8 ms·

In parts of Europe there the expression: "That's Texas." It roughly means "That's crazy." but with a 'Murica flavor to it. Lately, I've been finding myself fre

In parts of Europe there the expression: "That's Texas." It roughly means "That's crazy." but with a 'Murica flavor to it. Lately, I've been finding myself frequently thinking: "That's Texas." Let me get this straight. Take a course load of 4 double semester courses per year with 200 hours of class time total in the given year. Let's double it to 400 hours just to be safe to include exam marking and office hours. A single student paying $30k per year is paying $75 / hour / student, or an annualized salary of $150k / year. True, you can't work all year round, but the average adjunct earns less than a single average student's tuition?! Where does all the money go? How is the market so broken?

kbenson 9y ago
Marketing. By marketing, I mean research grants, sports team equipment and training, and anything else that increases the prestige of the school (research sometimes leads to patents for the school, so there's additional benefit to that). You have to attract students willing to pay and good teachers and researchers to attract more students. The entire market is reputation based to the point where reputation is often (usually?) more important than results.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  But there's a problem with how that stuff is bundled. I went to a school that lavished money on its sports programs (at least relative to the team's performance) and many of the sports programs were supported (in part) by mandatory student fees. If I had the option to go to the school without paying for the team, I would have certainly done so. Though the school was still 'worth it' but dang it, I could have had more consumer surplus. Another issue (probably not the first piece of fat I'd cut) is title 9 sports - schools have to make sports programs accessible to women and men and they most commonly do this by creating women's and men's teams. I don't have a good understanding of the law but there might be a better allocation of resources if they simply opened teams to both sexes rather than creating sexually differentiated teams.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    > But there's a problem with how that stuff is bundled. Sure. I wasn't endorsing the system, just explaining it as I see it. > schools have to make sports programs accessible to women and men ... might be a better allocation of resources if they simply opened teams to both sexes rather than creating sexually differentiated teams. I think that only works in a world where women and men are both physically capable equally in all aspects. That's not reality though, and at the high performance levels these teams play at, that difference is likely exacerbated to the degree that for many sports mixed teams would really just mean a starting lineup of one sex, which is not exactly succeeding at making it accessible if that's the goal. Interestingly, if there were enough variation in the peak mental abilities we might see a similar segregation at peak performance levels. I suspect that while there is evidence that men and women often have different mental aptitudes, that's on average and at peak there is little difference in potential (even though there may be a difference in occurrence). E.g. There's plenty of evidence and reason to believe the strongest person that ever lived in the world is male, but there's not a lot of evidence to believe the smartest person that ever lived in the world, or even in any one field, is male (even if it may by likely to currently be one sec or the other based on ratios of interest).
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      I don't see it the same way, sure the power of the purse and all but if the Federal Government can't coerce states to follow immigration law as a condition of accepting some federal grants, we may as well say that the feds can't tie money to behavior and just let the chips fall where they may. I get that women and men have different physical capabilities but why split it on gender? Why not split it on race? There isn't much racial equity in some sports, apparently some races can't compete as well as others and the demographics speak for themselves. Better yet, why not split sports by work ethic? I'd be more inclined to do sports if I could play with people who are similarly disinterested and the status quo isn't very accessible to me: a person who over eats, sleeps in, and forgets rules. I'm sure we can map that to a disparate impact somewhere. Or ignore the discussion entirely and say "we'll let colleges decide how to handle their sports programs".
aswanson 9y ago
Administrative salaries, new buildings, and athletic stadiums.
uaydin 9y ago
We have that saying in Turkey as well. The funny part is, I've been living in Texas in last 4-5 years and Texas is actually a great state, especially if you stick with metroplexes such as DFW or Austin.
- vidarh 9y ago
  That's interesting. See my other comment - do you think the etymology is the same (western movies in the case of Norwegian)?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Uh... it's a great state to be in ignoring the havok that it causes the rest of the US. Why is the US science education so bad? Texas. Almost exclusively. Its primary opponent: California. Texas causes similar problems in many other fields, including patent law and taxes.
irrational 9y ago
The money goes to Football (and not the good kind of Football).
- Leon 9y ago
  Usually Football pays for itself.
  - wolfram74 9y ago
    as of 2015, it seemed not so much http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athlet...
  - vkou 9y ago
    Football may pay for itself, but most of the other college sports don't.
intern4tional 9y ago
