view the presidents as annoying administrators to start with, now with the pay scandal and rising tuition costs, that already rocky relationship will be doubly tough.

Anyway, I am not going to keep arguing specifics against your hasty generalizations. You think it is okay, fine, keep the witch-hunt focused on the neighbors. I, on the other hand, know it is wrong. If it was not in a state that is already pounding the labor-force, and these were not state tax payer dollars, I do agree with you that it would not be as egregious. However, that just is not the case.

 

The CSU exec who made $400,000 is a mere hireling manager. The for-profit exec who made $20,000,000 is a founding entrepreneur.

 

A lesson from long ago

Although I believe in many ways, this story comes to mind from when I was a child listening to the priest:

John 2:13-16"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"

Perhaps this is a lesson we should remember?

Abner

 

Great important point.

 

And how is throwing money changers and merchants out of the Temple akin to greed in executive compensation at universities?

 

At one time being a teacher at any level was a noble thing. The motivation was not money, but passing on knowledge to generations to come.

I guess my lame analogy would be that the art of teaching has become more about money, rather then helping.

Abner

P.S. see ya broheim!!!!!!!!!!! I don't trust myself when I post in the morning. :smile:

 

Actually at one time a lot of the women who went to college in the male-dominated world mostly studied education. They had to be teachers because career wise that was about their only choice. They were happy with the profession even though the money sucked. The best and brighest studied education. Now the best and brightest go on to more $$$$atisfying careers.

Are you saying that being a teacher is not a noble thing? I still think there are teachers who want to help, however most are too handcuffed by regulations to any good (NCLB, etc.). But, they also want to get paid. Now, people trying to teach online is another thing, that's a money grab from the get-go.

 

"Further, if the new campus president were not greedy, if they were really the right person for the position, the press release would have been that they were offered $400k BUT ONLY ACCEPTED $200k, saving the school system $100k to be explicitly used to keep people working, and that this was the first step in a big turn around (this is what I would have done, press and all)"

WHAT, WHAT, WHAT!?!?!?!?


So, at the last job you accepted when it came time to negotiate salaries you took their first offer and then said-magnanimously- "No thanks, but I'll take half of that. Go and hire another secretary" and then followed by "Here's the press release you can send out with my generosity proudly displayed like a peacock".

Come on Dr. Lady this portion of your arguement is beyond ridiculous, you were just joking about that right

 

Thanks for the explanation!

 

There are lot's of threads related to the for-profit schools but I decided to tack this story onto this thread. It's stating that John Boehner allowed the deregulation of the for-profits and their subsequent growth and record profits. With the current debt ceiling budget battle still worsening it's possible that this is a dem smear campaign but maybe not. Maybe it's just the plain truth. You can decide for yourself.

John Boehner Backed Deregulation Of Online Learning, Leading To Explosive Growth At For-Profit Colleges

 

Nice SteveFoerster

Its funny how regulation has become an end in itself for the liberals and not a means to an end. For some, the goal is regulation of all industries, regardless of the social benefit of such regulation.
If banks are breaking the law, go ahead and keep an eye on them through the legal system, but don't tell a bank that it has to loan unqualified buyers a hefty sum of money because of the color of their skin.

The Nature and the Origin of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

This is an excellent analysis of government regulation run a muck. Government regulation caused the subprime mortgage meltdown.

 

Very nice info. I'll have to digest this and use it against my liberal coworkers

 

If the bank is going to be underwritten by the USG, it had better play fair with its customers....

 

I trust the banking and mortgage industry 1000%. They will always do the right thing. :AR15firing:

Abner :smile: