First show me your list of publications, then talk to me about money.

Mike

If you go to CSU East Bay homepage and click on the different academic depts (e.g., Math, Soc., Pol Sci, etc.), you'll find that many if not most faculty either post their vitae or at least a partial list of recent publications. East Bay campus actually has some relatively high tenure and promotion requirements as compared with other schools in the CSU system.

Of course, all this begs the question as to whether most of the public, including the poster above, has the knowledge and skill to competently interpret a list of publications.

Fact remains, however, that faculty are not shy about their accomplishments. The insinuation (above post) that they are shy, or that they haven't already revealed their accomplishments, appears to be rather churlish and emanates from a good deal of ignorance on the poster's part.

Dean,

My insinuation is that the value of university-level teaching staff is a function of productivity as evidenced by the number and frequency of notable publications.

Mike

That's not an insinuation, Mike; that is a platitudinous value claim. Don't know, given your oblique claims, whether you have been following events, or whether you simply want to tell everyone that you are against professors being unionized. In this case, assuming you're not a woefully uninformed ignoramus who is just spouting his own bias, your value claim has the effect of expressing that you think college university professors should not be able to collect upon a raise that was guaranteed in a prior contract.

Oh, and re. your platitude about frequency of publications. I might note that one of the greatest political theorists of the past century -- John Rawls -- rec'd tenure at Harvard based upon a single, slender publication. Moreover, there are many other criteria that go into judging the productivity of professors, including effectiveness as a teacher in the classroom, mentoring junior faculty, public service, and the kinds of committee work that appeals to some talents more than others.

Dean,

What follows from my platitude is that raises should be decided on an individual as opposed to faculty-wide basis.

Mike

Which makes your platitude exactly what most platitudes are, Mike: Empty, abstract statements that often fail to capture the complex nature of reality. The faculty at CSUEB are picketing in order to raise awareness of how they have been unfairly treated over the past several years by a Chancellor that seems intent on pleasing a Board of Directors rather than improving the quality of education within the CSU system.

In fact, here your platitude is so far off the mark it verges on the comical. This labor conflict and its manifestation here as professors picketing has nothing to do with your platitude-filled pipe dreams. The question is whether the CSU administration is or is not going to honor a contract agreed to earlier by both administration and faculty union.

If the increase in question is, in fact, a contractual obligation, I suppose some high priced union lawyers will be facilitating the further fleecing of the taxpaying populace. Not that there's any guarantee, as stated above, that higher pay makes for better professors or better outcomes. I'm sure if money were not the sole motivator for the poster above, he wouldn't resort to the name calling and immature taunting exhibited in his defensive rants.

Just astounding.

Professors going on strike for a raise when their students are faced with another year of large education cost inflation, mounting education debt and a deteriorating job market.

One greedy generation sticking it to another. I guess it is get in and grab what you can before the ship goes down.

Amazing.

Dean,

"a Chancellor that seems intent on pleasing a Board of Directors rather than improving the quality of education within the CSU system."

Which board of directors would that be?

Mike

Excuuuuuuse me. In my haste I wrote Board of Directors when I was thinking Board of Trustees. It's good that Mike is inquiring about this, as it may counteract his penchant for proselytizing solutions before he has even the most minimal information on the matter.

Ah, Dean (Jane), your posts are always the ones that proselytize. It seems to me that someone(s) should be losing their jobs for not seeing this fiscal fiasco coming. And if raises are revoked, recent administrators' salary increases should be revoked as well.

Directly below, I quote my efforts to inform in the face of some ignorant, highly opinionated postings:

"If you go to CSU East Bay homepage and click on the different academic depts (e.g., Math, Soc., Pol Sci, etc.), you'll find that many if not most faculty either post their vitae or at least a partial list of recent publications. East Bay campus actually has some relatively high tenure and promotion requirements as compared with other schools in the CSU system."


"I might note that one of the greatest political theorists of the past century -- John Rawls -- rec'd tenure at Harvard based upon a single, slender publication. Moreover, there are many other criteria that go into judging the productivity of professors, including effectiveness as a teacher in the classroom, mentoring junior faculty, public service, and the kinds of committee work that appeals to some talents more than others."

"The question is whether the CSU administration is or is not going to honor a contract agreed to earlier by both administration and faculty union."