I work part time as an adjunct at a local 4 year college in WA state and am paid a flat fee of $150 a student per class. For one of my higher level (400 level) courses, I have 4-5 students usually and prep work to keep the course current still requires at least 2-3 hours a week in addition to teaching class. At the end of the day, I make less than minimum wage teaching these students. I'm lucky that I have another job that supports me. Colleges and Universities are not lean organizations. My department has significant amounts of overhead - people that in some cases work full time doing administrivia or extra paperwork and they require a salary. The buildings and labs also require upkeep and technology has a fairly high turnover cost. Add in the racket that is software + books and things add up quickly. I'd estimate that my department has almost a 1 to 1 back office staff to professor ratio - simply due to the lack of automation (and no desire to automate) many portions of the work that is done at the school. Many of the back office staff are full time and they receive a regular salary rather than a flat fee per student.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Add in the racket that is software + books and things add up quickly. Don't students pay for those separately? How does that add up for costs on the school's end?
  - setr 9y ago
    Books held in the library, and computer/library labs with the paid software available, I'd imagine
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  That explains some of the cost structure of an education institution, but: The real reason the adjunct-professor position pays so low is because that's the value applicants are willing to accept / that's the cake society assigns. If that class of employee demanded, or held more prestige, we would see efficiency gains elsewhere in the business.
  - sjg007 9y ago
dave_sullivan 9y ago
> How is the market so broken? Student debt. Look at the housing market: in the 70s you could buy a house for much less because houses cost less because people didn't have more money to overpay. With a thirty year explosion of the mortgage industry and the idea that anyone should qualify to own a home, suddenly consumers had extra money to outbid people on buying houses. This broadly increased property prices with no signs of slowing (unless the money runs out, as per '08). All of that debt is increasing people's ability to buy (raising demand, increasing prices) but not increasing their ability to pay (suggesting some kind of time limit). Now look at the education market: in the 70s, you could buy an education for much less because people didn't have more money to overpay. The cost of education was in line with normal market mechanisms. But with a thirty year explosion of student debt and the idea that everyone should go to college and qualify for loans if they can't pay for it, prices broadly increased. The problem is, for many, there is no alternative. "I'm the first one in my family to be able to go to college." "Not going to college makes it impossible to find a job." "I have to get an education." When "No thanks, that's crazy, I'll do something else" is not an option, prices are going to do crazy things. Perfect example being healthcare costs. I think "Don't go to college" is the best advice today. Learn to program early, start working as a freelancer when you're 18 and graduate from highschool. By the time your friends graduate from college with a bunch of student debt and can't find a job because they don't have job experience and employers want to hire people that know what they're doing, you'll be making and saving a lot more money freelancing with 4+ years of experience under your belt already. Experience is waaaaaay more valuable than degrees. Might as well get it early.
- coldcode 9y ago
  What a programmer centric view. 99+% of people are not programmers. You want to be in any other STEM job you need a university degree(s). Almost any reasonable paying job other than programmer require actual training and education.
  - klibertp 9y ago
    > Almost any reasonable paying job other than programmer require actual training and education. Are you implying that you don't need skill and knowledge to program? Or that it's impossible to get skill and knowledge needed in "other reasonable paying jobs" mostly outside of formal education industry?
vidarh 9y ago
> In parts of Europe there the expression: "That's Texas." It roughly means "That's crazy." but with a 'Murica flavor to it. According to this article [1] in Washington Post, the first occurrence of Texas as "crazy" in Norwegian dates to 1957. Makes me wonder if it's used this way in other European countries too, and whether or not the etymology is independent. It's worth noting that unlike the term "Amerikanske tilstander" ("American conditions") in politics (as shorthand for implying your opponent is pushing for whichever stereotypically bad thing about American politics fits best in the specific policy area), the use of "Texas" refers to wild west movies, and so is about 19th century lawlessness, not modern Texas (though there certainly is still a stereotype of Texas as being at least, well, somewhat Texas) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/26/how-texas-became-norwegian-for-crazy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/2...
- sol_remmy 9y ago
  Actually Texas has cheap, well-funded state schools. It is financially a well-managed state. Maybe you should switch to saying "That's Illinois" or "That's Chicago", they're the dysfunctional state now.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    We're more likely to start referring to them as Texas than change the term.
    - brewdad 9y ago
      Perhaps a more modern take might be Florida Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    In some aspects. In others, such as public health, it is not.
  - hyperbolerules 9y ago
    you can’t argue logically with leftist insult attempts. norwegians very much believe themselves to be better than you and will sneer at you after affronting you with silly outdated stereotypes. it’s adorable
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
KirinDave 9y ago
Let's be really clear: this system is working as intended. America has always had a ruling wealth class. As time has gone on that class has changed who they try to yoke for wealth extraction & control. It used to be that masses of factory workers were required, so those people were carefully set up for wealth extraction until they unionized and did an organized rebellion. America's knowledge workers are where America's value is, so economic yokes have been installed at the most profitable point: where people receive higher education. Honestly I'm not sure the EU is THAT different, I think you just do it at a different time.

