|
Post by vierra on Jun 22, 2004 15:00:46 GMT -5
I admit I only scanned some of the articles and posts. The only thing that sticks out in my mind is the allegation (fact?) that Dobelle hired many of his former friends and colleagues as contractors for various projects that were underway. I never liked the 'good ol' boys' network' type practices (you scratch my back, I scratch yours) and other similar self-serving behavior.
Like that damn Cheney guy.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Jun 22, 2004 15:03:34 GMT -5
Well, I learned the low-down on why Dobelle was fired. It was a "confidential" conversation with a confidential source, but I did learn that A) Dobelle's firing was legitimate, B) Dobelle KNEW for a year that he was going to be fired (was asked to step down), C) I would have fired him too if I was a regent.
I think supporting the native Hawaiian programs is one thing... well, the only thing, that he REALLY did... I haven't seen evidence of any great changes. I was at a university where a president came in, made a lot of changes immediately (after proposing them as Dobelle did in the first few months), but this president actually got the things going. Buildings constructed, enrollment increased, conference affiliations, etc. etc.
What I do find ironic though, is that a lot of the controversy was sparked by a volleyball match!! Dobelle invited the loser of the government vote to a volleyball match courtside which upset the lady that won (who did come to the banquet, by the way).
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 22, 2004 16:23:25 GMT -5
Well, I learned the low-down on why Dobelle was fired. It was a "confidential" conversation with a confidential source, but I did learn that A) Dobelle's firing was legitimate, B) Dobelle KNEW for a year that he was going to be fired (was asked to step down), C) I would have fired him too if I was a regent. I think supporting the native Hawaiian programs is one thing... well, the only thing, that he REALLY did... I haven't seen evidence of any great changes. I was at a university where a president came in, made a lot of changes immediately (after proposing them as Dobelle did in the first few months), but this president actually got the things going. Buildings constructed, enrollment increased, conference affiliations, etc. etc. What I do find ironic though, is that a lot of the controversy was sparked by a volleyball match!! Dobelle invited the loser of the government vote to a volleyball match courtside which upset the lady that won (who did come to the banquet, by the way). Wait a minute, did you even say what the content of your "confidential" conversation was? Or is this another of your attention-grabbing "I know something you don't know" tactic? Next time, either state what you know or don't post that you know something but you can't say cuz of some "obligation" you have to your fellow friends. Either state it or keep your trap shut! You're so sad... So sad... So pathetic...
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Jun 22, 2004 16:39:13 GMT -5
Wait a minute, did you even say what the content of your "confidential" conversation was? Or is this another of your attention-grabbing "I know something you don't know" tactic? Next time, either state what you know or don't post that you know something but you can't say cuz of some "obligation" you have to your fellow friends. Either state it or keep your trap shut! You're so sad... So sad... So pathetic... Why are you talking to me?
|
|
|
Post by kolohekeiki on Jun 22, 2004 19:52:39 GMT -5
Unless he was doing a poor job, in which case, you will benefit from a new person. For the most part, students don't understand how the president really benefits them, or doesn't. The things they focus on are generally minor in terms of the big picture of the president's job. The president can be the most popular man on campus with the students, but if he can't produce sufficient resources to operate the university effectively (which means more than putting teachers in classrooms, which is all the students really see), he is not doing his job well. Alternatively, why couldn't we say that he is wasting too many resources on athletics and not focusing on the educational mission of the university? I'm trying to figure out why you think a president more focused on athletics makes him better than one who isn't. I understand why the student athletes say that, but from a university perspective, it's not at all clear why it should be considered a good thing. Are you actually a student at the University? Because I am and I feel that he should still be there and there are lot of students and faculty that feel the same way. He has done a lot for the University since he has been in office such as construction on buildings, support of the athletic programs, and the enrollment at UH has increased a lot since he has been in office. I'm not saying that just because he is also concentrated on athletics that it makes him a better president than ones that aren't. I'm just saying that he is a well-rounded president that he doesn't only focus on academics or only athletics. He supports all parts of the University and that is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by kolohekeiki on Jun 22, 2004 19:56:21 GMT -5
Students don't have a clue about what is involved in running the university. Personally, I'd prefer to hear the opinions of the janitors and secretaries. They would be far more insightful. Maybe students don't have a clue about what is involved in running the university, but they are the ones getting the education and will be hurt by all of this and yes maybe I am being biased because of his support for the Hawaiian programs, but I'm not the only one that feels this way. And this isn't about you either so it doesn't matter who you would want to hear from, because the students are the ones that make up the university so they should have a say in whats going on.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 22, 2004 20:17:39 GMT -5
Why are you talking to me? I'm sorry, but was that a "yes" or a "no" ?
