ADVERTISEMENT

New U of Iowa President

Anyone that cares about the athletics departments should. Repeats of Sally Mason or Gunther Rawlings are not good for sports. Rawlings made it clear in his time that he didn't care if sports just went away at Iowa.

Hunter Rawlings proposed to make freshman at Iowa ineligible to compete. The damage to the athletic department would have been likely irreversible. I was so relieved when he left. An academic who had no clue (or worse yet just didn't care) that the athletic department is essentially the marketing wing for the university. We need a university president that understands that and embraces college athletics.
 
The "outrage" was fully justified by a less than transparent hire of a man with virtually no serious qualifications for serving as president of a world class academic institution. Better qualified candidates were passed over because the the Regent president at the time had a hard on for Harreld.

Harreld is a nice guy, by all accounts, just largely unqualified by virtue of having zero experience in matters related to the job he was hired to do. Even by corporate business standards his qualifications were minimal, having never been a CEO. He knew this upon arrival, receiving a President's salary while undergoing months of on the job training. Leading a complex organization like a major liberal arts university is not and should never be the same thing as a "business" making widgets for profit. Missions differ dramatically.

To illustrate the point, should the athletic department hire a successful sporting goods store manager to coach the Hawkeye football team? Good business manager, right? Apples and oranges do not usually a good mix make.

Harreld apparently did well in the likeability realm but never distinguished himself in the leadership sense. Iowans deserve better in the next hire. Time will tell.
The outrage was quickly hushed as Bruce did a respectable job. Did the UofI get better or worse under his guidance? Bruce knew how to make things happen, he is\was able to see big pictures and get to end result by being open minded and inclusive. To your "hiring a store manager..." If all you ever do is invite the same people to the same meetings and ask the same questions, you will never get different answers. The panel brought 4 finalists, if you are upset with their hire - replace the panel (regents). He was far from a store manager (see below for what he had done). Would you consider Elon Musk a successful business man?

PEople were up in arms because he wasn't "one of them" being hired. Harreld participated on consulting teams at Boston Consulting Group and aided in opening additional offices in Chicago and Munich, eventually serving as vice president and board member until 1983. He then worked as senior vice president and division president at Kraft Foods until 1993, overseeing the frozen food unit.

From 1993 to 1994, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Northwestern University. He was also president and board member at Boston Market from 1993 to 1995, a time of massive expansion for the company. Harreld later served as senior vice president at IBM from 1995 to 2008, overseeing strategic restructuring of the organization. From 2008 to 2014, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Harvard Business School in both the entrepreneurial and strategy units.

"Under his leadership, the university has seen significant increases in research grants, increased graduation rates, implemented an open and transparent budgeting process, and added new health care and academic facilities," according to a Thursday statement from the university.

I get it - he wasn't an "academia snob" so "off with his head!" I am sure the next one they hire will fit more of the liberal (coddling) mind. But be careful as the "gender-neutral" crowd continues their squeaking of the wheel they will negatively impact people. Kamala Harris is no longer the first "woman" VP, with gender neutral taking the stage, Kamala is just "another" VP. The first girl to get Eagle Scout is no longer the first, they are just "another" Eagle Scout... oh the web that is being weaved...

I understand liberal institutions only want like-minded people to be "included" (which is directly opposite of their mantra for "inclusion and diversity"). Seems one group is open minded as long as everyone is of the same mindset and opinions are the same. Welcome to 2021, a real life "Stranger Things" where up is down, right is wrong, evil is good, the sky is green, the grass is blue, a guy is a girl, a girl is a guy, and equality tips the scales.
 
Last edited:
Tuition, like all prices, is determined by supply and demand. When government increases dollars available for students in the form of grants, scholarships, access to loans, the demand is increased. The natural consequence of increasing demand is that price increases. Forgiving student debt would have the same impact. Tuition levels are not the fault of colleges and universities, they are the fault of politicians who want to curry favor with young voters.

So how do we reduce tuition? Increase supply. Enlarge existing schools, build new ones, increase the numbers of faculty members. This was actually done at the end of World War II, so I know that the politicians know how to do it.

