[CTcard]

No, I'd settle for Iowa forfeiting every game they ever played against us ...

Well, that part wouldn't be so helpful, as the only game we ever played against them was a 29 point victory for us.

[CTcard]

No, I'd settle for Iowa forfeiting every game they ever played against us ...

Well, that part wouldn't be so helpful, as the only game we ever played against them was a 29 point victory for us.

[CompSci87]

I take back what I said. I originally said the LSJMB performance at the Rose Bowl was inoffensive but incredibly lame. Well, the fact you trolled some moron (did you even need to look up his party affiliation?) into what is one of the absolute dumbest pieces of legislation put forth in the Iowa Assembly, made it brilliant by default. FYI, Ottumwa, along with the Omaha 'burb of Council Bluffs, is the most embarrassing part of Iowa. If Council Bluffs is the armpit of Iowa, Ottumwa is the crotch. Iowa fans pulled no punches...

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/i...st-2009263

That thread is paywalled, but the URL gives us the gist of it.  :D

[CompSci87]

I take back what I said. I originally said the LSJMB performance at the Rose Bowl was inoffensive but incredibly lame. Well, the fact you trolled some moron (did you even need to look up his party affiliation?) into what is one of the absolute dumbest pieces of legislation put forth in the Iowa Assembly, made it brilliant by default. FYI, Ottumwa, along with the Omaha 'burb of Council Bluffs, is the most embarrassing part of Iowa. If Council Bluffs is the armpit of Iowa, Ottumwa is the crotch. Iowa fans pulled no punches...

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/i...st-2009263

That thread is paywalled, but the URL gives us the gist of it.  :D

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=14252.msg155585#msg155585 date=1454609029]
No, I'd settle for Iowa forfeiting every game they ever played against us ...

Well, that part wouldn't be so helpful, as the only game we ever played against them was a 29 point victory for us.
[/quote]

And honestly, do we expect to ever play them in football, unless it's in a bowl game or the playoff?  For the most part, our recent non-conference scheduling seems to be done to either maximize exposure (ND) or to get reasonable exposure with a recruiting element (BYU for our Utah pipeline, UCF for kids in the SE, Duke/WF for Middle Atlantic kids, TCU/Rice for our Texas pipeline, Northwestern for Big Ten Country).  If possible, it sure seems like we prefer schools with good academic profiles, too (e.g., Rice, Duke, Northwestern).  If we're going to play a Midwestern team, I would think we'd go back to the well with Northwestern, especially now that there's a little bit of history to that game and how frustrating it was this year.  We can expect the Midwestern kids we recruit to also have some interest in Northwestern a lot more often than we can expect them to have serious interest in Iowa (unless they're from Iowa, of course).  Usually when a non-conference opponent is announced, I think, "sure, I can see the logic behind that."  I just don't see the benefit in scheduling Iowa in football.

Considering that recent history, Kansas State seems out of place.  Not a recruiting hotbed, and not a similar academic profile.  I wonder whether it was simply the best option we had for those dates.  That said, there might not be a better matchup of classy head coaches all season long.  (San Diego State is another questionable choice.) 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=14252.msg155585#msg155585 date=1454609029]
No, I'd settle for Iowa forfeiting every game they ever played against us ...

Well, that part wouldn't be so helpful, as the only game we ever played against them was a 29 point victory for us.
[/quote]

And honestly, do we expect to ever play them in football, unless it's in a bowl game or the playoff?  For the most part, our recent non-conference scheduling seems to be done to either maximize exposure (ND) or to get reasonable exposure with a recruiting element (BYU for our Utah pipeline, UCF for kids in the SE, Duke/WF for Middle Atlantic kids, TCU/Rice for our Texas pipeline, Northwestern for Big Ten Country).  If possible, it sure seems like we prefer schools with good academic profiles, too (e.g., Rice, Duke, Northwestern).  If we're going to play a Midwestern team, I would think we'd go back to the well with Northwestern, especially now that there's a little bit of history to that game and how frustrating it was this year.  We can expect the Midwestern kids we recruit to also have some interest in Northwestern a lot more often than we can expect them to have serious interest in Iowa (unless they're from Iowa, of course).  Usually when a non-conference opponent is announced, I think, "sure, I can see the logic behind that."  I just don't see the benefit in scheduling Iowa in football.