Then, Kathleen [what's her last name? what's her last name?] accuses me of proselytizing -- immediately prior to proselytizing with her expressed wish that some people get fired, others have their salary increases revoked. What a gasser she is!

GX,

Don't worry, the government/Wall Street complex will see to it that students will be able to borrow as much as they need to keep paying the higher tuition so that they can securitize the debt and then let well healed investors place side bets on payment defaults. When the casino finally can't pay off on all the bets, the taxpayers will be there with a bailout. It is all about wealth creation. The students and the faculty are just pawns in this.

"well healed" should be "well heeled" I need to proof read.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but it is that "everyone deserves as house", "everyone deserves as college education" mentality at work again. The only winners in this are the government/Wall Street complex.

Dean, I meant _all_ your posts, not just here. Just proving it doesn't matter if I use my whole name, part of my name, or switch to something anonymous. Being "playful" is what I believe you called it. As to proselytizing--just pointing to the pot calling the kettle black.

On topic, yes, this kind of error needs redress. We can chat about how all of public education is in a financial mess, but in this case, the professors and students shouldn't pay for this lack of vision.

"We can chat about how all of public education is in a financial mess"

Public and private education is in a financial mess at the college level for the same reason private family housing was and is in a financial mess. It is in a mess because there is too much borrowed money available through student loans, just as there was too much borrowed money available for houses. The root cause is the same. It will hit both public and private colleges, but the entire economy is at risk from this. Credit default swaps traded on student loan debt are now putting the financial system in the same kind of risky position that real estate CDS did in 2008. Large numbers of students are getting loans that they will never pay back. The same pattern we saw with real estate debt is happening with these loans. We need to solve the root cause. We need to put the breaks on the federal government's involvement in student loans. We need to get derivatives traded on public exchanges so that we know are not blindsided by another AIG. If we solve these problems, the other problems will take care of themselves.

Kathleen - If "the professors and students shouldn't pay for this lack of vision", who should?

The higher-income taxpayer? The ones that already pay 67% of all taxes in this state even though they represent only 39% of all income?

Future citizens? By letting education debt continue to expand to an unsustainable level, allowing wide-spread defaults, then letting future citizens pay down the debt?

Nothing comes for free in this world. If you are going to let education costs continue to grow much faster than inflation (so professors and get their raises and cushy retirement) but not have current consumers of education (the students) pay for it, someone needs to pick up the tab. Who would it be if you were queen for the day?

I completely agree with Patriot that it is the unchecked expansion of education debt that is the underlying issue and that it will not end well. Just like it didn't end well with the housing market. I sure wish I could buy a CDS on students loans. That would be a great investment.

"breaks" should be "brakes". My spelling is terrible.

GX--I was saying that some administrative heads should be rolling. I don't know that CSU can then still afford to pay the raises to faculty or not raise tuition for students. Just can't believe you would leave the same people in control.

Well said GX. Too frequent and too large tuition increases in recent years have placed tuition out of reach for middle-class kids (the backbone of the state system). Public union greed is destroying the next American generation.
As long as there are loans , greedy unions will keep pushing the envelope, stealing futures. If the actual market of what people can afford were in play, the ceiling would have been hit a long time ago.
Public unions will not play in real world...just keep pusing, and destroying.
Then the administration starts picking the winners and losers game about WHO gets help. If you attend art school, and history of civilization, etc, and can't seem to find a viable job, poor dear, the government will rescue you IF you don't make enough...BUT, If you study a serious profession, and work you tale off, pay for most, but need a small loan, you must starting paying back immediately. It's the picking and choosing the 'favorites' of an administration for freebies for NON-viable fields, and punish serious students, it's unfair. I think loans should have minimum guidelines for viable skilled majors. I don't want to fund watercolor majors....and then have their loanswaived if they can't find a paying job! ! !

OK Kathleen - I appreciate your point and agree with it.

And I agree that the union is part of the problem.

In general, I am not a fan of unions especially public employee unions. Yes, they had their place back in the late 1800's and 1930's given all the exploitation of labor but we are well past that.

Today, it is very rare to find a situation where unions have a positive effect on their host organization. It seems as though unions do their job very effectively and push for maximum compensation even if it is detrimental to their organizations. Look at GM, Chrysler, union-heavy states (CA, IL, NJ), etc.