On another subject, I think it would improve the health of universities in general if it were a rule that no one who has served on a faculty of a college or university could be eligible to be a college or university president. That would immediately make the position apolitical. No one on any faculty would ever be jealous of someone who serves as university president. The required qualifications should be executive and management experience. In the cases of Iowa and Iowa State, there should be a side requirement. A candidate for the president of The University of Iowa should understand and appreciate the athletic tradition of the school. To be successful, a candidate for president of Iowa State Agricultural College and Model Farm should feel strongly that athletics have no place in a university setting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoSwampDonkeys
Agreed. They were all pissed off that the U of I didn't hire another one of their academic type cronies instead of a businessman like Harrold. I wouldn't mind seeing the same thing happen again.
They were mad because they gave the illusion of consulting staff and the community and then went with the guy who no one in the community wanted. There were numerous very well qualified candidates including a Provost from I believe Ohio State. And they hired a guy with no knowledge of the inner workings of a large public university.

But yeah, they were mad another “academic crony” wasn’t hired if you wanna boil it down and completely ignore context.
 
They were mad because they gave the illusion of consulting staff and the community and then went with the guy who no one in the community wanted. There were numerous very well qualified candidates including a Provost from I believe Ohio State. And they hired a guy with no knowledge of the inner workings of a large public university.

But yeah, they were mad another “academic crony” wasn’t hired if you wanna boil it down and completely ignore context.

Hmmm they consulted staff. I wonder who they wanted? The academic or the outsider? As for the community who gives an F what the community wants. Lot of people in the IC area have nothing to do with the University. Minus maybe 1% of the community is smart enough to do the research and know the qualifications of the candidates anyways minus reading the persons work history. As for the provost of OSU I'm sure he and the others were all qualified to do the job, including Harreld who has proven it as well. As another poster put down his resume and it's not like he never worked for a university and come in blind with no knowledge of how things work. But yes from living in the area I remember watching TV, reading the papers and seeing a bunch of professors whining and crying on who they appointed and shock one of the reasons why is they didn't go the traditional route and hire an academic and went outside the box and had someone come in to run it like a business.
 
Hunter Rawlings proposed to make freshman at Iowa ineligible to compete. The damage to the athletic department would have been likely irreversible. I was so relieved when he left. An academic who had no clue (or worse yet just didn't care) that the athletic department is essentially the marketing wing for the university. We need a university president that understands that and embraces college athletics.
I've always said there are 3 types of University presidents. The ones who sees athletics as the best marketing tool,the ones who believes stay out of my way I'll stay out of yours and the ones who detest athletics. The University of Iowa needs one of the first two.
 
Hunter Rawlings proposed to make freshman at Iowa ineligible to compete. The damage to the athletic department would have been likely irreversible. I was so relieved when he left. An academic who had no clue (or worse yet just didn't care) that the athletic department is essentially the marketing wing for the university. We need a university president that understands that and embraces college athletics.

This! He was absolutely horrible in regards to anything with the athletics department and this move would have been the worst of them all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amahawk
Not the worst, he also wanted to have the university mirror the entrance requirements of the Ivy League with no deviation for athletes. It would have killed athletics within the Big Ten and it was pretty close to happening as I know our coaches were very concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoSwampDonkeys
Most of the outrage was born out of his shady hiring. I think as for as overall for the University he has been a B. His biggest mistake on the athletic side of things was keeping Barta. He could have been fired for cause and probably should have been.

lol, seems reasonable given the current status of the athletic department.

are we financial stable and good in sports? Yes? You are fired!!
 
