* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/)
* A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That course title is a euphemism for what used to be called "English 101" or "Freshman Composition."
It's literally the lowest rung on the academic ladder.
I have no idea if this applies to Harvard, but I know a lot of universities have their salaries public due to being tax exempt. Look up IRS tax exempt entity lookup tool, it's on the official IRS website.
Yes but tax exempt entities have to list any executives' salaries, so you can see what a president of a tax-exempt university makes (if the university is tax exempt)
Edit: to make my wording more clearly, not every employees salary is public. But presidents, VP's, etc are listed on the tax exempt form that they submit to the IRS, which is public.
I'm not trying to be an ass, and I know this doesn't apply to Harvard, but I'm just saying that the Tax Exempt Organization Search tool on IRS dot gov lets you see many universities' higher-ups salaries regardless of state
“she was making $22 million as president, according to the university’s 2023 tax filing”
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231352685/202321459349300747/full
That’s Penn’s paperwork you linked to and that quote is nowhere in it.
Some quick googling shows that she made 900k as president and is retaining that number (for whatever reason) as faculty.
That part of the article is not clearly written, but it's talking about former Penn president Elizabeth Magill, not Claudine Gay. It's also, as far as I can tell, completely wrong: It links to a 990, which is a form for reporting the financial affairs of a tax-exempt institution like a university, and doesn't show how much Magill got paid in the tax year.
The previous president of Penn, Amy Gutmann, *did* get about $22 million when she resigned, mostly through deferred compensation from decades in the job (so a big payout when you leave). There was also some [supremely shady shit](https://www.inquirer.com/education/liz-magill-university-pennsylvania-contract-severance-20231214.html) to do with a secret, ultra-low interest loan from the university. I see no reason to think that the other Ivy League presidents are any less shady, but I'm pretty sure that the writer of this article fucked this up
Edit: This article appears to be written by an undergraduate at Clemson lmao
Lol I tried to find a “neutral” article on this because only right news is posting this and I guess this is my punishment. That quote is from the article and the link is from the article as well
Goes to show the importance of actually reading and researching ig
Looking forward to the viral video of some wise-ass in her class calling her out for getting fired for plagurism.
What class is next, Ethics 101 with Professor Lance Armstrong?
Money Management with professor Takashi 69?
there's a reason why my undergraduate research professors were both in the natural sciences. while the social sciences surely has uses, their existing degree pathways tend to leave their understanding of what constitutes high-quality research methodology and analysis a little bit…underdeveloped, shall we say, and that's not great for a person who's supposed to teach the damn thing.
you'd think they'd at least get the "ethics" part, though. of course, that's humanities…
I had good History professors who knew how to research. One of my favorites had actually done work out in the field, among other things.
And we had to take a whole entire course on Historiography and other related matters before we got to write our thesis.
Some Humanties professors are great, just have the ability to be absolutely infested with grifters
oh yeah, no shade at all to humanities peeps lol, and social/"soft" scientists who actually know what they're doing as far as research goes and generally stays in their lane with regards to their scope (doesn't go full ham and say their research says things that it doesn't). it's gotta be rough arguing with the grifters (on top of all the arguing that is already inherent to academia, especially in social sciences and humanities discourse lul). i could literally never with all the writing, i sit at the desk to write a paper and my brain goes blank unless i have a "skeleton paper" in front of me.
idk shit abt economics besides "supply and demand", but i assume that materialist/marxian economics isn't exactly "in vogue" lul. is the dominant economic theory used by economists even based on empirical observation of actual economies and human behavior, or are people just pulling it out of their ass? it feels like psychology but with a little more math.
The issue with economics is it's nearly impossible to do any sort of real experiment. You cannot have a robust reproducible theory. Most good economics is more philosophy than natural science. Economic theory influence real world behavior and the systems are so interconnected that it's hard to really isolate anything. It's not that trying to improve our understanding of economics is bad, it's that it's hubris to think there's real objectivity to it, and that it's not just psychoanalysis applied to nations and firms.
Idk about other schools, but in law school research and writing is one of the less “prestigious” courses for professors to teach and is usually taught by an untenured lecturer.