Considering that recent history, Kansas State seems out of place.  Not a recruiting hotbed, and not a similar academic profile.  I wonder whether it was simply the best option we had for those dates.  That said, there might not be a better matchup of classy head coaches all season long.  (San Diego State is another questionable choice.) 

[BostonCard]

Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

[BostonCard]

Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

[CornFed]

Municipal laws in Belevedere require the following:

"City Council order reads: “No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash."

Kind of a kinky place I guess.

[CornFed]

Municipal laws in Belevedere require the following:

"City Council order reads: “No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash."

Kind of a kinky place I guess.

[French Rage]

Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?

[French Rage]

Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?

[CornFed]

Here's some more from Carmel, CA:

Carmel
A man can’t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.


Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk. (Repealed when Clint Eastwood was mayor)


Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.

[CornFed]

Here's some more from Carmel, CA:

Carmel
A man can’t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.


Ice cream may not be eaten while standing on the sidewalk. (Repealed when Clint Eastwood was mayor)


Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits.

[TreesAndBirds]

In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

[TreesAndBirds]

In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

[Mick]

In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

The politician, Mark Chelgren, was born in Ross, CA.  Clearly he's a closet 59er...oh wait, he graduated from UC-Riverside.  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren

[Mick]

In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

The politician, Mark Chelgren, was born in Ross, CA.  Clearly he's a closet 59er...oh wait, he graduated from UC-Riverside.  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14252.msg155602#msg155602 date=1454614440]
Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?
[/quote]

Yes, Virginia did back out in April 2015.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14252.msg155602#msg155602 date=1454614440]
Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?
[/quote]

Yes, Virginia did back out in April 2015.

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=French Rage link=topic=14252.msg155624#msg155624 date=1454616357]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14252.msg155602#msg155602 date=1454614440]
Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?
[/quote]

Yes, Virginia did back out in April 2015.
[/quote]

Ah yes, I'm recalling UVA backing out now, though I believe we replaced UVA with San Diego State on the schedule, since the UVA series was for 2017-18, while our KSU series is 2016 and 2021.  And Virginia does neatly fit into the "moderate exposure with recruiting upside" box, as well as being a school with a good academic reputation.  A good chance to get in front of not just VA kids, but DC/MD and the rest of the mid-Atlantic.  Bummer that didn't work out.  IIRC, UVA chalked it up to a "scheduling conflict" between the two schools, which is absurd given that we still have an open date in 2018 and we had to replace UVA with San Diego State.  (And from looking it up, I see that UVA replaced us with Indiana, so it was clearly an attempt to schedule a Power 5 team that they thought they'd have a better chance of beating while still getting credit for playing a Power 5 opponent.) 

[ColoradoTree]

[quote author=French Rage link=topic=14252.msg155624#msg155624 date=1454616357]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=14252.msg155602#msg155602 date=1454614440]
Kansas State was a late addition.  I forgot who backed out.

BC

Was that UVA?
[/quote]

Yes, Virginia did back out in April 2015.
[/quote]

Ah yes, I'm recalling UVA backing out now, though I believe we replaced UVA with San Diego State on the schedule, since the UVA series was for 2017-18, while our KSU series is 2016 and 2021.  And Virginia does neatly fit into the "moderate exposure with recruiting upside" box, as well as being a school with a good academic reputation.  A good chance to get in front of not just VA kids, but DC/MD and the rest of the mid-Atlantic.  Bummer that didn't work out.  IIRC, UVA chalked it up to a "scheduling conflict" between the two schools, which is absurd given that we still have an open date in 2018 and we had to replace UVA with San Diego State.  (And from looking it up, I see that UVA replaced us with Indiana, so it was clearly an attempt to schedule a Power 5 team that they thought they'd have a better chance of beating while still getting credit for playing a Power 5 opponent.) 

[terry]

I think next year's game with Kansas State might be a replacement for Northwestern. We were supposed to get a home game against Northwestern this year, after playing at Evanston last year. But Northwestern backed out due to Big 10 scheduling issues, I believe. I think that's why we had a hole in our schedule for 2016.

[terry]

I think next year's game with Kansas State might be a replacement for Northwestern. We were supposed to get a home game against Northwestern this year, after playing at Evanston last year. But Northwestern backed out due to Big 10 scheduling issues, I believe. I think that's why we had a hole in our schedule for 2016.

