The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.

The candidates and higher education

Author: Colloquy Moderator
Date: 01-16-04 10:18

In a survey published in this week's Chronicle, the Democratic candidates for president explain their positions on pressing college issues, including tuition, foreign students, and stem-cell research. Which presidential candidate would do the most for higher education? Why? Are there any proposals from the Democratic candidates that would be bad for students or colleges? Read more ...

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: Terry Meyers, Eng Prof, W&M
Date: 01-19-04 09:45

I notice that when politicians harp on college costs, they never mention fees, especially Intercollegiate Athletic Fees, which can be quite high (and almost always carefully hidden).

Consider the ratios between tuition and athletic fees in Virginia (the athletic fee pays not for intramural and recreational sports but for intercollegiate sports):

2003-2004 Tuition Athletic Fee

Christopher Newport U. $2848 $1065 (up 23%)

College of William and Mary $3810 $916

Longwood University $3090 $816

Norfolk State University $1920 $1127

(Source "2003-2004 Tuition and Fees" at http://www.schev.edu/)

The academic side gets trashed in hard times, and the athletic side gets a free ride,

Dean's position is appalling

Author: Patricia Schwarz
Date: 01-19-04 17:14

Dean wants to yank marijuana users out of college and leave rapists and murderers and embezzlers and underage drinkers free to collect federal financial aid completely unscrutinized by the government.

I am very appalled that a supposedly "far left" or "very liberal" candidate supports this policy.

Howard Dean spent time as a ski bum in Aspen after he left college. Let's not naive please about what went on in Aspen during that period. There was more white powder at the parties he went to than was on the ground for skiing.

I am very appalled at politicians who took full advantage of the liberal atmosphere of the seventies during their own youths and now want to make cultural war against young people today who are doing things far less dangerous than what we did back then.

There is a war on youth in this country and the marijuana laws are very much a part of it.

I am dumbfounded as to why so many people who consider themselves "liberal" are backing a puritanical cultural warrior like Dean.

Trying to get the potheads out of college -- that is a cultural war. One can mouth excuses about money, intoxication and responsibility but this is a cultural war, a war against youth culture.

Where do liberals belong in this war?

On the side of peace.

And that's not where Dean stands.

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: anon
Date: 01-21-04 18:41

Interesting. Many topics in here seem relatively unimportant but they generate considerable debate and vitriol. Here's an important topic that could affect all of us and there's been only one comment. Maybe Henry Kissinger was right.

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: wharle, GA-Eng/N. Mexico State
Date: 01-22-04 12:59

After Dean's Tarzan-like exit from Iowa -- I'm more convinced that principled leadership already exists in Washington and the band of hopefuls scurrying for traction are at a loss of how to win over a content populace. Bush is not perfect -- but when he speaks I don't have to reconsider the meaning of "is." Four more for me!

Non sequiturs?

Author: English Dept. Chair, USG
Date: 01-22-04 13:31

Wharle,

Excuse me? What's the logical relationship between Dean's performance in Iowa and whether or not the leadership in Washington is "principled"? And in turn, what's the logical connection between this ostensible principled leadership and the idea that the Democratic candidates are scrambling for traction?

And, in turn yet again, what's the link between Clinton's (admittedly slippery) use of the language and Bush's (not so slippery, more like flat out dishonest and all but entirely incompetent) use of the same?

Not good. I hope that you expect more than such shallow, callow responses from your own students.

no new taxes

Author: Cathy Burnside, Physics Prof.
Date: 01-23-04 10:13

Every one of the dems want to raise taxes. They are already too high.

If you want to do the most to secure the future of our students, don't burden them with excessive taxes. Either cut taxes or cut the horrendous spending on welfare, senior benefits and other wasteful social programs pushed on the American people.

We can all thank Johnson's great society for the mess we're in. Don't make it worse by raising taxes on our students.

Re: no new taxes

Author: barb
Date: 01-23-04 11:43

I don't know a lot about the candidates positions yet, and I was hoping for more intelligent discussion on this topic from Chronicle of Higher Education readers than the usual "you dirty right wing/left wing" drivel I hear in the mass media and internet chat rooms. "No new taxes?" Gee, where have we heard that phrase before? College professors are supposed to talk in something other than trite, meaningless, regurgitated cliches. I was hoping for a discussion from some political science or history experts on education policies and their intended and unintended effects. This is a disappointing discussion.

Patricia, most of us got sober some time between the impeachment of Richard Nixon and the election of GW. War on youth culture? my foot! Wharle, principled leadership? my God! But Patricia, maybe you are on to something. What are the candidates positions on supporting substance abuse and mental health counseling on campuses?

