Tuesday, December 6, 2011
News Occupy Columbia
Posted by Deanna Isaacs on 12.06.11 at 10:33 AM
P-fac says it's been attempting to negotiate a contract with Columbia for nearly two years, while students are concerned about tuition hikes, class cuts, and financial aid. According to P-fac spokesperson Nancy Traver, "the Occupy movement is calling for an end to income disparity, and we strongly agree with that: Our college president earns nearly $400,000 a year while staff at Columbia have had to go on food stamps!"
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
Ah, extortion at its best! There is nothing better to watch a group threatening its employer. Reminds me of southern Europe.
like
dislike
So are these people suggesting that the President of the college should make the same amount as everyone else, including part time instructors? That's what they would have to believe if they literally want an end to income disparity as they say. I don't think extreme rhetoric like that helps their cause.
"There is nothing better to watch a group threatening its employer."
Turnabout is fair play, I guess.
"Reminds me of southern Europe."
No, the food is better.
"So are these people suggesting that the President of the college should make the same amount as everyone else, including part time instructors?"
No, you tonedeaf bastard, but it would be nice if a law was passed that limited the base salary of an executive of a publicly traded firm in the US to that of the President of the United States. 400K does seem like quite a bit for someone who heads up a shitty school like Columbia. For example, the top military officers in the US make less than 250K a year.
"I don't think extreme rhetoric like that helps their cause."
Concern troll acts concerned.
"400K does seem like quite a bit for someone who heads up a shitty school like Columbia."
If you donate money to the college then that's an opinion you should express to the board. Otherwise, why do you care how much he gets paid? What's your interest? And I don't see any reason why faculty, staff, or students of the college should care either. Nobody could reasonably argue that the level of his salary affects the salary of others or the price of tuition. His salary, obviously, is what the board decided was needed to attract someone who would do a good enough job. It's up to them and the people they answer to, the donors, to decide whether they are getting a good bang for their buck. Nobody else's opinion is relevant.
"Otherwise, why do you care how much he gets paid? What's your interest?"
Concern troll continues to act concerned about my supposed concern.
"If you donate money to the college then that's an opinion you should express to the board."
You might be surprised by this, but donors generally don't get to dictate policy.
http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xix/3.24…
"Return to Sender." That's what Yale effectively stamped on Lee Bass', SM '79, $20 million grant, which was intended to fund an intensive course in Western civilization. Nearly four years after the Bass gift was first announced in April 1991, the public learned that Yale will return the money. Yale's decision to return the donation came amidst a whirlwind of controversy regarding Bass' demands and it leaves numerous uncertainties in its wake.
At the forefront of Yale's decision to return the gift was Bass' request that he have the right to approve the program's professors. His request came in response to the length of time that it took to mount the program, according to Yale College Dean Richard Brodhead, BR '68, GRD '72. After Light and Truth reported the delay in implementing the Bass grant last November, the issue entered the media spotlight through editorials and articles in The Wall Street Journal and other national newspapers. University President Richard Levin, GRD '74, and Bass met in December in Fort Worth to attempt to clarify the issues and resolve the growing brouhaha. "When we met in December, [Bass] made it clear that he wanted to have the program as it was originally planned," Levin said. "Within a few days [after the meeting], we had the process back in motion to get the program launched."
But Bass' new request for faculty approval was an insurmountable hitch. Three months of discussion between the University and Bass--from December to February--centered on whether Bass would have such authority, Levin said.
While Gary Fryer, director of public information, admitted that Bass' concern was "totally understandable" given the extensive delay, he said that giving a donor veto power over professor appointments was "simply unheard of." With this unprecedented request by Bass looming over the grant, Fryer said that Yale had no choice but to return the gift. "We would never accept a gift with that condition," he said.
"There are certain fundamental principles, among which is the fact that Yale...had to take responsibility for selecting its own faculty and not give that over to other parties," Terry Holcombe, SY '64, vice president of Development and Alumni Affairs, said.
That has very little to do with what I am talking about, FGFM. That relates to a donor's ability to get something specific done by donating a lot of money. I was simply pointing out that donors are the people who ultimately control the direction of the school. Presumably, they are the people who decide who sits on the board of directors at a private, non-profit school like Columbia College. Their website doesn't appear to describe the exact process by which board members are selected but I would assume that's the way it works. If there is a mechanism that allows others, such as alumni who do not give money, to have a say this likely has only a minimal effect. So it is the people who give money to the college who ultimately have a say in such things as how much the President gets paid. I can't think of a good reason why faculty, staff, or students should care. They are not the people who have invested their resources specifically for the purpose of supporting the mission and success of the college.
And $400,000 seems to me to be very reasonable for a President of a college of that size and scope. He would almost certainly be making a higher amount at a for-profit company of similar size and revenue. You comparison to the President of the United States is absurd. The President of the country is probably the most esteemed position in the world. People still talk about individual Presidents centuries later. They affect the direction of the country, and indeed the world, to an enormous degree. These are benefits, obviously, that numerous people would love to have. So you don't need to pay him a large amount of money. There isn't a problem getting people to want to be President of the United States. Salaries are not and should not be set based on someone's theory of fairness or on perception of importance. They are set based on what those paying the salary feel is necessary to get someone effective in the position.
"I was simply pointing out that donors are the people who ultimately control the direction of the school."
No, they do not. You might consider that students pay 20K a year to go to that dump and it's not a place that attracts the big money like Harvard or U of C.