kbenson 9y ago

Marketing. By marketing, I mean research grants, sports team equipment and training, and anything else that increases the prestige of the school (research sometimes leads to patents for the school, so there's additional benefit to that). You have to attract students willing to pay and good teachers and researchers to attract more students. The entire market is reputation based to the point where reputation is often (usually?) more important than results.

alexanderstears 9y ago
But there's a problem with how that stuff is bundled. I went to a school that lavished money on its sports programs (at least relative to the team's performance) and many of the sports programs were supported (in part) by mandatory student fees. If I had the option to go to the school without paying for the team, I would have certainly done so. Though the school was still 'worth it' but dang it, I could have had more consumer surplus. Another issue (probably not the first piece of fat I'd cut) is title 9 sports - schools have to make sports programs accessible to women and men and they most commonly do this by creating women's and men's teams. I don't have a good understanding of the law but there might be a better allocation of resources if they simply opened teams to both sexes rather than creating sexually differentiated teams.
- kbenson 9y ago
  > But there's a problem with how that stuff is bundled. Sure. I wasn't endorsing the system, just explaining it as I see it. > schools have to make sports programs accessible to women and men ... might be a better allocation of resources if they simply opened teams to both sexes rather than creating sexually differentiated teams. I think that only works in a world where women and men are both physically capable equally in all aspects. That's not reality though, and at the high performance levels these teams play at, that difference is likely exacerbated to the degree that for many sports mixed teams would really just mean a starting lineup of one sex, which is not exactly succeeding at making it accessible if that's the goal. Interestingly, if there were enough variation in the peak mental abilities we might see a similar segregation at peak performance levels. I suspect that while there is evidence that men and women often have different mental aptitudes, that's on average and at peak there is little difference in potential (even though there may be a difference in occurrence). E.g. There's plenty of evidence and reason to believe the strongest person that ever lived in the world is male, but there's not a lot of evidence to believe the smartest person that ever lived in the world, or even in any one field, is male (even if it may by likely to currently be one sec or the other based on ratios of interest).
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    I don't see it the same way, sure the power of the purse and all but if the Federal Government can't coerce states to follow immigration law as a condition of accepting some federal grants, we may as well say that the feds can't tie money to behavior and just let the chips fall where they may. I get that women and men have different physical capabilities but why split it on gender? Why not split it on race? There isn't much racial equity in some sports, apparently some races can't compete as well as others and the demographics speak for themselves. Better yet, why not split sports by work ethic? I'd be more inclined to do sports if I could play with people who are similarly disinterested and the status quo isn't very accessible to me: a person who over eats, sleeps in, and forgets rules. I'm sure we can map that to a disparate impact somewhere. Or ignore the discussion entirely and say "we'll let colleges decide how to handle their sports programs".

aswanson 9y ago

Administrative salaries, new buildings, and athletic stadiums.

uaydin 9y ago

We have that saying in Turkey as well. The funny part is, I've been living in Texas in last 4-5 years and Texas is actually a great state, especially if you stick with metroplexes such as DFW or Austin.

vidarh 9y ago
That's interesting. See my other comment - do you think the etymology is the same (western movies in the case of Norwegian)?
KirinDave 9y ago
Uh... it's a great state to be in ignoring the havok that it causes the rest of the US. Why is the US science education so bad? Texas. Almost exclusively. Its primary opponent: California. Texas causes similar problems in many other fields, including patent law and taxes.

irrational 9y ago

The money goes to Football (and not the good kind of Football).

Leon 9y ago
Usually Football pays for itself.
- wolfram74 9y ago
  as of 2015, it seemed not so much http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athlet...
- vkou 9y ago
  Football may pay for itself, but most of the other college sports don't.

intern4tional 9y ago

I work part time as an adjunct at a local 4 year college in WA state and am paid a flat fee of $150 a student per class. For one of my higher level (400 level) courses, I have 4-5 students usually and prep work to keep the course current still requires at least 2-3 hours a week in addition to teaching class. At the end of the day, I make less than minimum wage teaching these students. I'm lucky that I have another job that supports me. Colleges and Universities are not lean organizations. My department has significant amounts of overhead - people that in some cases work full time doing administrivia or extra paperwork and they require a salary. The buildings and labs also require upkeep and technology has a fairly high turnover cost. Add in the racket that is software + books and things add up quickly. I'd estimate that my department has almost a 1 to 1 back office staff to professor ratio - simply due to the lack of automation (and no desire to automate) many portions of the work that is done at the school. Many of the back office staff are full time and they receive a regular salary rather than a flat fee per student.

