How out of touch are College professors?

[Danno 1,228]

College professors go big for Democrats

College professors and administrators are donating heavily in the midterm elections and are overwhelmingly supporting Democrats over Republicans, according to a new study.

An analysis of Federal Election Commission data conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Democrats have raked in more than $400,000 just from employees of the University of California's network of colleges — 86 percent of all donations from UC employees.

Harvard employees ranked second in donations to Democrats, giving $327,028 to the party — 77 percent of total donations from employees of the university.

Employees of Stanford, the University of Texas and Princeton also gave more than $100,000 to Democrats. At Princeton, no donations have gone to a Republican, the study found.

The employees of only a few universities — mostly in the South — gave predominantly to Republicans. Among them are the universities of Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has been the top recipient of academic donations, collecting more than $175,000 — likely from those active University of California donors.

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have also received more than $100,000 from university employees, as has Charlie Crist, the Republican-turned-independent senate candidate in Florida.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42545.html#ixzz10POb1QYk

[ScottThuy 140]

flawed data...

They are about to pass legislation that will shut down the majority of private universities... There is legislation in the works that will require private universities to guarantee gainful employment for graduates in thier field of study.. not realistic in this economy and high unemployment..

Being a Prof myself for a over a decade, I know many that are not agreeing with the dems...

[Darnell 8,479]

huh?

employees of the University of California's network of colleges

that's the janitorial staff, not the Professors, Right?

[lostinblue 1,989]

that will require private universities to guarantee gainful employment for graduates in their field of study..

This means a government Job doing global warming papers.

[evli1966 88]

Professors are notorious for thinking they know all about life and how it should be done.

As long as each and every life situation is a text book scenario they may be close to being right.

But people living in the real world earning a living knowing life is not lived out of text books find the entitlements these professors ask for are ridiculous.

[ScottThuy 140]

Professors are notorious for thinking they know all about life and how it should be done.

As long as each and every life situation is a text book scenario they may be close to being right.

But people living in the real world earning a living knowing life is not lived out of text books find the entitlements these professors ask for are ridiculous.

[Heracles 417]

Professors are notorious for thinking they know all about life and how it should be done.

As long as each and every life situation is a text book scenario they may be close to being right.

But people living in the real world earning a living knowing life is not lived out of text books find the entitlements these professors ask for are ridiculous.

Unlike Republican talkshow hosts of course, many who are dropouts or have no college education whatsoever. Nothing wrong with that either, but then don't claim you know everything about economics. I heard that tea-party candidate from Delaware claim Keynesian economics does not work. Seems to have worked well during the depression and to keep China steaming ahead. When I looked at her background, she had dropped out of her "communications" major in 93.

Professors are not the problem here, the issue is that intelligent people have become full of doubt, while the fools who know nothing cocksure. Palin might be a pretty-face, be she knows FA about economics. On the other hand, the two wealthiest people in the world are democrats. Personally I tend to want to listen to people much smarter and wealthier than me.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

those who can, do. those who can't, teach.

[SMR 368]

Unlike Republican talkshow hosts of course, many who are dropouts or have no college education whatsoever. Nothing wrong with that either, but then don't claim you know everything about economics. I heard that tea-party candidate from Delaware claim Keynesian economics does not work. Seems to have worked well during the depression and to keep China steaming ahead. When I looked at her background, she had dropped out of her "communications" major in 93.

Professors are not the problem here, the issue is that intelligent people have become full of doubt, while the fools who know nothing cocksure. Palin might be a pretty-face, be she knows FA about economics. On the other hand, the two wealthiest people in the world are democrats. Personally I tend to want to listen to people much smarter and wealthier than me.

Who are you referring to as the smartest and wealthiest? Bill Gates, the wealthiest American, supported President Bush both times he was elected. Anyways, I thought that Democrats were looking after working Americans. If that's the case, why do the rich like them so much?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Professors are notorious for thinking they know all about life and how it should be done.