Hmmm they consulted staff. I wonder who they wanted? The academic or the outsider? As for the community who gives an F what the community wants. Lot of people in the IC area have nothing to do with the University. Minus maybe 1% of the community is smart enough to do the research and know the qualifications of the candidates anyways minus reading the persons work history. As for the provost of OSU I'm sure he and the others were all qualified to do the job, including Harreld who has proven it as well. As another poster put down his resume and it's not like he never worked for a university and come in blind with no knowledge of how things work. But yes from living in the area I remember watching TV, reading the papers and seeing a bunch of professors whining and crying on who they appointed and shock one of the reasons why is they didn't go the traditional route and hire an academic and went outside the box and had someone come in to run it like a business.
I’m not saying he was bad hire, and I’m not saying he was good hire. But he was very poorly viewed by a lot of people while the interview process was going on. If you aren’t going to seriously consider other peoples’ opinions don’t pretend like you will, that’s all I’m saying plus you grossly misrepresented the situation with previous post. I think afterwards he largely showed he was adequate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not_mantiteo
The outrage was quickly hushed as Bruce did a respectable job. Did the UofI get better or worse under his guidance? Bruce knew how to make things happen, he is\was able to see big pictures and get to end result by being open minded and inclusive. To your "hiring a store manager..." If all you ever do is invite the same people to the same meetings and ask the same questions, you will never get different answers. The panel brought 4 finalists, if you are upset with their hire - replace the panel (regents). He was far from a store manager (see below for what he had done). Would you consider Elon Musk a successful business man?

PEople were up in arms because he wasn't "one of them" being hired. Harreld participated on consulting teams at Boston Consulting Group and aided in opening additional offices in Chicago and Munich, eventually serving as vice president and board member until 1983. He then worked as senior vice president and division president at Kraft Foods until 1993, overseeing the frozen food unit.

From 1993 to 1994, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Northwestern University. He was also president and board member at Boston Market from 1993 to 1995, a time of massive expansion for the company. Harreld later served as senior vice president at IBM from 1995 to 2008, overseeing strategic restructuring of the organization. From 2008 to 2014, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Harvard Business School in both the entrepreneurial and strategy units.

"Under his leadership, the university has seen significant increases in research grants, increased graduation rates, implemented an open and transparent budgeting process, and added new health care and academic facilities," according to a Thursday statement from the university.

I get it - he wasn't an "academia snob" so "off with his head!" I am sure the next one they hire will fit more of the liberal (coddling) mind. But be careful as the "gender-neutral" crowd continues their squeaking of the wheel they will negatively impact people. Kamala Harris is no longer the first "woman" VP, with gender neutral taking the stage, Kamala is just "another" VP. The first girl to get Eagle Scout is no longer the first, they are just "another" Eagle Scout... oh the web that is being weaved...

I understand liberal institutions only want like-minded people to be "included" (which is directly opposite of their mantra for "inclusion and diversity"). Seems one group is open minded as long as everyone is of the same mindset and opinions are the same. Welcome to 2021, a real life "Stranger Things" where up is down, right is wrong, evil is good, the sky is green, the grass is blue, a guy is a girl, a girl is a guy, and equality tips the scales.

Great post!
 
Tuition, like all prices, is determined by supply and demand. When government increases dollars available for students in the form of grants, scholarships, access to loans, the demand is increased. The natural consequence of increasing demand is that price increases. Forgiving student debt would have the same impact. Tuition levels are not the fault of colleges and universities, they are the fault of politicians who want to curry favor with young voters.

So how do we reduce tuition? Increase supply. Enlarge existing schools, build new ones, increase the numbers of faculty members. This was actually done at the end of World War II, so I know that the politicians know how to do it.

On another subject, I think it would improve the health of universities in general if it were a rule that no one who has served on a faculty of a college or university could be eligible to be a college or university president. That would immediately make the position apolitical. No one on any faculty would ever be jealous of someone who serves as university president. The required qualifications should be executive and management experience. In the cases of Iowa and Iowa State, there should be a side requirement. A candidate for the president of The University of Iowa should understand and appreciate the athletic tradition of the school. To be successful, a candidate for president of Iowa State Agricultural College and Model Farm should feel strongly that athletics have no place in a university setting.


In the normal "prices increase because demand is higher than supply" situation, the root driver is that sellers charge more because they can, not because they need more to provide the product. So, are you saying that universities (specifically Iowa) charged more because they can? That's not the story they sold every time the tuition went it. It was always that they couldn't balance the budget with what they had, they needed more, more, more. Where is all the money going? Have salaries kept pace with the rate of increase in tuition? If so, I want one of those jobs as they've far outstripped inflation. Other costs should have kept pace with inflation...so where is all the money going that they're getting for tuition? Is the university making proportionally more profit now than they were?

If it's just more students, expenses should grow proportionally to the increase in students (though the number of students hasn't risen dramatically over the last 40 years...certainly not in proportion to the tuition increase).

