Do you even read the stuff you crank out? My entire complaint is based on the absence of a free market system in education. The universities operate a cartel just like OPEC. They decide who gets in, how much they will pay and even have agreements to prevent competition in financial aid. Your suggestion that those who object start their own universities is like telling blacks who object to discrimination to start their own hotels, restaurants and businesses. At least they wouldn't have to get the approval of the very people who were discriminating against them to start their businesses. To run a university, it has to be accredited. And who do you think controls the accreditation process? Existing universities. Why do you think Liberty and Regent had so much trouble? As I said, if the government didn't support the university system and its abuses, I wouldn't care. The fact is that government aid only drives up the cost of education. The schools basically charge all they can get away with, and that means tuition is inflated by government subsidies. I guess liberals have trouble understanding the economics of that. Isn't it ironic that liberals who want the federal govenment to take over health care and control energy pricing don't want them involved in higher education at all, except to send more money? If it's a good idea for the federal government to dictate to drug companies what they can charge, why shouldn't the government also regulate what universities charge?
More dopey responses, likely from someone on dope...saying ridiculous things and grinning... A dopey clown on dope, what a combo...
Simple clinical observation of the obvious brain damage in you, and those who are dope heads... Your father complex is another indication of the deep mental disturbances...
That is interesting that this is happening at ISU as the community at large (Ames) and the campus in general tend to be pretty conservative as far as major universities and university towns go.
Pro-Intelligent Design Astronomer Denied Tenure Ranks Top in His Department According to Smithsonian/NASA Database by Robert Crowther Guillermo Gonzalez, the pro-intelligent design astronomer recently denied tenure by Iowa State University (ISU), ranks the highest in his department according to a key measure of the scientific impact of his work calculated using the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), a widely used database tracking published scientific research in astronomy. How frequently a scientistâs work is cited by other scientists is an important indicator of the impact the scientist is having on the scientific community. The Smithsonian/NASA data system allows one to compute a "normalized" citation count that corrects for inflated citation rates caused by articles with multiple authors. In the normalized citation count, an article published by a scientist with many co-authors is weighted less than an article authored by the scientist alone. Gonzalez joined ISU in 2001. His normalized citation count for articles published during 2001-2007 is 143, the best of any other astronomer in his department during this period. The next best citation count among all of his astronomer colleagues is 103; and the best citation count for a tenured astronomer in his department is only 68, or less than half of Gonzalez's count. "In other words, Iowa State denied tenure to a scientist whose impact on his field during the past six years outstripped all of the university's existing tenured astronomers according to a prestigious Smithsonian/NASA database," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "It's important to stress that the normalized citation counts for 2001-2007 only include citations to articles published during the most recent 6 years, yet Gonzalez is still the top ranked in his department," added Discovery Institute analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D., who computed the citation counts using the Smithsonian/NASA data system. âThese statistics refute any claim that Gonzalezâs scholarly productivity and impact âtrailed offâ since coming to Iowa State.â In fact, if one looks at normalized citation counts for articles published during individual years, Gonzalez topped his astronomy colleagues in 2001, 2003, and again in 2006 (the most recent full year for which statistics are available). In addition, he came in second in his department in 2002. The years in which Gonzalez was not first in his department in normalized citations likely reflect his work on two major book projectsâThe Privileged Planet, written under a competitive research grant from the Templeton Foundation that was awarded after a peer-review process by several leading astronomers; and Observational Astronomy, a peer-reviewed college-level astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press in 2006. According to Luskin, "This new data adds to the mounting evidence that Gonzalez may have been denied tenure at ISU not because of his record as a scientist, but because of discrimination against his views in support of intelligent design." Amazingly, even if one compares the lifetime normalized citation counts for all of the astronomers at ISU, Gonzalez comes out in second place. The only colleague who has a higher lifetime normalized count than Gonzalez is a senior tenured astronomer who already is a full professor. "For an untenured assistant professor to best nearly everyone in his department in lifetime normalized citations is most impressive, and it makes even more indefensible the university's decision to deny him tenure," comments Luskin. The normalized citation count is not the only measure of impact on the scientific community by which Gonzalez is ranked highly among the astronomers in his department. As reported last week in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Gonzalez also ranks second among his astronomer colleagues according to the "h-index" statistic, which similarly seeks to measure how widely a scientist's articles are cited by other scientists. According to the Chronicle, âMr. Gonzalez has a normalized h-index of 13."
It really is unreal when I think of it. By watching the videos by drdino.com's main guy, I became convinced that almost all the stuff from the left, evolution included, would not exist without public funding. They never have to win a debate, they don't have to debate in fact, they just pronounce their ideas to be scientifically correct and brush off all other ideas and the opposition has to support it's ideas with it's own, private, money. The publicly funded ideas are taught to small children so the privately funded opposition not only has to find a venue and pay it's own way, but they have to overcome childhood indoctrination in nearly every person they are talking to. Then the publicly funded guys will claim they are the open minded set while refusing to hire/promote anybody that does not talk the party line. Other than that, hey, we have a fair and balanced public debate going on. I heartily recommend that people check all sides of all arguments thoroughly before drawing a conclusion of any kind. That way they will sound a lot more intelligent when they talk for sure.
The problem is that neither side is willing to concede any point, reach any possible compromise position. On the one side, you have fundamentalist, fire and brimstone, atheistic neo-Darwinists who have issues with religion in general and most likely trauma unresolved from religous training in childhood. If they believed in Hell after death, they would claim that all who are not atheistic will go there. On the other side, you have many fundamentalists who take what they read out of their scripture with 100% faith and certainty on that basis. They believe that all who are not theistic in their particular beliefs are going to Hell. It is analogous to two religious groups bickering, and both believe they are the right ones on the basis of their belief systems. Throughout history religions have fought each other, and do so to this day, even within the same general religion (look at Muslims killing each other---Catholics and Protestants---Muslims and Hindus, Jews and Muslims, etc.) The simple solution, which of course would please neither side, would be to allow students to be exposed to both sides of the debate and make up their own mind, but neither side really wants that to happen...as neither side wants to even consider that their position could be wrong, or may not necessarily apply to everyone.