Same here, from both interns we've had who took a class of hers..
It's eye-opening that the salary of an adjunct faculty member at Cal with 100% appointment with classes taught to 1.5K+ students (CS61A) is less than the tuition fees of 8 students.
And the fact that Student EDUCATION FUNDING shouldnt necessarly be classified as a "LOAN"
It should be an INVESTMENT into the educational institution on the MERIT and VALUE of the degree taught and received.
Thus: If I am lured into an educational track which promises a market level pay/industry-pertinent-education which makes one employable in said field, but results in NOT... the institution should be liable for such and the investment/"tuition" should be negated and a "write-off" to the school.
That's the same as saying:
"Pay me $100 to teach you how to fight!" Gets ass kicked. "You still owe me $100 for TEACHING you how to fight."
>>If I am lured into an educational track which promises a market level pay/industry-pertinent-education which makes one employable in said field, but results in NOT... the institution should be liable for such and the investment/"tuition" should be negated and a "write-off" to the school.
Supply, meet demand. There are lots of people who want to teach part time for the title and even more who desperately cling to the hope they’ll be able to get a tenure track job after being told they won’t, for many years.
I don't think that's the whole story here. It's also that universities don't tend to value teaching, and won't pay good teachers the same that they pay good researchers. That's not market dynamics, that's a cultural decision around where to allocate resources.
It's definitely not just supply-demand. The application pool for lecturers are places like Berkeley is much smaller than you think, when you start filtering for qualified folks.
Now, at least some of this is academia having too strong of a filter, but the year I joined Berkeley - I was 1 of 4 to accept the offer.
This is the primary drawback of unions, no? The most talented workers leave to self-negotiate better salaries elsewhere and the company can’t do anything about it.
At least that’s what I got from the article. Weird for a university professor to blame a union.
I don’t think universities care whether their adjuncts are the most talented. Basically the entire point of the role these days is to undercut the cost of getting tenured faculty to teach classes. Given that backdrop I was honestly surprised to see the salary was as high as it was
That is almost certainly the union's doing. Unions help push back against the downward pressure on wages from employers (who are passing on the downard pressure from investors and the public).
The same thing happens at the vast majority of US universities whose faculty aren’t unionized. In fact, per [0], the two thirds of adjuncts make under $50,000 which is less than half what the union negotiated.
OK, but roughly 100% of the US has lower living costs than Berkeley too. $50,000 (especially with solid benefits) is a middle-class salary in most places.
The salary is as high as it is in part due to the Union -- but the UC starting salary for lecturers regardless of discipline and location is around $60K. But computer science is in a roughly better position because a few tenured faculty advocated for higher wages so they could actually make hires. Still multiple people are leaving because the workload/stress/salary are out of alignment.
When your family and kids appear, work stops being a 0-sum game. Instead, you're constantly arbitraging between it and the rest of your life. The good news is that you can recognise and structure it as a positive or a negative sum game.
Hasselblad has its roots in military optics and space-constrained imaging solutions. They have made many professional surveillance systems over the years with smaller sensors. Hopefully this is not just a slapped logo.
Burgers and sausages are some of the most detached ways to eat meat. While a steak has bones, a burger is much more abstract. There is probably a good anthropological theory behind this.
This is a good idea, why do you have to sell the whole company, why not trade 10% on the market every year. This would allow the market to actually function to set the price of a company... you could also instead of dumping the company at some made up price let the market decide weeks before the IPO in some sort of pre-purchase trading. Why we allow banking institutions to steal in broad daylight like this is beyond me.
Interesting, do you have some examples of this, I was under the impression that you wouldn’t be allowed to keep some of the company private and some of it public at the same time. I’ve tried Google and it’s difficult to find information about this, the Wikipedia for IPO doesn’t mention this either.
You can look at individual IPOs. The most high profile one recently was Airbnb. According to the NYT [0], they sold $3.5 billion worth of shares, at a valuation of $47b, so only 6%. For another example, Mark Zuckerberg still owns 30% of Facebook, 8 years on from the IPO.
You're correct that the whole company "goes public" at the same time. But that just means it becomes legal to sell shares to small investors, and the company becomes subject to the reporting requirements, etc. The previous owners still typically own most of the shares, and (almost always) are forbidden to sell them for around 6 months after the IPO.
The full company goes public, however existing shareholders keep their shares and don't have to sell them - they now just have shares in the public company.
This is why dilution happens too - new shares are created so that they can be sold.
Doesn't the presence of repeat players on the company side (VCs, advisors, attorneys) mitigate this? Any company that is on the cusp of going public — especially these days, where that happens so much later — would have a lot of repeat players on their side.
Almost everything that one would need for daily subsistence is tied to benchmark future contracts: cattle, soy beans, rice, wheat, sugar, coffee are all traded as futures on exchanges. Most coffee in the world is traded against the Coffee C future benchmark for instance: https://www.theice.com/products/15/Coffee-C-Futures
Giving producers and consumers a way to get a standardized contract at a given point ahead in time usually makes the price of the underlying commodity much more stable.
It has been argued that the way our society operates is based on the concept of futures contracts. It all began with the Dutch tulip futures in the 17th century that stabilized flower prices and made them a viable business: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Don't miss the "Legal Changes" section of that article. The bubble and subsequent bust, it turns out, was caused by government meddling (at the behest of powerful economic interests, mind you).
Such competitions might have two goals in mind: recruiting and signal diversification. The recruiting angle is obvious.
Any alpha that is not fully correlated to existing alpha is worth its weight in gold for an organization with the size, sophistication and complexity of JS. That's part of the reason why efforts such as 2Sigma's Alpha Studio exist: https://alphastudio.com/
It's eye-opening that the salary of an adjunct faculty member at Cal with 100% appointment with classes taught to 1.5K+ students (CS61A) is less than the tuition fees of 8 students.