The Cal State students say we don't want to pay. The Cal State Faculty Union will say we deserve our raises regardless what is happening to the economy. They both will say take it from the 1% never really knowing or acknowledging that the CA tax system is already quite progressive.

Isn't it nice to spend other peoples' money?

I think a substantial majority of the voters in Ohio yesterday said it pretty clearly: Everyone deserves a house; everyone deserves a college education. EVERYONE.

@GX says: 'If "the professors and students shouldn't pay for this <lack of vision>", who should? The higher-income taxpayer? The ones that already pay 67% of all taxes in this state even though they represent only 39% of all income?'

Well, GX, in a word, yes, the higher-income taxpayer should pay for their greed and penchant for squeezing money from America's working-class majority. Another word: OHIO, OHIO, OHIO

Note how GX rails in chest-thumping manner about the increase in student loans. At the same time, he conveniently (albeit ignorantly perhaps) forgets to note that it isn't Cal State students who are taking out gargantuan loans that they'll likely never be able to repay; it is increasingly and alarmingly students at private-sector, corporate-owned, for-profit "universities" that charge ungodly high tuition rates in order to keep their corporate coffers overflowing. (See Washington Post and its involvement with for-profit "universities.")

Note how adherents of the right-wing ideology refuse to deal with facts but instead immediately go off on pipe-dream generalities about 'irresponsible students' and 'govt. intervention' and 'unpayable loans' and off with their heads, and cut their salaries, and fire them all.

Facts are: Cal State education remains relatively affordable for students; Cal State professors tend to earn a lower salary than do junior college professors, despite Cal State professors, unlike many of their counterparts at junior colleges, having earned a Ph.D. In terms of publications, there is no comparison: Cal State professors publish far more than do higher paid junior college professors. Cal State Administration agreed in a prior contract to give Cal State professors a modest raise; the administration is now reneging on the contractual agreement; that is why Cal State professors this week are forming "informational picket lines." Also, Cal State professors' salaries are substantially below what their colleagues in like-universities are making in most other states. Go off and suck the fumes of FOX news all you want to. These are the facts.

It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
Mediocre minds talk about events.
Small minds attack people.

Dean - I agree with your point regarding for-private schools but I haven't seen a breakout of student loans across categories. It would be interesting to see this.

But here are the inconvenient facts I'm aware of. The cost of public education is going up 8.3% this year (after many years of above inflation increases). CA has one of the most progressive tax systems in the country and yet we are continually running out of money and thereby putting the burden on future generations via increased costs for education, increased debt, etc.

If Cal State professors are upset that they are making less than at other schools or junior college teachers, they should go after those jobs. That will do two potential things - 1) bring the pay of those two groups into equilibrium and 2) increase the demand/pay of Cal State professors (if that demand can't be met by others). This is how markets work and how the pay is set for most non-union, non-government jobs these days.

But I still go back to Patriot's basic point. This severe education cost inflation we are experiencing is due to the education debt bubble that is being blown. And it won't end well.

Dean - CA already has one of the highest and most progressive state tax systems in the country. Reference the stat I mentioned above plus the data below. Are you suggesting even more taxes to pay for teacher raises and subsidized education? If so, what is fair from your perspective?

California Tax Rank (1st least taxed; 50th highest taxed)

Property Tax - 18th
Sales Tax - 49th
Corporate Income Tax - 33rd
Capital Gains Tax on Real Estate - 50th
Gasoline Tax - 50th
Utility User's Tax - 50th
School Parcel Tax - 50th
Overall Rank - 50th

Source: Tax Foundation

GX, You apparently do not realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound. In case you hadn't noticed, ours is not a free market system. To urge on people to act as if it _were_ a free market system is only to engage in delusional thinking.

You're a pretty funny guy. You remind me of another poster -- Arnold, who had a similar penchant for rationalizing the ridiculous. With respect to debating big ideas, as Aristotle once noted: many hear the call, but few are chosen. What is most hilarious is when ideologically befogged posters like yourself ask others to treat their ideas with seriousness. (See yesterday's vote in Ohio to get a realistic perspective on how "free markets" are dismissed by most of us who have worked our way through Adam Smith, Herbert Hoover, Milton Friedman, ad nauseum.)