Can you explain the mechanics a bit more here?
 
In the normal "prices increase because demand is higher than supply" situation, the root driver is that sellers charge more because they can, not because they need more to provide the product. So, are you saying that universities (specifically Iowa) charged more because they can? That's not the story they sold every time the tuition went it. It was always that they couldn't balance the budget with what they had, they needed more, more, more. Where is all the money going? Have salaries kept pace with the rate of increase in tuition? If so, I want one of those jobs as they've far outstripped inflation. Other costs should have kept pace with inflation...so where is all the money going that they're getting for tuition? Is the university making proportionally more profit now than they were?

If it's just more students, expenses should grow proportionally to the increase in students (though the number of students hasn't risen dramatically over the last 40 years...certainly not in proportion to the tuition increase).

Can you explain the mechanics a bit more here?
I teach economics so, yes, I can explain the mechanics a bit more. But there is not room or time here. I am not saying that colleges charge more because they can. I am saying that price is "discovered" by the interaction of functions, or schedules, called demand and supply curves. Suffice it to say that, unless we live in a country where government sets prices (these systems have always failed, by the way), the only ways to reduce prices are (1) reduce demand (meaning that the demand curve shifts to the left) and (2) increase supply (meaning that the supply curve shifts to the right).

If you like, I can refer you to a text that can explain it to you.
 
I teach economics so, yes, I can explain the mechanics a bit more. But there is not room or time here. I am not saying that colleges charge more because they can. I am saying that price is "discovered" by the interaction of functions, or schedules, called demand and supply curves. Suffice it to say that, unless we live in a country where government sets prices (these systems have always failed, by the way), the only ways to reduce prices are (1) reduce demand (meaning that the demand curve shifts to the left) and (2) increase supply (meaning that the supply curve shifts to the right).

If you like, I can refer you to a text that can explain it to you.

Your working knowledge of economics is correct but it does not take into account the declined birth rate from 2007-10. Assuming general jumps in enrollment beginning in 2025 ain’t gonna happen.
 
Tuition, like all prices, is determined by supply and demand. When government increases dollars available for students in the form of grants, scholarships, access to loans, the demand is increased. The natural consequence of increasing demand is that price increases. Forgiving student debt would have the same impact. Tuition levels are not the fault of colleges and universities, they are the fault of politicians who want to curry favor with young voters.

So how do we reduce tuition? Increase supply. Enlarge existing schools, build new ones, increase the numbers of faculty members. This was actually done at the end of World War II, so I know that the politicians know how to do it.

On another subject, I think it would improve the health of universities in general if it were a rule that no one who has served on a faculty of a college or university could be eligible to be a college or university president. That would immediately make the position apolitical. No one on any faculty would ever be jealous of someone who serves as university president. The required qualifications should be executive and management experience. In the cases of Iowa and Iowa State, there should be a side requirement. A candidate for the president of The University of Iowa should understand and appreciate the athletic tradition of the school. To be successful, a candidate for president of Iowa State Agricultural College and Model Farm should feel strongly that athletics have no place in a university setting.

I'm with you until the second paragraph. We should reduce tuition by decreasing demand, not increasing supply. We have way too many kids going to college who would be much better served by pursuing trades or other vocations. But they are falsely advised that college is their best option and that route is made attractive with the availability of government loans. Many later discover that they
have accumulated debt, but not increased their economic prospects because they were unmotivated to apply themselves, ill equipped academically, and/or pursued a course of study with little economic impact and which the school only increased it's cost by even offering.

As is the case in so many areas, government involvement results in distorted supply/demand curves
that give a false impression.
 
I teach economics so, yes, I can explain the mechanics a bit more. But there is not room or time here. I am not saying that colleges charge more because they can. I am saying that price is "discovered" by the interaction of functions, or schedules, called demand and supply curves. Suffice it to say that, unless we live in a country where government sets prices (these systems have always failed, by the way), the only ways to reduce prices are (1) reduce demand (meaning that the demand curve shifts to the left) and (2) increase supply (meaning that the supply curve shifts to the right).

If you like, I can refer you to a text that can explain it to you.

