5 ms·

Caused huge attrition of the 1st and 2nd year stem students (i.e. quit with a masters). The union was dominated by humanities students, and they fought for what

Caused huge attrition of the 1st and 2nd year stem students (i.e. quit with a masters). The union was dominated by humanities students, and they fought for what they wanted, not what the overall membership wanted. Very few STEM folks had any interest in being part of the union, but because so many voted with their feet, it was hopeless to set up a decertifiying petition.

renewiltord 3y ago
This is an interesting story. I don't understand why it was flagkilled. Is it obviously false or something?
- jimbob45 3y ago
  It's presidential election season in the US. People are going to fight hard to bury what the other side says and raise up what their own side is saying. Here's some free advice: leave until January 2025 and spend your newly free time learning a language or growing a garden.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Is it obviously false or something? Yes. Doesn't "a bunch of them went off and got private sector jobs instead, limiting the size of the undergrad population" sound extremely implausible to you? As if graduate students can control enrollment. The comment sounds like a political hit piece, with no evidence provided. And Scott Walker was a major union buster who spurred massive protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 and a recall election (which Walker unfortunately won). The University of Wisconsin Teaching Assistants Association is one of the oldest student unions in the nation. It's hardly a "disaster".
  - shagie 3y ago
    A number of STEM majors graduating in 2009 and 2010 decided to get a masters rather than enter that economy. As the economy recovered, STEM hiring picked up substantially and people with a masters degree were quite hirable. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engine... > Employment in STEM occupations grew by 10.5 percent, or 817,260 jobs, between May 2009 and May 2015, compared with 5.2 percent net growth in non-STEM occupations. Computer occupations and engineers were among the types of STEM occupations with the highest job gains. Employment in computer occupations was nearly 3.2 million in May 2009 and nearly 3.9 million in May 2015. Employment of engineers was nearly 1.5 million in May 2009, compared with over 1.6 million in May 2015. Some STEM occupations lost jobs. In 2009, there were nearly 478,000 jobs in STEM-related sales occupations, compared with approximately 406,000 in 2015.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      The OP didn't even say which year this happened. Anyway, I'm not disputing that grad students leave school for job opportunities. I am disputing whether they left because of some student union disagreement, and whether such a union disagreement could somehow limit undergraduate enrollment. Moreover, the budget for the University of Wisconsin is set by the Governor and legislature, so if there's no enough money to pay TAs more, it's their fault.
      - shagie 3y ago
        In Wisconsin politics and with the context of unions, 2011 was a very memorable year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests If you were a STEM major graduating in 2009 or 2010, you went to grad school for a year or two and got a masters to wait out the recession. In 2011, grad school was made much worse as the union for grad students was severely curtailed and benefits for state employees (grad students being state employees) reduced. As the economy was picking up and you've got a masters and hiring in STEM fields is outpacing all other hiring - it is time to put off procrastinating in grad school and get a job.
        lapcat 3y ago
        > In Wisconsin politics and with the context of unions, 2011 was a very memorable year. I'm confused about the nature of your reply. You're more or less repeating what I already said in an earlier comment: "Scott Walker was a major union buster who spurred massive protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 and a recall election" To be clear, I'm a Wisconsinite and a former member of the TAA.
        shagie 3y ago
        I suspect we're in agreement then. My comment was intended supporting material to your claim that the reason people left wasn't the wins by the TAA that became part of the 2010 benefits for domestic partners for state employees but rather that they were done procrastinating entering the job market.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    > Yes. Doesn't "a bunch of them went off and got private sector jobs instead, limiting the size of the undergrad population" sound extremely implausible to you? As if graduate students can control enrollment. You can't run a department without TAs. Who's going to grade homework and exams? Professors? Don't make me laugh. If you don't have enough grad students to TA your department, you have to borrow some another department. But what if all the STEM departments don't have enough TAs? Do you hire adjuncts (at roughly 3x the rate)?
EatingWithForks 3y ago
TBH the way you explain it sounds to me like 1st and 2nd year stem students were disengaged and uninterested in solidarity with their academic peers who have less options than them. I'm not even particularly fond of the humanities I just don't understand why you wouldn't fight for the allowance for your peers to start families, god damn!
- andirk 3y ago
  > who have less options than them. So the humanities folks' priority is sculpting a union program to their specific needs. That also doesn't sound very "fight for the allowance of your peers". That's democracy though. Doesn't mean the right choice is made but that the voters pull the strings.
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    I think it is objectively the right choice to enable people to build families if they're going to be in a program until their late 20s! This sounds ridiculous to me on its face-- why the hell wouldn't you support your maximally educated populace (getting doctorates) to have families? The 1st and 2nd year STEM kids (literally kids-- you can enter into a masters fresh out of college, so like 21-23 yrs old) who see the opportunity to try and organize to help their humanities peers start families and instead don't participate, exit to industry (an option humanities graduates probably don't have), and say nothing as a governer with a presidential campaign crushes their organizing hopes... a lack of solidarity with one's peers is exactly how it sounds to me.
    - lmm 3y ago
      I'm darkly amused that you spend the first half of your comment talking down about how one group of students is "kids" compared to another and then in the second half complain about how those same people have "a lack of solidarity with [their] peers". Gee, I wonder why!
    - xvedejas 3y ago
      Calling 22 year olds "kids" and then also saying they have a lack of solidarity with their older "peers" seems a bit insensitive to me. People having families is great, but if their benefits come from the expense of your own salary, that's asking for more than solidarity; that's asking for altruism.
Frondo 3y ago
Democracy isn't perfect, but checking out is the quickest route to ensuring your interests are only minimally represented. True at all levels of democratic organization.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Checking out and moving to an environment that represents your interests well is a way to see that your interests are met, though.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    What happens when there is no where left to move, or the cost of moving is too high? Solidarity, not freedom, is the opposite of tyranny. Neutrality and running away implicitly supports the injustice you are running away from. Flight-ing instead of fighting leaves those left behind to the wolves. Political change only happens once people are willing to put themselves at risk.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Not every battle is mine to fight. I've spent plenty of time tilting at windmills. But there are limits to how much effort I'll put in for collective good.
      - hayst4ck 3y ago
        Your lack of solidarity for others means they will have a lack of solidarity for you. The mindset guarantees your exhaustion, loss, and ultimately your oppression. You don't have to fight the battle, but you should at least support those who self sacrifice and hold it in high regard and equally you should feel shame for running away. Your privilege let you run away, but others aren't so lucky.
        mlyle 3y ago
        How do you know how much I've run away from compared to you? Maybe it's been less. But I sure don't stick around in every shitty situation hoping that I can turn it better with enough sweat of the brow and sufficient persuasion to others to play nice. Hopefully you don't, either. The thread we're talking about is a classic tyranny of the majority situation: something that democracies handle poorly. If you're outnumbered by a large factor by people with drastically different interests than you, and it's going to be decided by voting, you're in for a bad time if you stick around.