Let me demonstrate how idiotic is your suggestion. Let's see, I'm a member of the faculty at Cal State. My union (which I support) negotiated a contract, approved by union majority and Cal State administration, that guaranteed a modest raise. The administration is reneging on the contractual agreement. I have a number of choices. One choice is Dean's choice: mobilize union members and put on an 'informational picket line' to bring the matter to public attention. (Again, see yesterday's Ohio vote.) Then there's GX's choice: quit your job, uproot your family, and mount a search for a junior college job somewhere either in California or elsewhere because, hey, that's how free markets work. So, I ask again. Do you not recognize how silly you sound? Give us some more data, GX, and do so all you want to. Fact remains, you're a big sillypuss.

Dean,

One thing you might want to consider is that the easy availability of loans for college tuition is making college more difficult to afford. Many students will be spending the rest of their lives digging out of college debt. Like a said above, the same thing happened in housing.

To " Stop union greed",

I don't think you can place all the blame on the unions of the state system. The same tuition increases and salary increases for administrators are happening at private schools.

Web Link

I guess I could counter with Wisconsin and yesterday all the anti-public union initiatives that were passed in the Bay Area and across California, but all these, including your Ohio, are datapoints that define a broader trend that neither of us knows how will play out.

In the interim, I am genuinely interested in how you suggest we pay for all this.

Actually Patriot, the latest information shows that the cost of public education is growing faster than the cost of private education. But I do agree with you that the source of all this is the expansion of our education debt bubble. It is the larger issue.

Dean,

I teach at a JC, but not for the money because I also have a solid business. I see this as a potential model for the future, a modification of the old adage that "Those who can't do, teach," that reads, "Those who can, also teach."

Mike

I find guys like you, Mike, who part-time it at the JC's as well as many 4-year colleges, as being part of a pernicious trend within the academic system. Being a college professor is a full-time job. One's effectiveness in the classroom is largely a consequence of one's research. Now, to save on cost, colleges hire guys like you off the street to teach part-time, half-axxed, and often with marginal competence (if even that). The part-timers and the administrators who rationalize bringing them in to teach are contributing to an increased trend where colleges are becoming vocation-technical institutes rather than institutes of higher learning.

The reason I have one daughter at Duke, another at Princeton, is that I want them to have a four-year experience where the ivory tower -- yes, indeed -- enables them to read, write and think about the higher pursuits of humanity: truth, beauty, goodness, justice. These schools take the idea of liberal arts and humanities seriously. Unfortunately, the trend is increasingly to bring in part-timers off the street like yourself who spew their experienced-based glop about the 'real world', which usually, as you have so adeptly illustrated often on these threads, doesn't extend beyond their own belly buttons.

Potential model for the future? Potential model for the increased dumbing-down of America, more like it.

So, Duke and Princeton don't make use of adjunct professors?

Here's a Princeton professor I wish I could have had. He's not part time as far I know but he sure brings a lot of real-world, experience to the classroom.

Web Link

An adjunct professor is not a part-timer, Stacey. One can, for example, have a degree in economics and be housed in an economics department; yet he or she can also, based upon specific expertise, hold an adjunct position in, say, women's studies. Part-timers are a mixed bag of folks hired off the street in order to place a warm body in front of students in a classroom. More often than not, they either do not have a Ph.D. or, if they do, haven't distinguished themselves in a way that ends in full-time employment within the university as a professor with a doctorate.

Duke and Princeton both have adjunct professors. Unfortunately, they too have resorted to hiring part-timers, not so much as a cost-saver but as a glittery lure to impress donors to the university. Putting Al Gore or Bill Bradley or Bill Clinton into a classroom or two is an example of such. Either way, not a good idea. I'd be happy to bring a Clinton or some other dignitary into my classroom to deliver a guest lecture; but it remains my classroom, with standards for reading and writing and grading that have evolved from 10+ years of graduate training, and then decades of academic research in specific areas of expertise. Giving Al Gore or G.W.Bush a class to teach is a joke; hiring someone like Mike to come in off the street and teach students is a travesty.

Dean,

"colleges hire guys like you off the street. . ., half-axxed, and often with marginal competence (if even that)."

I was hired by "a department" rather than "a college," as I'm sure you were. The people in that department would, I assume, be people just like you in the hiring process, people who judged me to be competent. Or are you saying that you would knowingly hire an unqualified individual to teach in your department? And if you would, wouldn't it follow that you might be one of the incompetent people hired full-time by your department?