As long as each and every life situation is a text book scenario they may be close to being right.

But people living in the real world earning a living knowing life is not lived out of text books find the entitlements these professors ask for are ridiculous.

And ironically, I saw this sticker on the door of a UCalgary bio prof whose thinking worked by textbook-scenarios.

"Under the most tightly controlled conditions of pressure/temperature/oxygen-content/..., the organism will do as it d##n-well pleases".

[evli1966 88]

Unlike Republican talkshow hosts of course, many who are dropouts or have no college education whatsoever. Nothing wrong with that either, but then don't claim you know everything about economics. I heard that tea-party candidate from Delaware claim Keynesian economics does not work. Seems to have worked well during the depression and to keep China steaming ahead. When I looked at her background, she had dropped out of her "communications" major in 93.

Keynesian economics is not long term friendly; huge debts & Gov't policiest that never go away - taxes are raised to pay interest on the debt not the debt.

While a mix of economic policies are needed with a balance it is save to say a gov't following only Keynes Law ousting classical believes will spend itself into a whole.

China began its great change and economic growth with a social gov't where the gov't had the money not the people.

I see 2 possible out comes in the future of China

1. The economic success of a few will challange the Socialist Party and bring change to the gov't (Greed grows in all)

2. China will indeed reach a point when its own GDP will not efficiently maintain the stimulusit must inject into its economy to maintain the Keynesian economics.

Not an economist and only history will tell hat happens.

Professors are not the problem here, the issue is that intelligent people have become full of doubt, while the fools who know nothing cocksure. Palin might be a pretty-face, be she knows FA about economics. On the other hand, the two wealthiest people in the world are democrats. Personally I tend to want to listen to people much smarter and wealthier than me.

Please tell me what non capitalist plan they followed to get where they are.

Yes listening and following success tends to lad to success. Listening to someone tell you what you are entitiled to and then expecting it leads to lazyness.

Unlike Republican talkshow hosts of course, many who are dropouts or have no college education whatsoever ( are you speaking of the working person?)

while a college education is quite helpful tell me how many actual jobs there are besides speacialist jobs that require a degree?

Specialist jobs = doctor; Engineer, lawyer, etc.

those who can, do. those who can't, teach.

While it can be said of some I do not agree 100%.

I think it should be more like

Those who choose to make it Happen make it Happen; Those who choose to teach then teach

Edited September 24, 2010 by evli1966

[Heracles 417]

Keynesian economics is not long term friendly; huge debts & Gov't policiest that never go away - taxes are raised to pay interest on the debt not the debt. While a mix of economic policies are needed with a balance it is save to say a gov't following only Keynes Law ousting classical believes will spend itself into a whole. China began its great change and economic growth with a social gov't where the gov't had the money not the people. I see 2 possible out comes in the future of China

1. The economic success of a few will challange the Socialist Party and bring change to the gov't (Greed grows in all)

2. China will indeed reach a point when its own GDP will not efficiently maintain the stimulusit must inject into its economy to maintain the Keynesian economics.

Not an economist and only history will tell hat happens.

What about Canada and Australia or various other European or Asian nations that are doing well? The reality is that Keynesian economics has taken a number of those countries to the forefront. Keynesian economics is not socialism. All of the public projects conducted in AUS are done so using private companies. Various projects are even public /private partnerships. While you sit there and listen to talkshows and various people [Tea-party/Libertarian/Greedy Repubs] telling you how bad and wrong the rest of the world is, it's the average Joe - the Gary equivalents - over there that can literally purchase 6 houses in Peoria by selling their one house in Melb. What does that tell you about whose system works best to deliver the goal of Capitalism?

Please tell me what non capitalist plan they followed to get where they are.

Yes listening and following success tends to lad to success. Listening to someone tell you what you are entitiled to and then expecting it leads to lazyness.