[76lsjumb]

Kansas State was added so that the LSJUMB could truthfully state that one of the two bands performing at the game did something in a 2015 performance that got it fined ... and it wasn't the LSJUMB!

[76lsjumb]

Kansas State was added so that the LSJUMB could truthfully state that one of the two bands performing at the game did something in a 2015 performance that got it fined ... and it wasn't the LSJUMB!

[jhftb]

I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

[jhftb]

I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

[pefloresjr]

I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

Well, if we do, the pilots will know when to start releasing the blue ice bombs from the sewage tanks.

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

Well, if we do, the pilots will know when to start releasing the blue ice bombs from the sewage tanks.

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[Robbie]

[quote author=jhftb link=topic=14252.msg155692#msg155692 date=1454631756]
I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

Well, if we do, the pilots will know when to start releasing the blue ice bombs from the sewage tanks.
[/quote]

Have you ever smelled a pig farm? Nobody's going to notice.

[Robbie]

[quote author=jhftb link=topic=14252.msg155692#msg155692 date=1454631756]
I hope there's no trouble if the team plane strays into Iowa air space on the way to South Bend this year...

Well, if we do, the pilots will know when to start releasing the blue ice bombs from the sewage tanks.
[/quote]

Have you ever smelled a pig farm? Nobody's going to notice.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14252.msg155644#msg155644 date=1454620750]
In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

The politician, Mark Chelgren, was born in Ross, CA.  Clearly he's a closet 59er...oh wait, he graduated from UC-Riverside.  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren
[/quote]

Mick-

I am reticent to address this, but that has never stopped me before. Given my current position, I have to deal with both sides of the aisle on the tenure issue (I am not tenured nor have I ever sought a tenure position, doesn't fit my career path). I will say this, the dimwit from Iowa did have a point on one thing in his education reform bill. I firmly believe that any faculty member in a position below provost level should have to teach at least 1 UG or Grad level course per term, the caveat being if they have enough research dollars to buy out.

I, personally, liked the system in Australia when I taught there. Lecturer's and researchers each had a path to career longevity. People on either track could cross-over but were not required to as part of advancement. Let's be honest, some researchers are great teachers, some amazing teachers are also great researchers, but if you are an amazing researcher should you have to teach? Not in my opinion. However, if you are a great teacher, at most universities here, you still have to conduct research to advance, this hurts the teaching side.

One of the major drawbacks to my current position is I only get to teach 3 courses per year (down from my peak of 12 per year) I love the classroom. On the flip side, I spend a  fair amount of my time now designing ways to improve teaching and "coaching up" faculty that are poor teachers and low on grant money to improve their students learning environments.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=14252.msg155644#msg155644 date=1454620750]
In case you wanted more stories about the proposed Iowa legislation to cut ties with Stanford until we apologize....

http://www.hawkcentral.com/story/news/po.../79783788/

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/02/04...mance.html

The politician, Mark Chelgren, was born in Ross, CA.  Clearly he's a closet 59er...oh wait, he graduated from UC-Riverside.  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren
[/quote]

Mick-

I am reticent to address this, but that has never stopped me before. Given my current position, I have to deal with both sides of the aisle on the tenure issue (I am not tenured nor have I ever sought a tenure position, doesn't fit my career path). I will say this, the dimwit from Iowa did have a point on one thing in his education reform bill. I firmly believe that any faculty member in a position below provost level should have to teach at least 1 UG or Grad level course per term, the caveat being if they have enough research dollars to buy out.

I, personally, liked the system in Australia when I taught there. Lecturer's and researchers each had a path to career longevity. People on either track could cross-over but were not required to as part of advancement. Let's be honest, some researchers are great teachers, some amazing teachers are also great researchers, but if you are an amazing researcher should you have to teach? Not in my opinion. However, if you are a great teacher, at most universities here, you still have to conduct research to advance, this hurts the teaching side.

One of the major drawbacks to my current position is I only get to teach 3 courses per year (down from my peak of 12 per year) I love the classroom. On the flip side, I spend a  fair amount of my time now designing ways to improve teaching and "coaching up" faculty that are poor teachers and low on grant money to improve their students learning environments.