I understand supply and demand....it was 40 years ago, but I took micro and macro. I just want to know where the additional revenue is going. There really isn't anything else that's inflated at that rate, so I wouldn't expect costs to have climbed at that rate, so where is the extra revenue? Profit? Costs (where)? Waste?

More students? Not a significant increase in student population and that
 
I understand supply and demand....it was 40 years ago, but I took micro and macro. I just want to know where the additional revenue is going. There really isn't anything else that's inflated at that rate, so I wouldn't expect costs to have climbed at that rate, so where is the extra revenue? Profit? Costs (where)? Waste?

More students? Not a significant increase in student population and that
My previous reply to your question was not very intelligent and I apologize for that. Text books have increased in price like tuition. You are probably better off going to YouTube and searching for "supply and demand".

Since you already know that stuff, what you may not know is that student population has increased rapidly from less than 6 million in 1965 to about 20 million in 2010. It has remained pretty constant since 2010 but education prices had risen faster than the rate of inflation by then. You understand supply curves so you know that at higher levels of output, producers require higher prices. There may be waste but as long as there is competition among universities for students, those with the least waste should be able to out-compete the wasteful schools.

I agree with posters above that, as a society, we have made it seem that a college education is worth more than it may actually be worth - and that is particularly true for some majors. On the other hand, it is still true that there is a strong positive correlation between number of years of education and annual income. I think we need to be counseling high school students to consider the cost of education (all types) after public school and the benefits of those courses of training so that they can make informed decisions about their futures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wadukester
I understand supply and demand....it was 40 years ago, but I took micro and macro. I just want to know where the additional revenue is going. There really isn't anything else that's inflated at that rate, so I wouldn't expect costs to have climbed at that rate, so where is the extra revenue? Profit? Costs (where)? Waste?

More students? Not a significant increase in student population and that
You should check out the rate of inflation in health care. That is not easy because the state of medicine has grown so fast, but health care has risen in price much faster that the rate of inflation. And we (the USA) over-consume health care. We spend something like 17% of our considerable GDP on health care while the European countries spend a little more than half of that on theirs (not the same quality that we enjoy) and Singapore (with per capita income about the same as ours) spends 4% of its GDP for world-class healthcare.
 
You should check out the rate of inflation in health care. That is not easy because the state of medicine has grown so fast, but health care has risen in price much faster that the rate of inflation. And we (the USA) over-consume health care. We spend something like 17% of our considerable GDP on health care while the European countries spend a little more than half of that on theirs (not the same quality that we enjoy) and Singapore (with per capita income about the same as ours) spends 4% of its GDP for world-class healthcare.
That may be true...but not really tied to the cost of medicine. Also, health care had improved considerably over the last 50 years.
 
My previous reply to your question was not very intelligent and I apologize for that. Text books have increased in price like tuition. You are probably better off going to YouTube and searching for "supply and demand".

Since you already know that stuff, what you may not know is that student population has increased rapidly from less than 6 million in 1965 to about 20 million in 2010. It has remained pretty constant since 2010 but education prices had risen faster than the rate of inflation by then. You understand supply curves so you know that at higher levels of output, producers require higher prices. There may be waste but as long as there is competition among universities for students, those with the least waste should be able to out-compete the wasteful schools.

I agree with posters above that, as a society, we have made it seem that a college education is worth more than it may actually be worth - and that is particularly true for some majors. On the other hand, it is still true that there is a strong positive correlation between number of years of education and annual income. I think we need to be counseling high school students to consider the cost of education (all types) after public school and the benefits of those courses of training so that they can make informed decisions about their futures.
Economies of scale. Also, according to Forbes, average tuition in 1965 was $450, today it's $12500. The increase in student population isn't anywhere close to the increase in tuition.

We are definitely devaluing a college degree. Today, you need a degree to be a paraeducator...a job that pays less then $15000/year. Why? Because so many job seekers have one that they can.

A college degree is a product that has become stupidly expensive while simultaneously dropping in value. So far I have not seen a reasonable justification for the rate of increase in tuition.
 
Economies of scale. Also, according to Forbes, average tuition in 1965 was $450, today it's $12500. The increase in student population isn't anywhere close to the increase in tuition.

We are definitely devaluing a college degree. Today, you need a degree to be a paraeducator...a job that pays less then $15000/year. Why? Because so many job seekers have one that they can.