What legislation are the candidates proposing that will affect higher education? What are the candidates positions on school vouchers? On funding for elementary and secondary education (our feeder schools)? On funding for special education, Title 1, Title 9? On scholarships for minorities, or the poor? On grants to the arts? On flagging in the National Endowment for the Humanities? Will research in the future have a political agenda? What are the candidates positions on affirmative action? On the encroachment of so-called security measures on our civil liberties, and how will that affect academic freedom? What support will there be for grants to study addiction or delinquency or crime? What will be the direction of scientific research grants? On NASA related research? Government sponsored medical research? What general education policies will they set? The potential list goes on and on.

Like the rest of the public, I suppose we academics will just choose our candidates based on the quality of their hair and teeth, and their skill at pretending to be a nice guy.

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: woe-is-me
Date: 01-23-04 15:17

you are right, anon. this topic is not generating many comments because it does not allow the over-burdened and downtrodden academics to bemoan their terrible fate of being oeverworked, having to deal with imperfect students, and not being treated fairly by administrators. the topics that get the most play are the ones where the professors can piss and moan about their unfortunate lots in life.

Re: Dean's position is appalling

Author: Cathy Burnside, Physics Prof.
Date: 01-24-04 00:07

I find Patricia's comments to be so far out of the mainstream of American society that they should be dismissed as simple rantings. Apparently she believes we should allow potheads free run because we aren't going after rapists. This is unbelievable convoluted thinking.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative political alignments. It has to do with enforcing the law.

If Dean wants to enforce the laws of the land, he should be applauded and not ridiculed. The ones worthy of ridicule are those who can't (or won't) agree.

no new DEBT!!

Author: Brendan McManus, Bemidji State
Date: 01-24-04 12:10

I used to know what Republicans said they stood for. Cutting spending and reducing government. (Not that there's anything inherently right with that.) Now we've got the most totally irresponsible fiscal management of this country in my lifetime. This even tops Carter in 78-79!!

Professor Burnside is worried about taxes, but she might consider that the social contract worked out between WWII and the 1980's have made the U.S. the most prosperous and powerful nation in human history. Why anyone would want to change this substantially is beyond my comprehension. That includes some of the leaders of my party constantly pushing for more social spending and those of the Republican persuasion who claim to want to shrink the government to a size that could be drowned in a bathtub. But what we've got in the white house now is the worst of both worlds: spending growth (even in social spending) faster than in any of the Clinton years and all sorts of policy changes abandoning government oversight in favor of the rich. Increasing the size and reducing the reach of government [except in internat security] at the same time.

When Bush has finished slamming on the accellerator while holding down the brake, I have to wonder whether the engine will ever function so well again.

Bush is also drowning our future in red ink. Just wait until they have to inflate their way out of this mess. Whoaa! What a ride we are in for!

Hmm, maybe if we talked about dropping out of Academia for law school?

Author: You said it Barb ...
Date: 01-25-04 10:45

I was hoping for more intelligent discussion on this topic from Chronicle of Higher Education readers than the usual "you dirty right wing/left wing" drivel I hear in the mass media and internet chat rooms.

I liked the rest of what you said as well.

On a side note, we could use a topic to follow the essay on the two who dropped off the effort to reach the tenure track, something like "should I drop out and go to law school?" as a topic.

That might generate some useful debate.

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: DE Teodoru
Date: 02-20-04 20:28

Woe-is-me....I note active vital signs...Keep it up, as the consumer who clearly overpays you should be pissing back!!!!

Bravo...drink a lot of beer and then go to it!!

Re: The candidates and higher education

Author: DE Teodoru
Date: 02-20-04 20:36

Gee anon, you should ask: which candidate wants to stop tenure or travel perks for academics?

NOw there you're going to get a lot of ooooohahhhhhaaahs!

Remember all those threads on Bush crapping on academia etc.etc.etc.? Boy, what long threads!

Recently the magazine AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE was the only one to point out that Congress wants to censor Middle East study grants for their "friendlyness" to pro-Zionist Congressmen. To that magazine it sounded like a crushing blow to academic feedom. However, since the great proletarian cultural revolution has fizzled out, who cares about academic freedom for the "shaheeds" so long as the pention fund is doing well on Wall Street!

You can count on academia to think self interest, never principle.

Hey! Here's a great teshirt:

ACADEMIA=HEDONIA....support your local prof's need for sizzling sensations!