"part-timers off the street like yourself who spew their experienced-based glop about the 'real world', which usually, as you have so adeptly illustrated often on these threads, doesn't extend beyond their own belly buttons."

As opposed to the 'real world' as defined by you, right?

Mike

Hey Patriot, It isn't so much a matter of 'real-world' experience, which we all have. It is the quality of the lens through which the experience is interpreted, which includes critically assessing, through one's peer-reviewed research, whether one's current interpretation of that experience is valid or not. (See some of the experienced-based delusional comments of many of the posters above.) Hiring someone off the street to do a professor's job based upon experience amounts to turning a blind eye to what academia has traditionally stood for. It lowers standards to the detriment of all.

Hey Mike, there ya go. You were not hired by a department, as you claim. A department -- and more than likely an overworked dept'l chair -- scanned your credentials and then passed along a recommendation that the college hire you to teach a course or two in that department. The college pays your salary, not the department. So daffy is your position on this, that it sorely weakens the credibility of your claim to be a professor or any other kind of academic.

Real world? See my above post/response to Patriot. Everyone has real-world experiences, Mike. I argue that sustained, full-time, academic research is what separates contenders from pretenders. It is how one _interprets_ the real-world experiences of oneself and others; and academic research, the processes through which it is conducted, is geared to distinguish a valid interpretation of experiences from invalid or less valid ones. Good time Charleys who come off the street and share their experiences with students are doing the students a disservice, as they might otherwise be actually learning about experiences and _how to interpret them_ in a class taught by a professor with an earned doctorate in the discipline who has spent a lifetime thinking about what counts as valid knowledge when applied to human experience.

Dean - I am very curious to get your perspective on who should be paying for the shortfall these days so that your promised raise can be given and your unfunded pension can be paid for.

Dean,

People with those doctorates who have the capacity to move their fields forward while applying their research and experience to endeavors that allow them to be independent of a teaching salary are, I would argue, of great value to students.

Mike

Jane,

An adjunct professor can be both part-time or full-time, but since they usually are hired to teach only one or two classes they are usually part-time. They may or may not have PhDs in their field. They often are of value to a university due to their experience in a career other than teaching. I apologize for using my own working definition of something you failed to explain adequately.

Backing up here a bit Dean, "the higher-income taxpayer should pay for their greed and penchant for squeezing money from America's working-class majority." At least you note they are paying more in taxes. but exactly how do you see that squeeze happening?

Or "Hiring someone off the street to do a professor's job based upon experience amounts to turning a blind eye to what academia has traditionally stood for." So those who have worked in a given area have nothing to offer, and yikes if it's non-traditional?

And "academic research is what separates contenders from pretenders. It is how one _interprets_ the real-world experiences of oneself and others." Interprets . . . there are internships in many fields of study so one may actually learn in the real-world, apply and adjust and challenge what is being taught, and not just sitting in the closed environment of some (one?) professor's realm. Surely you know your students are leaving you and having a much different experience after they do.

GX asks 'who should be paying for the [presumed] shortfall'? As government partially subsidizes public education, so some of the money must come from the taxpayers. (Other money has already come from tuition and fee increases, faculty furloughs, larger classes, fewer course options, etc.) In other words, GX, the govt may have to raise your taxes, or roll back the ill-advised tax cuts that have previously taken place. Take that and chew on it, you poor P-town home-owning oppressed taxpayer you. What? Already gnashing your teeth? Then start talking about cuts in defense spending, and putting Americans' tax money where it is better served: education.

Stacey, I'll not spend time pampering you and suffering your cloying need to save face.

Kathleen, hate to break the news to you, but you're not a very good reader. I didn't say non-degreed actors have nothing to offer. Professors sometimes can invite them to their classes. Giving them a course to teach is quite another matter. They lack the training to be a college professor. Believe it or not, academe still values the Ph.D. to the extent that graduate students frequently must labor 10+ years, earning little or no money while so doing, in order to attain the degree which serves, inter alia, as credential for college classroom teaching.

I think college-sponsored internship programs are a patent waste of time and money. Just another spoke in the wheel of dumbing down our college graduates.