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jun 23, 2004 10:13:20 GMT -5
Are you actually a student at the University? Because I am and I feel that he should still be there and there are lot of students and faculty that feel the same way. I'll repeat my initial position: whereas the opinions of the faculty are mostly relevent, the views of the students on this matter, particularly the student athletes, are pretty much useless. Given that the students don't understand what the role of the president is actually about, and even if they do, are not in a position to be able to see how well he is living up to his responsibilities, they have little basis to contribute. More importantly, they generally have very little to compare to, so they don't know what the president can and can't do. This isn't a criticism, it is just the way it is. I am currently working for my third administration in 7 years. It took me a couple of years as faculty before I really had any clue about how university administration works, and what effect they can have. And I still have a lot to learn. This isn't to say that the students needs are not important. It is just that the students opinions are based on things that are for one thing evident to everyone, so they don't add a lot to the discussion. If the president is making moves that negatively affect the students, believe me it will be known throughout the system and will be addressed. Similarly, if the president is making moves that are good for students, the faculty will know it. However, if the president has cut the budget from 16 academic departments while funneling the money into some other special interest project, will the students notice? Usually not. Faculty notice, though, that they have to teach extra classes and they have to do it with few resources, and the department heads are trying to figure out what staff positions have to be eliminated. Instead of having daily janitorial service, it is only part time. Work that was done by secretaries is now done by faculty, cutting into their net productivity. Disgruntled faculty leave, requiring the university to search for replacement, costing massive resources. Now, this type of thing would be indicative of a university in shambles, and I'm not saying that this is happening at Hawaii. However, what I am saying is that it could happen and the students wouldn't have a clue that it was. When the president gets sacked, what would it say in the papers? Well, we'd probably hear from those benefited from the special interest project, telling us how the president seemed concerned about them. Care to justify that? Should all parts of the university be supported to the extent he supports them?
|
|
|
Post by 7thWoman on Jun 23, 2004 10:17:01 GMT -5
Maybe students don't have a clue about what is involved in running the university, but they are the ones getting the education and will be hurt by all of this and yes maybe I am being biased because of his support for the Hawaiian programs, but I'm not the only one that feels this way. And this isn't about you either so it doesn't matter who you would want to hear from, because the students are the ones that make up the university so they should have a say in whats going on. I think you're missing Pablo's point. It's not about what should be, it's about what is. Students just aren't very important to Regents. Regents do not place a great deal of importance on what the students think because they have no reason to listen to the students. It's the faculty they have to keep happy. And if UH is anything like the UC system, they have to impress the governor and the tax payers as well so they get a budget they can work with.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jun 23, 2004 10:31:43 GMT -5
Maybe students don't have a clue about what is involved in running the university, but they are the ones getting the education and will be hurt by all of this Here's the problem: doing a poor job of running the university is going to hurt the students in ways they are not aware of. See what I wrote above. Ultimately the faculty are going to support things that ultimately help the students. However, they realize the issue is more than just enrollment numbers and unpaid for bulidings. But lets look at one of your claims: one of the good things the president did was to increase enrollment. Now tell me, did he increase the resources available to teach those students? Are there more faculty available to teach the extra sessions? Has the graduate enrollment increased to match the TA needs to run the extra chemistry labs? Have funds been provided to create more teaching lab space needed to handle the students? Is there dorm space available, or are the students piling up in small dorm rooms? What are the cafeterias doing to accomodate the extra students? What arrangements have the university made with the local government to regulate the growth of rental units in family neighborhoods? These are the types of things that arise when enrollment grows. Ask those people involved what they think about the growth. They may say, "Yeah, it's been great we've been allowed to do what we need to do to handle it." Or it may be, "They expect us to do more but cut the budget that we use to do it." I don't know the answers, but then, I doubt you know it, either. Thus, we don't really know if the growth has been good.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jun 23, 2004 10:41:10 GMT -5
I think you're missing Pablo's point. It's not about what should be, it's about what is. Students just aren't very important to Regents. Regents do not place a great deal of importance on what the students think because they have no reason to listen to the students. It's the faculty they have to keep happy. However, I should note that the students are not immaterial, it's just that keeping the faculty happy also helps the students. And I do say it is what it should be. The president is basically the CEO. A CEO who mismanages funds and has terrible employee relationships is bad, regardless of what the customers think of him or her. The president serves the faculty. The faculty serve the students.