A college degree is a product that has become stupidly expensive while simultaneously dropping in value. So far I have not seen a reasonable justification for the rate of increase in tuition.
I don't know about that totally. My wife is a para at the middle school and she has two years of college but no degree. Right now their using full time subs that don't have degrees because they are so short of teachers in the system. As a para professional she makes about 25K/year with benefits in Missouri but she has been there for 25 years so.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoSwampDonkeys
I don't know about that totally. My wife is a para at the middle school and she has two years of college but no degree. Right now their using full time subs that don't have degrees because they are so short of teachers in the system. As a para professional she makes about 25K/year with benefits in Missouri but she has been there for 25 years so.....

My wife was a para in IC for 12 years. She was making $15k. She does not have a college degree and could not get that job today but was hired before they added that requirement. She was only working 30 hrs/wk but her school did not have any full time Para jobs.
 
My wife was a para in IC for 12 years. She was making $15k. She does not have a college degree and could not get that job today but was hired before they added that requirement. She was only working 30 hrs/wk but her school did not have any full time Para jobs.
Wow thats interesting because there is no degree required in Missouri or Kansas for a para or for a sub for that matter. During the covid outbreak they were openly searching for sub help in both Missouri and Kansas schools because they were so short on teachers. My wife works about 34 hours and as "part time" never had benefits until the affordable care act. At that time the Missouri teachers Assoc decided to pick up all the paras and give them insurance. That was huge for us as I was self employed at the time, and mine had gone from about $400/mon in 2004 to cover the two of us to over $1600/mon in 2015. Literally saved us about $1200 a month! My wife was considering retiring but I talked her into staying on basically because of the insurance until she is up for medicare in a couple more years. Between her salary and the insurance difference it nets us about $40,000 per year she stays on.
 
Tuition, like all prices, is determined by supply and demand. When government increases dollars available for students in the form of grants, scholarships, access to loans, the demand is increased. The natural consequence of increasing demand is that price increases. Forgiving student debt would have the same impact. Tuition levels are not the fault of colleges and universities, they are the fault of politicians who want to curry favor with young voters.

So how do we reduce tuition? Increase supply. Enlarge existing schools, build new ones, increase the numbers of faculty members. This was actually done at the end of World War II, so I know that the politicians know how to do it.

On another subject, I think it would improve the health of universities in general if it were a rule that no one who has served on a faculty of a college or university could be eligible to be a college or university president. That would immediately make the position apolitical. No one on any faculty would ever be jealous of someone who serves as university president. The required qualifications should be executive and management experience. In the cases of Iowa and Iowa State, there should be a side requirement. A candidate for the president of The University of Iowa should understand and appreciate the athletic tradition of the school. To be successful, a candidate for president of Iowa State Agricultural College and Model Farm should feel strongly that athletics have no place in a university setting.
Increasing supply isn't going to happen. At this time there is a consolidation going on at the University/College level. Smaller colleges, many reasonably priced have and will continue to disappear as there just aren't enough students available to keep them open. The only way to reduce tuition in this environment is to reduce the flow or the amount of government supported funds available to students.
If the government continues to increase grants and aide the larger state schools and a handful of "Reputation" colleges and Universities will continue to flourish with higher tuition, fees, and room and board.
FYI . From 2014 to 2019 more than 20 schools of higher learning closed, and prior to the Pandemic in 2019 over 500 schools showed signs of financial stress. The big name and state Schools aren't feeling the pinch because they tend to be the first choice schools for many students and will continue to be. After all having grown up in Cedar Rapids and attended Parochial schools through High School I can assure you that there were far more students that applied to Iowa as opposed to Mt Mercy or Loras,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2bagger22
The outrage was quickly hushed as Bruce did a respectable job. Did the UofI get better or worse under his guidance? Bruce knew how to make things happen, he is\was able to see big pictures and get to end result by being open minded and inclusive. To your "hiring a store manager..." If all you ever do is invite the same people to the same meetings and ask the same questions, you will never get different answers. The panel brought 4 finalists, if you are upset with their hire - replace the panel (regents). He was far from a store manager (see below for what he had done). Would you consider Elon Musk a successful business man?