renewiltord 3y ago

This is an interesting story. I don't understand why it was flagkilled. Is it obviously false or something?

jimbob45 3y ago
It's presidential election season in the US. People are going to fight hard to bury what the other side says and raise up what their own side is saying. Here's some free advice: leave until January 2025 and spend your newly free time learning a language or growing a garden.
lapcat 3y ago
> Is it obviously false or something? Yes. Doesn't "a bunch of them went off and got private sector jobs instead, limiting the size of the undergrad population" sound extremely implausible to you? As if graduate students can control enrollment. The comment sounds like a political hit piece, with no evidence provided. And Scott Walker was a major union buster who spurred massive protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 and a recall election (which Walker unfortunately won). The University of Wisconsin Teaching Assistants Association is one of the oldest student unions in the nation. It's hardly a "disaster".
- shagie 3y ago
  A number of STEM majors graduating in 2009 and 2010 decided to get a masters rather than enter that economy. As the economy recovered, STEM hiring picked up substantially and people with a masters degree were quite hirable. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/pdf/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future.pdf https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engine... > Employment in STEM occupations grew by 10.5 percent, or 817,260 jobs, between May 2009 and May 2015, compared with 5.2 percent net growth in non-STEM occupations. Computer occupations and engineers were among the types of STEM occupations with the highest job gains. Employment in computer occupations was nearly 3.2 million in May 2009 and nearly 3.9 million in May 2015. Employment of engineers was nearly 1.5 million in May 2009, compared with over 1.6 million in May 2015. Some STEM occupations lost jobs. In 2009, there were nearly 478,000 jobs in STEM-related sales occupations, compared with approximately 406,000 in 2015.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    The OP didn't even say which year this happened. Anyway, I'm not disputing that grad students leave school for job opportunities. I am disputing whether they left because of some student union disagreement, and whether such a union disagreement could somehow limit undergraduate enrollment. Moreover, the budget for the University of Wisconsin is set by the Governor and legislature, so if there's no enough money to pay TAs more, it's their fault.
    - shagie 3y ago
      In Wisconsin politics and with the context of unions, 2011 was a very memorable year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests If you were a STEM major graduating in 2009 or 2010, you went to grad school for a year or two and got a masters to wait out the recession. In 2011, grad school was made much worse as the union for grad students was severely curtailed and benefits for state employees (grad students being state employees) reduced. As the economy was picking up and you've got a masters and hiring in STEM fields is outpacing all other hiring - it is time to put off procrastinating in grad school and get a job.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > In Wisconsin politics and with the context of unions, 2011 was a very memorable year. I'm confused about the nature of your reply. You're more or less repeating what I already said in an earlier comment: "Scott Walker was a major union buster who spurred massive protests at the Wisconsin State Capitol in 2011 and a recall election" To be clear, I'm a Wisconsinite and a former member of the TAA.
        shagie 3y ago
        I suspect we're in agreement then. My comment was intended supporting material to your claim that the reason people left wasn't the wins by the TAA that became part of the 2010 benefits for domestic partners for state employees but rather that they were done procrastinating entering the job market.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  > Yes. Doesn't "a bunch of them went off and got private sector jobs instead, limiting the size of the undergrad population" sound extremely implausible to you? As if graduate students can control enrollment. You can't run a department without TAs. Who's going to grade homework and exams? Professors? Don't make me laugh. If you don't have enough grad students to TA your department, you have to borrow some another department. But what if all the STEM departments don't have enough TAs? Do you hire adjuncts (at roughly 3x the rate)?