To be more precise, the rich pay more money in taxes than do the poor; but they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor. You and others can play dumb regarding this fact, but it is a fact. And it is criminal that such an inequality can persist within a nation that claims itself to be democratic.

Jane,

When the part-timers start unionizing, I hope you are there to correct them when they try to call themselves the Adjunct Professors Union.

Dean,

"I think college-sponsored internship programs are a patent waste of time and money."

I would disagree. Internships give our students outstanding experience in their chosen fields, help them make connections that will help them as they move forward, and if they are paid, help them with tuition, books, beer and pizza.

Mike

Dean, Yes, we discussed the tax issue elsewhere. "They lack the training to be a professor" . . . gotta be tough getting your head off the pillow in the morning.

Dean - I completely agree with you regarding the need to reduce military spending and the need to make the Federal tax system more fair, but changes at the Federal level will have little impact on CA.

CA already has one of the highest and most progressive state tax systems in the nation that is deterring business. And you are suggesting more.

So let me get this straight, rather than foregoing a raise, your preference is to raise taxes on your neighbors during one of the most severe recessions in our lifetime. The same neighbors who haven't seen a raise in years, the same neighbors who don't have a retirement safety net like yours, the same neighbors who don't have the medical benefits you do, the same neighbors who live in fear every day of losing their jobs.

Very interesting. I don't need to place any labels on you or your words. They speak loud even by themselves for everyone who reads this blog.

I agree with all your points on the post above, GX, and admire the fact you did not have to resort to the name calling and personal derision that our esteemed elitist dean uses in_his_attempts_to_communciate.

"And it is criminal that such an inequality can persist within a nation that claims itself to be democratic."
So we're a democratic nation, dean? You probably don't accept corrections well, based on your pompous and condescending previous posts, but our nation is a democratic republic. Maybe that fact eluded you while you were formulating your latest union sponsored attack of those of us who pay your wages, benefits, pension, etc.
You're welcome.

A substantial majority of the populace supports the proposition of raising taxes on the rich. If taxes are raised on the working class as well, that would include professors too. It would include me. But let's be real here: you don't care about your neighbors; all you care about is holding onto that quarter in your sweaty fist, and you'll dredge up any out-of-context data slice you can get your money-grubbing fingers on in order support your own obsession with me-me-me.

Over the past few decades, the wealthy have seen their income rise by over 270%. The working-class has seen their income either flatline or drop over the same period. But you and your companion dimwits want to deny Cal State professors a measley 2-3% raise that was contractually guaranteed to them? If you think readers other than the village idiot are going to be impressed with your position, you're even dumber than I thought.

Thing is, it isn't anyone out here that is denying the actual increase--it's the administration of Cal State. They are likely former professors and liberals. Why not rail at them?

The American public is starting to realize that all of public education is costing them a fortune in pensions for those retiring at a young age. As has been pointed out by many experts, you can take everything from the top 1% and not solve that problem.

Did you happen to catch the coverage on The News Hour about education (part of a long series they are doing). They documented a community in Indiana with a 55% graduation rate from high school. The state is giving vouchers and three choices: private school, charter school, or a neighboring district. While it is sad that the district of origin has gone from 21,000 to 7,000 students, those same students, same socio-economic status, left and are faring much better. If the needs of students are not met, then change will come and more quickly as experiments like this prove to work. You can't tax your way out of that outcome either.

Dean - the world might be a better place and people might listen more closely to your perspectives if you didn't have such a confrontational approach. Dialogue and debate is critical these days at all levels.

FYI, I did a quick search on Kathleen's 1% point above. According to the governments own data

Web Link

even if you taxed the top bracket at 100%, that wouldn't provide enough revenue to cover even the current year deficit. Even if you could find a way to do this, you'd create a depression much greater than we are experiencing now.

Even if you cut back dramatically on the military (which I agree makes sense), you still would have to tax the heck out of everyone to cover all the other entitlements and operations.

The simple fact is our government has promised more to its people than it can afford to pay. Every thing is going to have to be scaled back - e.g.Dean's promised raise and promised retirement.

If the Fed tries to continue to print its way out of this, they will create a currency crisis and create significant inflation that will hurt our poorest people the most.

Yesterday I heard about how the Federal government is going to tweek the definition of inflation once again to short-change future beneficiaries. Does anyone believe today that we are experiencing only a 2% inflation that the Fed suggests? I don't.