[81alum]

College tenure was created in part because of Stanford....in a bad way.  Jane fired Professor Edward Ross for his political leanings and this was one of the famous cases that spurred the creation of the AAUP and the creation of tenure in the United States, enshrined in the famous statement of 1915: 

the scholar has professional functions to perform in which the appointing authorities have neither competency nor moral right to intervene. The responsibility of the university teacher is primarily to the public itself, and to the judgment of his own profession;

Too many people today, including faculty, think of tenure as a form of compensation.  A less remarked side effect of tenure is that it has has allowed educational entities to pay  faculty far less than similarly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers--by holding out the benefit of potential job security.  But longevity of employment was not the original purpose--it was the protection of academic freedom.  Faculty in the 19th C were often fired for their political views or simply at the whim of a President or a Board.  Especially in the Social Sciences, this dramatically retards research by creating a chilling effect on inquiry--even if you are not under direct threat, you will construct your research in a way to avoid potential clashes with those in authority.  If you want a more recent example of what results with a lack of academic freedom and the tenure that is necessary to protect it--just look at the productivity of Soviet scholars before the breakup of the USSR. 

I have absolutely no doubt that if the ilk of Mr. Chelgren got their way and eliminated tenure, they would next return his state to the 19th century and start firing those ""liberal" faculty whose research contradicted their own views.  All those atmospheric scientists and oceanographers that study global warming might be first in line. 

As for separating teaching tracks from research tracks--I heartily agree.  I am sad to say that the vast majority of my colleagues would not.  My favorite quote on this subject is from the great Max Weber, in Science as a Vocation:

Every young man who feels called to scholarship has to realize clearly that the task before him has a double aspect. He must qualify not only as a scholar but also as a teacher. And the two do not at all coincide. One can be a preeminent scholar and at the same time an abominably poor teacher. May I remind you of the teaching of men like Helmholtz or Ranke; and they are not by any chance rare exceptions.

That is very cutting for poor Professors Helmholtz and Ranke!

[81alum]

College tenure was created in part because of Stanford....in a bad way.  Jane fired Professor Edward Ross for his political leanings and this was one of the famous cases that spurred the creation of the AAUP and the creation of tenure in the United States, enshrined in the famous statement of 1915: 

the scholar has professional functions to perform in which the appointing authorities have neither competency nor moral right to intervene. The responsibility of the university teacher is primarily to the public itself, and to the judgment of his own profession;

Too many people today, including faculty, think of tenure as a form of compensation.  A less remarked side effect of tenure is that it has has allowed educational entities to pay  faculty far less than similarly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers--by holding out the benefit of potential job security.  But longevity of employment was not the original purpose--it was the protection of academic freedom.  Faculty in the 19th C were often fired for their political views or simply at the whim of a President or a Board.  Especially in the Social Sciences, this dramatically retards research by creating a chilling effect on inquiry--even if you are not under direct threat, you will construct your research in a way to avoid potential clashes with those in authority.  If you want a more recent example of what results with a lack of academic freedom and the tenure that is necessary to protect it--just look at the productivity of Soviet scholars before the breakup of the USSR. 

I have absolutely no doubt that if the ilk of Mr. Chelgren got their way and eliminated tenure, they would next return his state to the 19th century and start firing those ""liberal" faculty whose research contradicted their own views.  All those atmospheric scientists and oceanographers that study global warming might be first in line. 

As for separating teaching tracks from research tracks--I heartily agree.  I am sad to say that the vast majority of my colleagues would not.  My favorite quote on this subject is from the great Max Weber, in Science as a Vocation:

Every young man who feels called to scholarship has to realize clearly that the task before him has a double aspect. He must qualify not only as a scholar but also as a teacher. And the two do not at all coincide. One can be a preeminent scholar and at the same time an abominably poor teacher. May I remind you of the teaching of men like Helmholtz or Ranke; and they are not by any chance rare exceptions.

That is very cutting for poor Professors Helmholtz and Ranke!

[CTcard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14252.msg155647#msg155647 date=1454621350]
...  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren

... I will say this, the dimwit from Iowa did have a point on one thing in his education reform bill. I firmly believe that any faculty member in a position below provost level should have to teach at least 1 UG or Grad level course per term, the caveat being if they have enough research dollars to buy out.
[/quote]

How tenure actually operates is generally misunderstood, particularly by flame-throwing politicians.

In practice, it is somewhat difficult to get rid of people anywhere, very difficult at public institutions. The tenure evaluation is a formal process for getting rid of people where appropriate. The review process usually involves an analysis of teaching and research accomplishments at three separate levels  and involves acquiring around (where I've been at least) ten written evaluations from outside experts. At most decent research universities, a reasonable fraction of candidates don't  make it through; which means they're out of a job - it's up or out. Without this process, far fewer folks would be weeded out: it's quite painful and the folks denied are generally not incompetent, just not good enough across the board.

