INDCJournal: Quick Links

« Attention (UPDATED) | Main | VOTE »

August 21, 2005

Quick Links

Posted by Bill

*** My first thought about Patterico writing an Op-Ed for the LA Times was that it was like a treacherous Luke Skywalker manning the bridge of the Death Star.* Then I read the piece, an excellent critique of the paper's Cindy Sheehan coverage, and my fears were assuaged.

* My second thought was that I was a pitiable geek for having the first thought. My third thought was "Ooh, bagels!"

*** The RINO hunt is on.

*** Up the irons!

*** More MSM props for Val Prieto's babalu blog.

*** Check out the Washington Monthly College Guide:

Other guides ask what colleges can do for you. We ask what are colleges doing for the country.

My alma matter sneaks on to the list at #30, so I endorse the effort. Kevin Drum comments:

How much more important, then, is it for taxpayers to know that their money � in the form of billions of dollars of research grants and student aid � is being put to good use? These are institutions, after all, that produce most of the country's cutting-edge scientific research and are therefore indirectly responsible for much of our national wealth and prosperity. They are the path to the American dream, the surest route for hard-working poor kids to achieve a better life in a changing economy. And they shape, in profound and subtle ways, students' ideas about American society and their place in it. It seemed obvious to us that these heavily subsidized institutions ought to be graded on how well they perform in these roles, so we set out to create the first annual Washington Monthly College Rankings.

Posted by Bill at August 21, 2005 08:32 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Bill - The Llamas are down... Kick them now!

Posted by: babs at August 22, 2005 11:58 AM

10th. Interesting. Whatever it means.

Posted by: JohnAnnArbor at August 22, 2005 12:24 PM

How a man from Mars might look at the function of a university (in order of importance based on activity level)

1)manage and grow the investment funds in the endowment
2)solicit alumni contributions to add to the endowment
3)provide incubator facilities for technical academics to develop new ideas and processes; license and collect royalties on said IP; add to endowment
4)provide said academics with indentured servants aka grad students to help perfect their ideas
5)provide farm teams for sports too benighted to have their own farm teams - football and basketball
5)oh, and do a little for-profit training on the side, revenues from which even out year to year investment returns on endowment

I'm glad to see that somebody is ranking them in ways they might find uncomfortable

chuckR

Posted by: chuckR at August 22, 2005 02:15 PM

I'm fine with this part:

"provide incubator facilities for technical academics to develop new ideas and processes"

Other than training, this is a massive benefit to society.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 22, 2005 02:19 PM

Having spent the last 4 years writing tuition/room and board checks that would buy a new Mercedes E class annually, I guess I'm a little cynical. Those lab facilities are often at least partly gov't funded - even at the private schools. And if the schools sit too hard on intellectual property, they might actually have a deadening effect on innovation...

As an engineer/business owner, I'm certainly happy to see that one of the major criteria of the Wash Monthly review is a focus on technical achievement. In my field, FEA and engineering mechanics, if it weren't for Chinese and Indian grad students who stay, we'd be hurting. Fortunately for us, the freedoms and the opportunities some take lightly are very attractive to those who are missing one or the other.

chuckR

Posted by: chuckR at August 22, 2005 03:11 PM

Obviously, like the US News and World Report rankings Washington Monthly exempts the US Service Academies from its rankings... WHY??!

Posted by: JFH at August 23, 2005 08:16 PM

Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly authored commentary which appeared in the August 24th edition of the Los Angeles Times in which he stated that Vietnam was "the nation's first-ever military defeat."

Vietnam may represent this nation's first defeat, but it most certainly was not a military defeat. It was a political defeat. The United States military never lost a battle in Vietnam. We were defeated by ourselves, here in the United States, much in the same way that many in this country now seek to bring defeat to America in Iraq.

Posted by: Douglas Hill at August 24, 2005 02:04 PM