throwaway613834 9y ago
> Add in the racket that is software + books and things add up quickly. Don't students pay for those separately? How does that add up for costs on the school's end?
- setr 9y ago
  Books held in the library, and computer/library labs with the paid software available, I'd imagine
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
That explains some of the cost structure of an education institution, but: The real reason the adjunct-professor position pays so low is because that's the value applicants are willing to accept / that's the cake society assigns. If that class of employee demanded, or held more prestige, we would see efficiency gains elsewhere in the business.
- sjg007 9y ago

dave_sullivan 9y ago

> How is the market so broken? Student debt. Look at the housing market: in the 70s you could buy a house for much less because houses cost less because people didn't have more money to overpay. With a thirty year explosion of the mortgage industry and the idea that anyone should qualify to own a home, suddenly consumers had extra money to outbid people on buying houses. This broadly increased property prices with no signs of slowing (unless the money runs out, as per '08). All of that debt is increasing people's ability to buy (raising demand, increasing prices) but not increasing their ability to pay (suggesting some kind of time limit). Now look at the education market: in the 70s, you could buy an education for much less because people didn't have more money to overpay. The cost of education was in line with normal market mechanisms. But with a thirty year explosion of student debt and the idea that everyone should go to college and qualify for loans if they can't pay for it, prices broadly increased. The problem is, for many, there is no alternative. "I'm the first one in my family to be able to go to college." "Not going to college makes it impossible to find a job." "I have to get an education." When "No thanks, that's crazy, I'll do something else" is not an option, prices are going to do crazy things. Perfect example being healthcare costs. I think "Don't go to college" is the best advice today. Learn to program early, start working as a freelancer when you're 18 and graduate from highschool. By the time your friends graduate from college with a bunch of student debt and can't find a job because they don't have job experience and employers want to hire people that know what they're doing, you'll be making and saving a lot more money freelancing with 4+ years of experience under your belt already. Experience is waaaaaay more valuable than degrees. Might as well get it early.

coldcode 9y ago
What a programmer centric view. 99+% of people are not programmers. You want to be in any other STEM job you need a university degree(s). Almost any reasonable paying job other than programmer require actual training and education.
- klibertp 9y ago
  > Almost any reasonable paying job other than programmer require actual training and education. Are you implying that you don't need skill and knowledge to program? Or that it's impossible to get skill and knowledge needed in "other reasonable paying jobs" mostly outside of formal education industry?

vidarh 9y ago

> In parts of Europe there the expression: "That's Texas." It roughly means "That's crazy." but with a 'Murica flavor to it. According to this article [1] in Washington Post, the first occurrence of Texas as "crazy" in Norwegian dates to 1957. Makes me wonder if it's used this way in other European countries too, and whether or not the etymology is independent. It's worth noting that unlike the term "Amerikanske tilstander" ("American conditions") in politics (as shorthand for implying your opponent is pushing for whichever stereotypically bad thing about American politics fits best in the specific policy area), the use of "Texas" refers to wild west movies, and so is about 19th century lawlessness, not modern Texas (though there certainly is still a stereotype of Texas as being at least, well, somewhat Texas) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/26/how-texas-became-norwegian-for-crazy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/2...

sol_remmy 9y ago
Actually Texas has cheap, well-funded state schools. It is financially a well-managed state. Maybe you should switch to saying "That's Illinois" or "That's Chicago", they're the dysfunctional state now.
- vidarh 9y ago
  We're more likely to start referring to them as Texas than change the term.
  - brewdad 9y ago
    Perhaps a more modern take might be Florida Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  In some aspects. In others, such as public health, it is not.
- hyperbolerules 9y ago
  you can’t argue logically with leftist insult attempts. norwegians very much believe themselves to be better than you and will sneer at you after affronting you with silly outdated stereotypes. it’s adorable

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

KirinDave 9y ago

Let's be really clear: this system is working as intended. America has always had a ruling wealth class. As time has gone on that class has changed who they try to yoke for wealth extraction & control. It used to be that masses of factory workers were required, so those people were carefully set up for wealth extraction until they unionized and did an organized rebellion. America's knowledge workers are where America's value is, so economic yokes have been installed at the most profitable point: where people receive higher education. Honestly I'm not sure the EU is THAT different, I think you just do it at a different time.