|
|
|
Post by 7thWoman on Jun 23, 2004 12:36:13 GMT -5
However, I should note that the students are not immaterial, it's just that keeping the faculty happy also helps the students. I think it depends. Some faculty concern themselves over what's best for students, others (too many I think) are only concerned with their own prestige and paycheck. I remember a year or two ago, one of the UC Regents was called upon to resign by some group of students. The details of the situation escape me, but I do remember that it was clear from his comments how important the opinions of students were to him. He basically laughed at them and told them to go play somewhere else. It pissed off a lot of students, but that didn't matter. It never does. I think the students are pretty immaterial. It's not like they're going to stop paying their enrollment fees. They need a college degree because everyone else has one. They have nowhere else to go because they're already paying the smallest tuition possible by going to a public univeristy in their state. They have no bargaining power. They're pretty much at the mercy of the Regents. Their only hope is for government officials to put pressure on the Regents, but that is hard to do. They can, and do, try lawsuits when the occasion calls for it, but that always ends in a settlement where the univeristy just buys them out to quiet them. I found out the hard way that what was best for me as a student was to learn on my own and not depend on faculty to teach me anything. Play the game, get through it, move on, and bitch about how much it cost me.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jun 23, 2004 13:16:06 GMT -5
I think it depends. Some faculty concern themselves over what's best for students, others (too many I think) are only concerned with their own prestige and paycheck. These are not orthagonal issues by any means. Having highly prestigious faculty is better for the university and ultimately better for the students. It's not the name UC-Berkeley that makes it a great school. It's the faculty. Because the faculty are prestigious, the students who go there get to say they learned from prestigious teachers. BTW, I have never met a single university faculty member who really cared much about their salary UNLESS it is aggregiously insulting. At some point, you have to say "Come on..." (I have a friend who was teaching at an institution at the same salary for 4 years despite: a) Having been the most successful assistant professor in their department's history in securing external research funding b) Having nearly the most publications of any assistant professor in their first 4 years c) Having among the highest teaching evaluations of all faculty in the department (at a school where they matter) d) Having two younger colleagues making more than he was because they were hired during a time of salary inflation due to intense competition He is the ONLY person I have ever met who has ever complained about his salary, and with darn good reason. I have also known many a faculty to accept positions at significantly lower salaries ($15 - 20K/year!) in order to take advantage of infrastructure and research opportunities. This is in addition to fact that most science faculty could be making a shirtload more money in industry if they wanted. Basically, most faculty recognize that they make enough money to live comfortably, so there isn't a lot to complaing about. No one is in this business to get rich.)
|
|
|
Post by 7thWoman on Jun 23, 2004 14:35:11 GMT -5
These are not orthagonal issues by any means. Having highly prestigious faculty is better for the university and ultimately better for the students. That depends. If the students' goals are truly academic in nature that could very well be the case. Most undergrads are in it just for the piece of paper. What they study in their classes is irrelevant and they benefit very little from the prestige of their lecturers. Again, it depends. Saying you learned under the tutelage of prestigous faculty can sometimes help you succeed, but the name of the school can be just as important. You don't really believe there's never been a job interview candidate that got the job because his boss looked at his resume and said, "Hey, he went to Cal too. Go Bears!" do you? People are shallow. Generally, professors salaries are very small, especially considering the money a lot of them had to borrow to get through their PhD program. But the good ones always get offers from competing institutions and I know for a fact that the Univeristy of California puts together retention fund packages for some of these faculty (depending on what they can do with the current budget of course) and allows for certain bending of the rules where they can pay off their home loans and such. I consider that part of the paycheck. I've also seen Faculty in administrative positions abuse their power to further their own research projects at the expense of the department/division/college/univeristy to which they are appointed. It's not everbody, but it does happen. Everybody is greedy.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jun 23, 2004 15:19:50 GMT -5
That depends. If the students' goals are truly academic in nature that could very well be the case. Most undergrads are in it just for the piece of paper. What they study in their classes is irrelevant and they benefit very little from the prestige of their lecturers. But the prestige of the name of the school on that piece of paper_does_ depend on the prestige of the lecturers. And if you have a degree from Cal-Berkeley, you have far more opportunities available to you than if the name is Texas Tech. The difference in the prestige between Cal-Berkeley and Texas Tech is not due to the difference in their locations. It is because of the difference in their faculty. Of course that happens. However, how many jobs out there are decided based on alumni connections? Moreover, those hires are still made on the basis of the perceived prestige. In the same way, has there never been an interview candidate who didn't get his job because his boss looked at the resume and said, "Reno? My cousin went to Reno and majored in Roulette. What a joke?" It's still an issue of prestige, or at least perceived prestige. They also usually include extensive other resources, such as direct research funding, equipment, and even infrastructural kickbacks. But so what? That faculty are rewarded for being good, and take advantage of that situation is a far cry from only being concerned with their paycheck, which was your original claim. I assert that they get the big paycheck because they are good, and they don't strive to be good in order to get a big paycheck. Prestige is one thing. Paycheck is another. If we cared that much about a paycheck, we wouldn't be here.
|
|