That's a typical rebuttal to these things, that if you do not support our way, then you are basically communist or socialist; group em all together hey. Social democracies are next-gen [modern] first world countries, where people are:

• Paid a fair wage - Minimum wage $13 USD an hour.
  
• Where the government elected by the people looks out what is best for the people, rather than the business alone.
  
• where their government actually invests in their country to improve [lift] their Q.O.L.
  
• Modern and maintained towns, roads, infrastructure, cities, parks for families, lack of ghettos etc.
  
• Receive a number of benefits while working: health care, 4 weeks vacation, adequate sick pay.
  
• A welfare system actually designed to get people on their feet.
  
• Private SS system, as well as a backup government pension for those who can least afford it.
  
• Immigration is monitored and adjusted accordingly to the country's needs.
  
• Illegal Aliens are almost non-existent and it's almost impossible to function in the society as one - no free lunch ever.
  

is a far far stretch from Communism, let alone Socialism. I guess you do not want any of those things.

while a college education is quite helpful tell me how many actual jobs there are besides speacialist jobs that require a degree?

Specialist jobs = doctor; Engineer, lawyer, etc.

Are you for real? No college education means shitty job and shitty pay in the US. This isn't Australia bud, where Blue-collar workers earn well over $100K. Now, I don't agree with the low pay blue-collar workers earn here, considering the work they do. Yet did you expect otherwise? When you have an endless supply, south of the border and greedy businesses.

While it can be said of some I do not agree 100%.

I think it should be more like

Those who choose to make it Happen make it Happen; Those who choose to teach then teach

Here is a prime example of a culture and attitude that I have been referring to for years, that many of the left-wing clowns on here deny. This attitude is why middle-American states are poor and backwards, third world poor by various standards.

I know what the problem is though and you and I have argued about this before; all about perception. Don't take this in the wrong way but the way you see yourself financially and living standard wise versus those in the Philippines [for example], is how people in various other first world countries view themselves compared to middle Americans. To us, you are the Philippines, you just do not see this.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Heracles

[HAL 9000 96]

I think this guy is out of touch.

[^_^ 5,021]

I think this guy is out of touch.

250K household income in New Jersey isn't "rich". It is upper middle class, yes.. but not "rich". Median household incomes in the county 5 minutes from where I actually live is over 100K and that's only because of a few pockets of poverty otherwise it would easily be near 200K. You can't be in an IT job where I work and be below 100K in salary unless you're a lowly systems admin or intern or something similar. OK so is everybody here rich? Far from it, because prices of stuff people need (like housing) are also very high.. they go as high as the market will bear, as they say. A crappy little 1000 sq ft WW2 cape cod needing a lot of work around my place will cost you 300K. Property taxes and auto insurance rates are among the highest in the nation (you need a car since the only place the train/bus will take you is freakin NYC).

So judging 'rich' by a number, while I realize it is necessary to keep the conversation somewhat simple, isn't really accurate.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Legacy member

[fozzie 41]

flawed data...

They are about to pass legislation that will shut down the majority of private universities... There is legislation in the works that will require private universities to guarantee gainful employment for graduates in thier field of study.. not realistic in this economy and high unemployment..

Being a Prof myself for a over a decade, I know many that are not agreeing with the dems...

The legislation you speak of is regarding proprietary schools not private schools. There is a huge difference. NYU is private, University of Phoenix in proprietary. The irony is that it is the proprietary schools that track the employment of their graduates as it becomes a selling point like at DeVry University. If you walk into Harvard or your local community college and ask how many graduates are employed in their field of study within 6 months of graduation they will likely not have an answer for you.

The legislation is to help with the ridiculouly high level of debt and loan default rates of students. They want to link loan default rates to Title IV funding because without it fewer students will go to school (FYI Community colleges are usually full to bursting point and you can get a better education at some proprietary schools.) NYU etc cost $200,000 to graduate in 4 years, not many jobs out there that will clear that kind of debt. $60,000 for a bachelors degree is actually not bad.