The rationale behind discrediting Liberal Arts

[Elok]

I'm looking forward to Asher or Kuci's account of the effect Shakespeare's changes from the original Plutarch version had on the story of Coriolanus.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who cares?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Please, why don't you tell me some more about how it's simply perception. I like hearing somebody who has no experience dealing with academic research budgets telling that to somebody who does.

Furthermore, at private universities why should that matter?

Are you stupid?

I'm not the one making the claim KH. If you say that science etc subsidize other departments the burden of proof is on you.

Anyway, you already think I'm stupid so why don't you explain it. Surely someone as brilliant as yourself can figure out clever ways to educate a dimwit like me about private university funding.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I suppose the line I filled out telling the University how much of our money we're going to give them for the privilege of being allowed to buy a computer is simply perception and not fact.

I suppose you have direct evidence that the money you give them is then redistributed to other departments.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144


I suppose you have direct evidence that the money you give them is then redistributed to other departments.

It is used to pay for infrastructure. Some of that infrastructure is used by all departments on campus, meaning that those departments with less grant money ride the coattails of those with more.

Not very complicated, son.

[KrazyHorse]

In the same way that public education or socialised medicine redistribute wealth in a population, overhead charges are used to redistribute wealth among departments...

[MRT144]

is it liberal arts fault they dont need grant money to do research? What would a liberal arts department need grants for? You're receiving funding equal to demand. This also seems to be more of indictment against the grant system, not liberal arts.

Also why arent you against other forms of educational subsidies? For instance are you in favor of subsidizing a plethora of sports while only football and basketball make the university money in most cases?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Elok
I'm looking forward to Asher or Kuci's account of the effect Shakespeare's changes from the original Plutarch version had on the story of Coriolanus.

Prime example of waste of money, right there.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MRT144
is it liberal arts fault they dont need grant money to do research?

What would a liberal arts department need grants for?

So they could actually pay graduate students, buy computers, travel to conferences etc?

You're receiving funding equal to demand. This also seems to be more of indictment against the grant system, not liberal arts.

WTF are you talking about? You're implicitly assuming that what they do is equal in value to what I do, thus any inequality is due to mistakes.

Also why arent you against other forms of educational subsidies? For instance are you in favor of subsidizing a plethora of sports while only football and basketball make the university money in most cases?

Neither football nor basketball make any money at any university I've attended.

[KrazyHorse]

Plus, I'm generally against major funding of any university sports teams.

Recreational and sports facilities are desirable to promote physical fitness, but there's no reason that playing a sport should be the major focus of anybody at a university.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by MRT144
is it liberal arts fault they dont need grant money to do research?

Sonny, I've got a rampaging horde of liberal arts PhD students and postdocs here demanding your head on a plate. With ketchup.

[KrazyHorse]

I really like it when somebody who has zero research experience tells me about the grant system or what grants are needed for...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

What would a liberal arts department need grants for?

So they could actually pay graduate students, buy computers, travel to conferences etc?

You're receiving funding equal to demand. This also seems to be more of indictment against the grant system, not liberal arts.

WTF are you talking about? You're implicitly assuming that what they do is equal in value to what I do, thus any inequality is due to mistakes.

Also why arent you against other forms of educational subsidies? For instance are you in favor of subsidizing a plethora of sports while only football and basketball make the university money in most cases?

Neither football nor basketball make any money at any university I've attended.

You have to apply for grants to disperse funds? Thats dumb. Why isn't there a general operation fund that is built into the budget and controlled by an impartial group of people that disperses funds based on their own evaluation.

And why arent they equal in value? Why is educating people in one subject more valuable in the perspective of an educational institution? If both are attracting students and money, then they appear equal. In this day and age universities seem more interested in keeping exceptional talent then creating it.

[KrazyHorse]

You have to apply for grants to disperse funds? Thats dumb. Why isn't there a general operation fund that is built into the budget and controlled by an impartial group of people that disperses funds based on their own evaluation.

Son, the university can't afford to pay each professor what he needs to do his job properly. Or at least they choose not to do so. Grants make up by far the largest piece of the pie being spent by science departments. Even by those doing research which involves little to no equipment (like me). Each professor gets an extremely limited travel budget IIRC, along with some other minor funding from the university, but it's not even close to enough to support a graduate student during the summertime, let alone during the year.

Grants are the bread and butter of academic research. Nothing gets done without them.

[KrazyHorse]

And why arent they equal in value? Why is educating people in one subject more valuable in the perspective of an educational institution? If both are attracting students and money, then they appear equal.

False premise.

In this day and age universities seem more interested in keeping exceptional talent then creating it.

What the **** are you talking about?