EatingWithForks 3y ago

TBH the way you explain it sounds to me like 1st and 2nd year stem students were disengaged and uninterested in solidarity with their academic peers who have less options than them. I'm not even particularly fond of the humanities I just don't understand why you wouldn't fight for the allowance for your peers to start families, god damn!

andirk 3y ago
> who have less options than them. So the humanities folks' priority is sculpting a union program to their specific needs. That also doesn't sound very "fight for the allowance of your peers". That's democracy though. Doesn't mean the right choice is made but that the voters pull the strings.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I think it is objectively the right choice to enable people to build families if they're going to be in a program until their late 20s! This sounds ridiculous to me on its face-- why the hell wouldn't you support your maximally educated populace (getting doctorates) to have families? The 1st and 2nd year STEM kids (literally kids-- you can enter into a masters fresh out of college, so like 21-23 yrs old) who see the opportunity to try and organize to help their humanities peers start families and instead don't participate, exit to industry (an option humanities graduates probably don't have), and say nothing as a governer with a presidential campaign crushes their organizing hopes... a lack of solidarity with one's peers is exactly how it sounds to me.
  - lmm 3y ago
    I'm darkly amused that you spend the first half of your comment talking down about how one group of students is "kids" compared to another and then in the second half complain about how those same people have "a lack of solidarity with [their] peers". Gee, I wonder why!
  - xvedejas 3y ago
    Calling 22 year olds "kids" and then also saying they have a lack of solidarity with their older "peers" seems a bit insensitive to me. People having families is great, but if their benefits come from the expense of your own salary, that's asking for more than solidarity; that's asking for altruism.

Frondo 3y ago

Democracy isn't perfect, but checking out is the quickest route to ensuring your interests are only minimally represented. True at all levels of democratic organization.

mlyle 3y ago
Checking out and moving to an environment that represents your interests well is a way to see that your interests are met, though.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  What happens when there is no where left to move, or the cost of moving is too high? Solidarity, not freedom, is the opposite of tyranny. Neutrality and running away implicitly supports the injustice you are running away from. Flight-ing instead of fighting leaves those left behind to the wolves. Political change only happens once people are willing to put themselves at risk.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Not every battle is mine to fight. I've spent plenty of time tilting at windmills. But there are limits to how much effort I'll put in for collective good.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      Your lack of solidarity for others means they will have a lack of solidarity for you. The mindset guarantees your exhaustion, loss, and ultimately your oppression. You don't have to fight the battle, but you should at least support those who self sacrifice and hold it in high regard and equally you should feel shame for running away. Your privilege let you run away, but others aren't so lucky.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        How do you know how much I've run away from compared to you? Maybe it's been less. But I sure don't stick around in every shitty situation hoping that I can turn it better with enough sweat of the brow and sufficient persuasion to others to play nice. Hopefully you don't, either. The thread we're talking about is a classic tyranny of the majority situation: something that democracies handle poorly. If you're outnumbered by a large factor by people with drastically different interests than you, and it's going to be decided by voting, you're in for a bad time if you stick around.