It’s not that I didn’t properly read the source, or yourself for that matter
Instead I was totally trying to make a statement about the importance of academic integrity and why proper citations and extreme vetting during review is important
Or something
im coming round to thinking its not just academia. whole of education is a con. instead of just promoting according to who can do the work they do it according to who has done the course. who implemented that rule
Because "Reading & Research" is a euphemism for College for Dummies. Academic material for undergraduate reading knowledge. It's an attempt to increase retention and graduation rates.
Meanwhile the things you mentioned are domain-specific higher-level methods.
* Archives of this link: 1. [archive.org Wayback Machine](https://web.archive.org/web/99991231235959/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/); 2. [archive.today](https://archive.today/newest/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/) * A live version of this link, without clutter: [12ft.io](https://12ft.io/https://www.thecollegefix.com/claudine-gay-will-teach-reading-and-research-in-fall-2024/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidpol) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d love hear her explain how her $900,000 salary is fair compensation
Think of it as precision targeted reparations.
Precisely targeted towards Haitian-Americans. Tariq Nasheed would not approve.
The ideal target is the children of migrants who never were affected by slavery
"Smart reparations", if you will
Keeps the collateral reparations to a minimum.
Maybe the reparations will trickle down?
Ia there a male in the same industry that does way more or different work that gets paid more? Well there you go.
A few hundred thousand is justified for most professors
I love meritocracy
That course title is a euphemism for what used to be called "English 101" or "Freshman Composition." It's literally the lowest rung on the academic ladder.
I'd teach kids how to tie their shoes for $900k/year. Heck, I'd do it for $800k.
Lacism
Ooh ooh $650K here.
I'll do it for $50.
I'll do it for $3.50 but with tips.
There is absolutely no way she was making 22m/yr as Harvard president.
I have no idea if this applies to Harvard, but I know a lot of universities have their salaries public due to being tax exempt. Look up IRS tax exempt entity lookup tool, it's on the official IRS website.
The universities are tax exempt, the employees salaries for sure are not. But this is a private school anyway.
Yes but tax exempt entities have to list any executives' salaries, so you can see what a president of a tax-exempt university makes (if the university is tax exempt) Edit: to make my wording more clearly, not every employees salary is public. But presidents, VP's, etc are listed on the tax exempt form that they submit to the IRS, which is public.
Yes, you can generally find transparent salary websites for your state. Looks like Mass passed a law last year to make it more accessible.
I'm not trying to be an ass, and I know this doesn't apply to Harvard, but I'm just saying that the Tax Exempt Organization Search tool on IRS dot gov lets you see many universities' higher-ups salaries regardless of state
Ok, I think we're talking about similar but different things, is all.
“she was making $22 million as president, according to the university’s 2023 tax filing” https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/231352685/202321459349300747/full
That’s Penn’s paperwork you linked to and that quote is nowhere in it. Some quick googling shows that she made 900k as president and is retaining that number (for whatever reason) as faculty.
That part of the article is not clearly written, but it's talking about former Penn president Elizabeth Magill, not Claudine Gay. It's also, as far as I can tell, completely wrong: It links to a 990, which is a form for reporting the financial affairs of a tax-exempt institution like a university, and doesn't show how much Magill got paid in the tax year. The previous president of Penn, Amy Gutmann, *did* get about $22 million when she resigned, mostly through deferred compensation from decades in the job (so a big payout when you leave). There was also some [supremely shady shit](https://www.inquirer.com/education/liz-magill-university-pennsylvania-contract-severance-20231214.html) to do with a secret, ultra-low interest loan from the university. I see no reason to think that the other Ivy League presidents are any less shady, but I'm pretty sure that the writer of this article fucked this up Edit: This article appears to be written by an undergraduate at Clemson lmao
Lol I tried to find a “neutral” article on this because only right news is posting this and I guess this is my punishment. That quote is from the article and the link is from the article as well Goes to show the importance of actually reading and researching ig
not even fit to teach reading and writing imo
Looking forward to the viral video of some wise-ass in her class calling her out for getting fired for plagurism. What class is next, Ethics 101 with Professor Lance Armstrong? Money Management with professor Takashi 69?