PEople were up in arms because he wasn't "one of them" being hired. Harreld participated on consulting teams at Boston Consulting Group and aided in opening additional offices in Chicago and Munich, eventually serving as vice president and board member until 1983. He then worked as senior vice president and division president at Kraft Foods until 1993, overseeing the frozen food unit.

From 1993 to 1994, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Northwestern University. He was also president and board member at Boston Market from 1993 to 1995, a time of massive expansion for the company. Harreld later served as senior vice president at IBM from 1995 to 2008, overseeing strategic restructuring of the organization. From 2008 to 2014, Harreld was an adjunct professor at Harvard Business School in both the entrepreneurial and strategy units.

"Under his leadership, the university has seen significant increases in research grants, increased graduation rates, implemented an open and transparent budgeting process, and added new health care and academic facilities," according to a Thursday statement from the university.

I get it - he wasn't an "academia snob" so "off with his head!" I am sure the next one they hire will fit more of the liberal (coddling) mind. But be careful as the "gender-neutral" crowd continues their squeaking of the wheel they will negatively impact people. Kamala Harris is no longer the first "woman" VP, with gender neutral taking the stage, Kamala is just "another" VP. The first girl to get Eagle Scout is no longer the first, they are just "another" Eagle Scout... oh the web that is being weaved...

I understand liberal institutions only want like-minded people to be "included" (which is directly opposite of their mantra for "inclusion and diversity"). Seems one group is open minded as long as everyone is of the same mindset and opinions are the same. Welcome to 2021, a real life "Stranger Things" where up is down, right is wrong, evil is good, the sky is green, the grass is blue, a guy is a girl, a girl is a guy, and equality tips the scales.

You made some good points about Harreld's background but lost me with your off-kilter screed about "like-mindedness" (you have obviously never been around the inner workings of a university, where there are as many opinions as there are faculty members) and hiring "academia snobs" (as opposed to, what, corporate snobs?) and the bizarre Girl Scout rant et al. A little too much right-wing talk radio perhaps?

In any event, we can agree to disagree on the merits of Harreld's qualifications for the job he was handed by virtue of favoritism vs. fitness. No one is dismissing his experience with Kraft Foods, etc. but that's exactly the point about hiring a successful sporting goods store manager to run the Hawkeye football program. I'm just guessing but I'll bet dollars to donuts there'd be more than a little outrage (me included!) if the Regents insisted that Ferentz's successor be the hand-selected manager of Scheels.
 
You made some good points about Harreld's background but lost me with your off-kilter screed about "like-mindedness" (you have obviously never been around the inner workings of a university, where there are as many opinions as there are faculty members) and hiring "academia snobs" (as opposed to, what, corporate snobs?) and the bizarre Girl Scout rant et al. A little too much right-wing talk radio perhaps?
You are way off base when denying the like-mindedness at Universities. Here at AZ State U, I forget the department - something like psychology or sociology - something like 93 out of 97 professors were registered Democrats. How much more like-minded do you want!!!
 
You made some good points about Harreld's background but lost me with your off-kilter screed about "like-mindedness" (you have obviously never been around the inner workings of a university, where there are as many opinions as there are faculty members) and hiring "academia snobs" (as opposed to, what, corporate snobs?) and the bizarre Girl Scout rant et al. A little too much right-wing talk radio perhaps?

In any event, we can agree to disagree on the merits of Harreld's qualifications for the job he was handed by virtue of favoritism vs. fitness. No one is dismissing his experience with Kraft Foods, etc. but that's exactly the point about hiring a successful sporting goods store manager to run the Hawkeye football program. I'm just guessing but I'll bet dollars to donuts there'd be more than a little outrage (me included!) if the Regents insisted that Ferentz's successor be the hand-selected manager of Scheels.
To not recognize the "group think" and lack of intellectual diversity among academics /faculty members across the country, you must be one, or trying to defend one. The condition is widely acknowledged and frankly outrageous , since they not only conform like sheep, but insist that students and others do the same.
 
Sure it is when government got involved in the whole thing. You get a loan, and you get a loan and you get a loan.

Correct. Student loans currently are largely subsidies for a fun lifestyles while pursuing a worthless course of study.