There's GX and KR again, repeating the tired mantra about how taxing the top 1% won't get us all the way there. What they don't consider is raising taxes on the top 10-20%, because then we'd have to take the prospect more seriously than fox news and the rich want us to.

Any discussion from either of them about taxing the rich who have made off like bandits while the economy has flatlined? Nope. Back to how its the teachers' fault. Let's deny CSU professors their contractually guaranteed 2-3% raise; and let's ignore them as they attempt to alert the public's attention to how the Chancellor's office is attempting to screw them, once again.

Both GX and KR come across as a couple of parrots, repeating tired old right-wing bugaboo time and again, no matter what the posted topic happens to be.

For someone like you in academia, it is interesting to see how much you try to avoid data/facts.

I've found in my life that I can make better decisions when I consider the facts.

As I pointed out above, I agree that the Federal tax system needs to be made more fair. However, the larger point is that even with your suggested fixes won't fix the basic problem that governments at levels are spending dramatically more than they can ever take in.

It is interesting to note that Brown did not push for a tax increase this year as he knew it would fail. If the economy is in the same state next year, there is little chance that he will be able to increase CA taxes. By then Dean, you may be complaining about the pay cut you may be getting.

Dean - I continue to be amazed with your and other government employee's entitlement attitudes. Don't you realize you are killing the golden goose, somewhat for you but primarily for other government employees that come after you?

Take from others in these difficult times and force more debt on future citizens so you can get your 2-3% raise? Isn't this a bit selfish?

BTW, what do you teach?

I think it was H.L. Menchen who said "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." You can cut and paste any set of statistics you want to, GX, but I've found you to always dishonestly take them out of context and misuse them. Your statement about taxing the top 1% is a perfect example of such.

Admit it. You're on a personal crusade against teachers because teachers have been making modest inroads into that portion of the pie that has been the sole preserve of the rich. It just so happens that the rich are only too happy to support your efforts, because it serves the purpose of diverting people's attention from the ungodly maldistribution of wealth in this country. You might try taking a lesson from the 99%ers, many of whom are students, who know and respect their teachers enough to realize our country's economic mess is not their teachers' fault, and that carving away their salaries and pensions, although it may make those immersed in resentment feel better, offers no solution whatsoever.

I truly believe you and KR have had some unfortunate educational experiences in your lives, and now you can do nothing else but haunt these posts denigrating teachers, their achievements, and their needs.

The information comes from the IRS.

I'm fortunate to have an Ivy League graduate education.

I have absolutely no issue with teachers like yourself.

I have a major issue with the entitlement attitude class that you so neatly represent. The class of people who want to take coercive action if necessary to take from the "doers" of civilization because they feel they deserve it.

Best of luck with your strike. I'm not sure the message will go far in this environment.

"Admit it. You're on a personal crusade against teachers because teachers have been making modest inroads into that portion of the pie that has been the sole preserve of the rich." and "I truly believe you and KR have had some unfortunate educational experiences in your lives, and now you can do nothing else but haunt these posts denigrating teachers, their achievements, and their needs. "

Jane's wild narcissistic fantasy world again...

Uh, Jane, someone is responsible for negotiating the contract and for failing to properly budget for said agreement.

Perhaps you miss that if you take _everything_ from the top 1% and are not able to cover the hole, just taking some additional amount from the top 10-20% isn't going to do it either. Here is something worth reading: Web Link

"Higher rates on the rich are not, then, a free lunch. At low levels rate increases will lift revenue, but not without a cost in efficiency and short-term growth. If the budget is a government’s primary concern, then the evidence is that reforms which close loopholes and broaden the tax base are a more efficient way to bring in more money than higher taxes for the rich.

Not denigrating teachers or their accomplishments and needs--remember, I have family in the biz. One place we differ in is how to get to a system of paying the best well and quickly removing those who are not the best.

More on taxes, WSJ: Web Link

"An insightful reader post on Megan McArdle’s blog on the Atlantic uses IRS data to figure out how much money the government would raise by taxing certain wealth levels. He says a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion."

On teachers from yesterday's "Tri-Valley Times" editorial: Web Link

"While we think seniority and tenure regulations should not be dismissed altogether, they should not be so rigid that it is virtually impossible to remove incompetent teachers or lay off poorly performing senior teachers.