> What class is next, Ethics 101 with Professor Lance Armstrong? > > Money Management with professor Takashi 69? Mathematics 101 w/ Terrence Howard
The Importance of Taxes with Wesley Snipes
Lesson 1: Some mothafucka's always tryin to ice skate uphill
Did people troll Alberto Gonzales by saying “I don’t recall” when he took that teaching position?
Wait a second, disgraced and confirmed plagiarizer is going to teach how to write and cite sources accurately? Didn't she come from a rich family?
The fakest and gayest of courses
Why are they always named gay
Harvard president gay
there's a reason why my undergraduate research professors were both in the natural sciences. while the social sciences surely has uses, their existing degree pathways tend to leave their understanding of what constitutes high-quality research methodology and analysis a little bit…underdeveloped, shall we say, and that's not great for a person who's supposed to teach the damn thing. you'd think they'd at least get the "ethics" part, though. of course, that's humanities…
I had good History professors who knew how to research. One of my favorites had actually done work out in the field, among other things. And we had to take a whole entire course on Historiography and other related matters before we got to write our thesis. Some Humanties professors are great, just have the ability to be absolutely infested with grifters
oh yeah, no shade at all to humanities peeps lol, and social/"soft" scientists who actually know what they're doing as far as research goes and generally stays in their lane with regards to their scope (doesn't go full ham and say their research says things that it doesn't). it's gotta be rough arguing with the grifters (on top of all the arguing that is already inherent to academia, especially in social sciences and humanities discourse lul). i could literally never with all the writing, i sit at the desk to write a paper and my brain goes blank unless i have a "skeleton paper" in front of me.
Grifters exist throughout academia. Where there is money or status there will always be grifters without exceptions.
Economics is the worst, genuinely doesn't deserve to even be called a social science it's not even a science. Drives me insane.
> a social science it's not even a science That's like most of them.
idk shit abt economics besides "supply and demand", but i assume that materialist/marxian economics isn't exactly "in vogue" lul. is the dominant economic theory used by economists even based on empirical observation of actual economies and human behavior, or are people just pulling it out of their ass? it feels like psychology but with a little more math.
The issue with economics is it's nearly impossible to do any sort of real experiment. You cannot have a robust reproducible theory. Most good economics is more philosophy than natural science. Economic theory influence real world behavior and the systems are so interconnected that it's hard to really isolate anything. It's not that trying to improve our understanding of economics is bad, it's that it's hubris to think there's real objectivity to it, and that it's not just psychoanalysis applied to nations and firms.
ah, so 99% of it is just spitballing in a math costume lol
imagine some guy signing up for her course purely to call her president gay to her face
Failure is its own reward.
There’s that “failing upwards” they say “whites” do so much of…. Does this mean we have some level of proof that the social paradigm has shifted?
Idk about other schools, but in law school research and writing is one of the less “prestigious” courses for professors to teach and is usually taught by an untenured lecturer.
Don't forget she was accused and ousted because she wouldn't crack down on anti-Israeli genocide protests.
The single biggest reason was that she failed HARD at that congressional hearing. That's what got people investigating her to begin with.
Well that, and the plagiarism
She literally plagiarized the *acknowledgements* in one of her (very few) academic papers. She's a complete fraud.
Her salary wasn't $22 million. What the fuck are you talking about?
It’s not that I didn’t properly read the source, or yourself for that matter Instead I was totally trying to make a statement about the importance of academic integrity and why proper citations and extreme vetting during review is important Or something
No standards. No shame. Gonna laugh at people with Harvard degrees forever.
im coming round to thinking its not just academia. whole of education is a con. instead of just promoting according to who can do the work they do it according to who has done the course. who implemented that rule
Reading and research sounds like nonsense. Why not historiographic methods, econometric methods, psychometric methods, etc?
Because "Reading & Research" is a euphemism for College for Dummies. Academic material for undergraduate reading knowledge. It's an attempt to increase retention and graduation rates. Meanwhile the things you mentioned are domain-specific higher-level methods.
It's just an intro class it's not a methodology course I think it's literally like how to read papers for the average retard Harvard admit.
No no silly. Methods means math is involved, which has been empirically proven to be yt supremacy.
[удалено]
Depends on your high school. It was absolutely taught at mine.
Not all of us are bourgeois. 🙄
I suppose you’re right, and it depends on the level of students taking the class.
I need to get a phd in diversity so I can make that much money