So, while the anti-tenure movements I have seen among politicians seem to be motivated by a belief that not enough incompetent professors are dumped, in fact their solution would end up in less weeding out of lower performers.

---------
There also aren't a significant number of professors who don't teach at least one course per term without buying out with research funds.* In fact the only ones I know of are either not full time employees** or department heads with significantly heavy administrative burdens.


* At least at Iowa public universities. There will be a sprinkling at Stanford and other elite schools - though even there they will usually be under some kind of complicated employment arrangment likely involving soft money.


**The state of Iowa has some in the not full time employee category. There are several folks with joint appointments between Ames National Laboratory and Iowa State University. Presumably when on the Ames Lab side of their job, they're not teaching in classrooms (they will be teaching several students in a mentoring fashion). If you force those guys out, you gut the strongest research effort in the state.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14252.msg155647#msg155647 date=1454621350]
...  I'd be interested in Buddha's comments on a bill he introduced to limit college professor tenure.  End of this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Chelgren

... I will say this, the dimwit from Iowa did have a point on one thing in his education reform bill. I firmly believe that any faculty member in a position below provost level should have to teach at least 1 UG or Grad level course per term, the caveat being if they have enough research dollars to buy out.
[/quote]

How tenure actually operates is generally misunderstood, particularly by flame-throwing politicians.

In practice, it is somewhat difficult to get rid of people anywhere, very difficult at public institutions. The tenure evaluation is a formal process for getting rid of people where appropriate. The review process usually involves an analysis of teaching and research accomplishments at three separate levels  and involves acquiring around (where I've been at least) ten written evaluations from outside experts. At most decent research universities, a reasonable fraction of candidates don't  make it through; which means they're out of a job - it's up or out. Without this process, far fewer folks would be weeded out: it's quite painful and the folks denied are generally not incompetent, just not good enough across the board.

So, while the anti-tenure movements I have seen among politicians seem to be motivated by a belief that not enough incompetent professors are dumped, in fact their solution would end up in less weeding out of lower performers.

---------
There also aren't a significant number of professors who don't teach at least one course per term without buying out with research funds.* In fact the only ones I know of are either not full time employees** or department heads with significantly heavy administrative burdens.


* At least at Iowa public universities. There will be a sprinkling at Stanford and other elite schools - though even there they will usually be under some kind of complicated employment arrangment likely involving soft money.


**The state of Iowa has some in the not full time employee category. There are several folks with joint appointments between Ames National Laboratory and Iowa State University. Presumably when on the Ames Lab side of their job, they're not teaching in classrooms (they will be teaching several students in a mentoring fashion). If you force those guys out, you gut the strongest research effort in the state.

[TreesAndBirds]

Acknowledging that I am taking us more OT.....I have a couple questions about tenure after reading the above comments that perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me would comment on......

Regarding the university tenure decision process, especially in liberal arts and social sciences.......is a candidate with political views that are very different from those prevailing in the department generally  at a significant disadvantage in the tenure decision? Or do they generally have an advantage because the department wants another perspective? Or neither, and it's really almost all on "merit". I understand that the original purpose of tenure was to protect academic freedom, but is the current result that the process of getting tenure weeds out those with political views not endorsed by the current tenured faculty members? I dont know, just asking.

Is there much justification for tenure at k-12 levels? While I can see some academic freedom justification, it would seem very much less compelling, and to be much more about economics.

[TreesAndBirds]

Acknowledging that I am taking us more OT.....I have a couple questions about tenure after reading the above comments that perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me would comment on......

Regarding the university tenure decision process, especially in liberal arts and social sciences.......is a candidate with political views that are very different from those prevailing in the department generally  at a significant disadvantage in the tenure decision? Or do they generally have an advantage because the department wants another perspective? Or neither, and it's really almost all on "merit". I understand that the original purpose of tenure was to protect academic freedom, but is the current result that the process of getting tenure weeds out those with political views not endorsed by the current tenured faculty members? I dont know, just asking.

Is there much justification for tenure at k-12 levels? While I can see some academic freedom justification, it would seem very much less compelling, and to be much more about economics.