Those loans should be drastically reduced and not only provided on a need-based basis, but also restricted to matching work-study and/or part time employment earnings. That would reduce tax-payer costs, weed out non-committed students, and force schools to manage themselves better with reduced enrollments.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: David1979
To not recognize the "group think" and lack of intellectual diversity among academics /faculty members across the country, you must be one, or trying to defend one. The condition is widely acknowledged and frankly outrageous , since they not only conform like sheep, but insist that students and others do the same.
You are an idiot.
 
You made some good points about Harreld's background but lost me with your off-kilter screed about "like-mindedness" (you have obviously never been around the inner workings of a university, where there are as many opinions as there are faculty members) and hiring "academia snobs" (as opposed to, what, corporate snobs?) and the bizarre Girl Scout rant et al. A little too much right-wing talk radio perhaps?

In any event, we can agree to disagree on the merits of Harreld's qualifications for the job he was handed by virtue of favoritism vs. fitness. No one is dismissing his experience with Kraft Foods, etc. but that's exactly the point about hiring a successful sporting goods store manager to run the Hawkeye football program. I'm just guessing but I'll bet dollars to donuts there'd be more than a little outrage (me included!) if the Regents insisted that Ferentz's successor be the hand-selected manager of Scheels.

That's a really crappy analogy. First, being a head coach requires that you be...well...a coach.

The university is a business and can be run by anyone with business acumen. If you don't believe that, then how can any anyone go from running one business to another. Need a new CEO for Frito Lay...you better have been a CEO in a major Snack Food producing company before.

I'm sure you think being a university president is just as specialized as being a head football coach of a major D1 program, but you'd be wrong.
 
Correct. Student loans currently are largely subsidies for a fun lifestyles while pursuing a worthless course of study.

Those loans should be drastically reduced and not only provided on a need-based basis, but also restricted to matching work-study and/or part time employment earnings. That would reduce tax-payer costs, weed out non-committed students, and force schools to manage themselves better with reduced enrollments.

Actually, they should be dependent upon an application that includes a business plan for repayment. Want to borrow $80K for college tuition/expenses? What degree are you going to get? What job would that lead to? What's a typical starting salary for that type of job? Is it reasonable to pay back and $80K loan with that salary?

If you change majors, you have to reapply for your loans with an updated plan.

Then, when some idiot wants to invest $80K into a philosophy degree, you can look at his business plan for repayment and laugh.
 
I understand supply and demand....it was 40 years ago, but I took micro and macro. I just want to know where the additional revenue is going. There really isn't anything else that's inflated at that rate, so I wouldn't expect costs to have climbed at that rate, so where is the extra revenue? Profit? Costs (where)? Waste?

More students? Not a significant increase in student population and that
At least at the state schools, the additional revenue from tuition isn't going anywhere. It is covering the funding cuts from the state. The state established the three public universities but doesn't seem to want to fund them all that much anymore. Crazy to that that from 2001 through 2016, the state support was cut almost in half during a time when the enrollment increased from ~29k to ~33k.


unnamed-1.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg
 
At least at the state schools, the additional revenue from tuition isn't going anywhere. It is covering the funding cuts from the state. The state established the three public universities but doesn't seem to want to fund them all that much anymore. Crazy to that that from 2001 through 2016, the state support was cut almost in half during a time when the enrollment increased from ~29k to ~33k.


unnamed-1.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg

Who funds the state?
 
Actually, they should be dependent upon an application that includes a business plan for repayment. Want to borrow $80K for college tuition/expenses? What degree are you going to get? What job would that lead to? What's a typical starting salary for that type of job? Is it reasonable to pay back and $80K loan with that salary?

If you change majors, you have to reapply for your loans with an updated plan.

Then, when some idiot wants to invest $80K into a philosophy degree, you can look at his business plan for repayment and laugh.

The problem with that plan, as you suggest, is that the loans would just go to the best bull shit artists.

My plan requires that they actually get off their arse and DO SOMETHING,
 
You are an idiot.

I for one am continually amazed by your tolerance and football content. It must be difficult to be as objective as you are, not letting your world view influence your posts. I quoted your post above to give just one of many examples of the maturity you exhibit on here continually. It is commendable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CriticalObserver
ADVERTISEMENT