What is needed is a better balance between job security for teachers and the ability of school principals and districts to remove poorly performing teachers.

Today, there is an unacceptable imbalance in favor of the former to the detriment of California students."

Dean,

"But let's be real here: you don't care about your neighbors; all you care about is holding onto that quarter in your sweaty fist, and you'll dredge up any out-of-context data slice you can get your money-grubbing fingers on in order support your own obsession with me-me-me."

"Admit it. You're on a personal crusade against teachers because teachers have been making modest inroads into that portion of the pie that has been the sole preserve of the rich."

You ignore what the posters actually write and claim that there is ulterior motive to their disagreement with you. Outstanding abuse of rhetoric. Professor!

You are right. The quality of the CSU system is at risk. Unfortunately, however, you seem to be mistaken about what has created that risk.

Mike

GX says, "I'm fortunate to have an Ivy League graduate education." Yeah, you say that, but the quality of your above arguments gives strong indication that, once again, you feel a need to lie about your education. I have a neighbor who claims to have gotten an Ivy League graduate education. It only cost him $1200.00 to attend that week-end long seminar on how to win friends and influence people.

Kathleen continues to be stuck in the rut of right-wing mantra worship as she cites her little one-page blogs and contra costa editorials on taxes and teachers. Cites a concluding paragraph of a little snippet she links from the Economist, and doesn't apparently begin to recognize the flaws in the author's conclusion. He emphasizes short-term growth (but let's not consider long-term growth that comes from a healthier and better educated citizenry; and in the interests of nonverbosity, let's not factor in questions of social justice). Oh yeah, and expand the tax base -- you know, make the poor give up some of their happy meals. Did someone skip that part of their education where students were taught to read critically?

Fortune Cookie man Mike opines that I misuse rhetoric. As per usual, no attempt is offered to defend the accusation.

This is worth repeating:

It has been said that great minds debate ideas.
Mediocre minds talk about events.
Small minds attack people.

Your approach speaks loud enough for itself. Best of luck with your endeavor.

Please continue to repeat the platitude, GX. I bet the fortune cookie man is eating it up. And soon to chime in will be the village idiot commending you for defending such a thoughtful position.

Dean, what pension plan do you belong to?

Kathleen,

Though I don't have any direct experience with the California State College system, I think the problems with K-12 education in the US are very different from those at the Universities. While US K-12 schools generally rank poorly compared to schools in other industrialized countries, my understanding is that US public universities rank among the best in the world. Also, the issues surrounding tenure for college and university faculty is are very different from those with tenure for K-12 teachers. Consider, for instance, that faculty at private colleges and universities are tenured whereas those at private K-12 schools typically aren't.

"Oh yeah, and expand the tax base -- you know, make the poor give up some of their happy meals."

The poor Jane refers to are already a part of the Federal tax base, especially if they happen to be employed.

Deanie, how are thIngs in your democratic country? Do they allow union thugs to represent the holiest of holy----post high school teachers like yourself? I've heard it's much better work than joining the private sector and earning your pay.

Dean,

I point out your abuse of rhetoric because it exemplifies with brevity why you do not merit respect. I feel for your Chancellor, an individual who is clearly trying to improve education despite the obstacles employees such as you create in your lust to prevail - not to be right, mind you, but to prevail.

Mike

He's not my Chancellor, bub. Lustily yours, Dean


ps Your business dealings will brighten over the next few days.

pps We'll be sending you shortly that free bag of 100 complimentary fortune cookies that you have inquired about for your research purposes. Signed, Kwong Tong Noodle Company

Dean,

Q.E.D.

Mike

This 'striking' mentality makes me sick. How do these union xxxx look their students in the eye. Have they no shame? Such poor examples of adult behavior.

Dean, your raise may be safe.

I read this morning that CSU wants to raise tuition by 9% next year. This would only mean a 400% increase of tuition over the past few years.

Not my raise, GX. As to your use of numbers, like your assumption about where I work, your assumption that students and faculty are the only two participants in a zero sum game is wrong-headed and simplistic, as per usual. 400% tuition increase over the past few years? Cal State professors have received no salary increases over the past few years. So, maybe you should try pointing your crooked accusatory finger elsewhere.

Here's a list of some at Cal State: Web Link You can do other searches on the site.

Here's Berkeley: Web Link