"And $400,000 seems to me to be very reasonable for a President of a college of that size and scope."
He makes more than the national average while Columbia is still a crap school.
"He would almost certainly be making a higher amount at a for-profit company of similar size and revenue."
Doing what, being a college president?
"There isn't a problem getting people to want to be President of the United States."
Do you really think that he's the only guy who applied for the position?
"They are set based on what those paying the salary feel is necessary to get someone effective in the position."
Explain Jeffrey R. Immelt's salary to me then: he makes a base salary over 3 mm a year while the value of GE has dropped 60% over his tenure.
"You might consider that students pay 20K a year to go to that dump and it's not a place that attracts the big money like Harvard or U of C."
But they don't spend that money for the specific purpose of supporting the college and its mission. They do so to get a good education and advance their career.
"Doing what, being a college president?"
If he were the CEO of a for-profit company of similar size of scope, as opposed to the head of a non-profit organization, he would be making a lot more money. I don't why you think $400,000 is a lot of money to compensate someone for leading a college of that size.
"Do you really think that he's the only guy who applied for the position?"
Huh? That has exactly what to do with what we are talking about?
"Explain Jeffrey R. Immelt's salary to me then: he makes a base salary over 3 mm a year while the value of GE has dropped 60% over his tenure."
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't see what the value of GE's stock over time can say in-and-of-itself about the level of compensation the board feels is necessary to pay it's CEO. G.E. is in, among other things, the financial services sector. You might notice that this industry has run into problems in the last few years. It's not as if Immelt had very much control over that. Furthermore, your use of that statistic to suggest Immelt hasn't done a good job assumes that the stock price was without question at the correct level when he took over. Clearly that is not the case, especially when you consider that a sizable proportion of GE's business is in financial services.
"'But they don't spend that money for the specific purpose of supporting the college and its mission. They do so to get a good education and advance their career."
The tragedy of it is that Columbia students generally don't get a good education or much of a career.
"If he were the CEO of a for-profit company of similar size of scope, as opposed to the head of a non-profit organization, he would be making a lot more money."
But there is no evidence that he would be hired for such a position. Non-profits generally don't pay as much as regular companies.
"Huh? That has exactly what to do with what we are talking about? "
I'm saying there probably were other candidates or potential candidates who were just as good who would work for less money.
"I don't understand what you are trying to say."
I'm saying that salary often doesn't have much to do with performance. Given that GE is one of those companies that claims to fire the bottom 10% of its staff on an annual basis, shouldn't he have retired years ago?
"Clearly that is not the case, especially when you consider that a sizable proportion of GE's business is in financial services."
GE Capital at one point was 50% of GE, but GE's stock has dropped more than most financial firms since GE was at its peak. You are a buffoon.
There was no attempt to poll the membership before making this move. Considering this group won with what represents 20 percent of the adjuncts eligible to vote, they risk waking up the membership at large, many of whom are fed up with their immature grandstanding. They were not elected to achieve salary parity with the college president but to negotiate a contract with a raise. The administration put it on the table; they ignored it; it was withdrawn and now they're trying to create a distraction to disguise their own ineptitude. They refuse to sign a contract without health insurance and a seniority preference and have wound up getting us nothing. And if you think Columbia is a dump, don't send your kid there.
"The administration put it on the table; they ignored it; it was withdrawn and now they're trying to create a distraction to disguise their own ineptitude."
Double semicolon alert!
"And if you think Columbia is a dump, don't send your kid there."
Oh, believe me, I won't.
Talented, highly motivated people generally do well at Columbia. People with educational deficits or who just didn't apply themselves in high school can get a second chance there. A Columbia degree doesn't carry the same cachet as one from Northwestern but many people value the school's diversity and the access it offers to internships and working artists and professionals. It's not everybody's cup of tea but it's far from a shitty school for people who want to make films, become photographers, write fiction or perform.
I think the guy deserves every penny he gets. Since becoming president, he has taken Columbia from a dinky, four building-also ran, to a nationally recognized, thriving institution (particularily for film). Today, you can't even walk more than two blocks in the downtown, or south loop area without seeing a Columbia-owned property that is teeming with creative students. He has grown my alma mater far beyond anything I could have ever imagined.
"People with educational deficits or who just didn't apply themselves in high school can get a second chance there."
They should go to the City Colleges of Chicago like I did for a fraction of the cost. I transferred a whole semester of credits to a four-year school.
"Since becoming president, he has taken Columbia from a dinky, four building-also ran, to a nationally recognized, thriving institution (particularily for film)."
How many of those grads get a job in the movie business? Where do you guys work? It's not like Columbia is a good school just because they have a lot of students. Look at DeVry, for example.
"They should go to the City Colleges of Chicago like I did for a fraction of the cost. I transferred a whole semester of credits to a four-year school."
And many of them do that before transferring to Columbia, and more power to them for
minimizing their debt load. If you're not motivated, don't know how to utilize a school's
resources or aren't in the right program, any school can be a shitty school. I think you'll find a wide range of responses to Columbia for this reason, but undeniably many students benefit from going to school there.
"And many of them do that before transferring to Columbia, and more power to them for
minimizing their debt load."
Maybe, but it would be a lot easier to pay off that college debt if they had transferred to a real school. I've been working on LaSalle Street for decades and the only person I've ever met from Columbia on the job was the mail girl who had previous been the bosses babysitter.
