5 ms·

Being a super wealthy alum is a prerequisite for being a Trustee, and University Trustees are the group that University Presidents report to.

Loughla 2y ago
This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even managed to screw that up pretty good. Sortition would probably be cheaper, but elections are fine for this purpose.
  - Quarrelsome 2y ago
    democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.
    - rfrey 2y ago
      Having judges and university trustees hired on merit rather than campaigning to be elected does not make a system autocratic.
      - brokeAstronomer 2y ago
        Being super rich != merit. This is what seems to be happening in practice.
      - judahmeek 2y ago
        What better merit is there than public approval for positions like that?
        vkou 2y ago
        If you ask five people who can't speak French to tell me which French-language essay deserves a higher grade, you'll quickly discover that their merit-finding abilities are a coin flip. The whole purpose of elections is tangential to merit. There's important reasons to have them, but finding the 'best' candidate isn't one of them.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Who chooses them? What makes you think they choose them on merit?
        LtWorf 2y ago
        It's the whole theological foundation of northern european and american protestantism = being rich means good loves you, so you're a good person. How they got there from jesus saying rich people can't go to heaven is one of those theological acrobacies they criticise so much in catholics, but don't disregard doing themselves when suits them.
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      Democracy doesn’t entail having tons of minor roles being elected. That’s actually completely unique to the US, as far as I know. A lot of the positions that are elected in the US would be neutral civil servants in any other democratic country I can think of.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        > neutral civil servants Look I'm not saying we don't have these but the set of positions that are neutral is much smaller. Thanks to the political whipping boys de jour any position of power within academic or educational institutions has become politicized.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      It also ensures that many people, including people others don't like and dismiss, get a voice and some real power.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers. Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job. In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap. Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing". To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".
      - tobbe2064 2y ago
        Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method. What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?
        bruce511 2y ago
        You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post. "popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought. I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above? The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x. Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise. The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason. > effective, competent, just, or free of corruption. These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  I prefer the way it used to be in Finland (and still mostly is). Board members are elected by the people affiliated with the university. Votes might be split 4:3:3 or 5:4:4 between professors, other staff, and students. Some board positions are representatives of the three internal groups, while the rest are outsiders. You get all kinds of interesting people from business leaders to activists to former national presidents in the board, while avoiding politruks elected or appointed by random outsiders.

Loughla 2y ago

This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.

tialaramex 2y ago
Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even managed to screw that up pretty good. Sortition would probably be cheaper, but elections are fine for this purpose.
- Quarrelsome 2y ago
  democracy is bad but its still better than more autocratic systems because it encourages change which keeps succession well-oiled and also acts as a vent for tyranny to curtail its worst excesses. This applies as much to politics as it does a school board.
  - rfrey 2y ago
    Having judges and university trustees hired on merit rather than campaigning to be elected does not make a system autocratic.
    - brokeAstronomer 2y ago
      Being super rich != merit. This is what seems to be happening in practice.
    - judahmeek 2y ago
      What better merit is there than public approval for positions like that?
      - vkou 2y ago
        If you ask five people who can't speak French to tell me which French-language essay deserves a higher grade, you'll quickly discover that their merit-finding abilities are a coin flip. The whole purpose of elections is tangential to merit. There's important reasons to have them, but finding the 'best' candidate isn't one of them.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Who chooses them? What makes you think they choose them on merit?
      - LtWorf 2y ago
        It's the whole theological foundation of northern european and american protestantism = being rich means good loves you, so you're a good person. How they got there from jesus saying rich people can't go to heaven is one of those theological acrobacies they criticise so much in catholics, but don't disregard doing themselves when suits them.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    Democracy doesn’t entail having tons of minor roles being elected. That’s actually completely unique to the US, as far as I know. A lot of the positions that are elected in the US would be neutral civil servants in any other democratic country I can think of.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      > neutral civil servants Look I'm not saying we don't have these but the set of positions that are neutral is much smaller. Thanks to the political whipping boys de jour any position of power within academic or educational institutions has become politicized.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    It also ensures that many people, including people others don't like and dismiss, get a voice and some real power.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers. Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job. In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap. Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing". To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".
    - tobbe2064 2y ago
      Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method. What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?
      - bruce511 2y ago
        You're offering two choices which prove the point that electing is a poor way to fill a post. "popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought. I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above? The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x. Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    That's false. Everything comes down to good leadership. Monarchies with good leadership very well might have incredibly effective anti-corruption techniques and competency. China is managing a billion people and their infrastructure and tech is incredible. The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise. The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason. > effective, competent, just, or free of corruption. These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.
jltsiren 2y ago
I prefer the way it used to be in Finland (and still mostly is). Board members are elected by the people affiliated with the university. Votes might be split 4:3:3 or 5:4:4 between professors, other staff, and students. Some board positions are representatives of the three internal groups, while the rest are outsiders. You get all kinds of interesting people from business leaders to activists to former national presidents in the board, while avoiding politruks elected or appointed by random outsiders.