Once again you are vague as 17.
Whats your point?
Are you saying that associate professors making $93,000 a year are working more than 1250 hrs while only teaching 5 classes a year?
Mississippi Education Fully Funded
- Thread starter Ranchdawg
- Start date
Whats your point?
Are you saying that associate professors making $93,000 a year are working more than 1250 hrs while only teaching 5 classes a year?
"According to chatgpt" is a really convenient way to let people know you will believe anything you're told.
How is my post vague? Its directly contradicts the claim you made that I quoted. Its a direct path from your claim to my screenshots that contradict your claim.
I will summarize though, since you didnt follow.
- You said that according to ChatGPT, a lot of humanities professors complain about that pay($74/hr).
- I asked ChatGPT if a lot of humanities professors complain about earning $74/hr and screenshot the responses.
- ChatGPT claimed humanities professors earning $74/hr are in the top tier for pay and less likely to complain.
The actual takeaway here is to not cite ChatGPT as a definitive source on how humanities professors feel about being paid $74/hr.
F17S, I cant believe I actually typed that last sentence. It should be obvious without saying.
Can you point out how many are complaining about making $92,000 or did you just change your argument to complaining about pay in general?
You might as well post, "as it turns out, if I change my argument, my views are correct."
Looks like PDH fat-thumbed that 7
92K / 52 weeks / 40 hours comes out to just over $44 an hour
He's got some special formula that bumps it up especially for 9-month contracts.
you realize you can ask ChatGPT for a source right? And it will actually link an article of people complaining. Multiple in fact.
how about that you arrogant prick?
Nah I just used a little common sense and even showed my math. I realize that elementary math is probably hard for you to follow.
well how about you point out where my math is wrong. Be very specific. Copy and past the part that is wrong. The exact part.
You left out hours spent on research. You guestimated other hours. That is, you did a "here's what I think" and applied some math to the scenario you made up. It's not about math being wrong if you design the scenario. It's about this, the original point you made: "I don't think any associate professor with a phd in humanities or social sciences should be complaining about $74/hr" You're implying that this is something typical, especially in MS, when it isn't. Did the $74/hour come from some research or is that a number you invented based on your math and your vast knowledge of the inner workings of associate profs on college campuses?
BTW, I don't think nurses who make $50/hour should complain about the cost of Netflix. I asked Chat gpt if nurses making $50 an hour should complain about the cost of Netflix and it gave me an interesting, speculative answer. Maybe I'll ask about making $55/hour and see what research shows.
So then the ChatGPT response I received that countered your claim could also be sourced. And then we are right back to square one with the claims cancelling one another out.
Its better to be arrogant than ignorant.
See this is why you aren't very smart.
If i provide a source with quotes and data of people complaining, you can't disprove they didn't complain by a random article saying professors don't complain. You could disprove it by finding those people in the original article and them saying they didn't say those things.
Oh good lord.
If there is 1 article in the Yakima Sun Weekly that interviews a a Central Washington University Humanities professor who complains that $74/hr isnt enough pay, that doesnt mean there is some actual issue where Humanities professors making $74/hr are complaining. It just means a random person managed to get their voice heard in a newspaper.
You claimed many are complaining about pay being that 'low'.
Now seems like the time when you reveal your source(s). Show us the documentation to support the claim that MANY Humanities professors making $74/hr are complaining about low pay.
Please link to the associate prof getting $250k. I highly doubt it's at one of our state universities unless it's a coach "teaching" a guest course or something.
As an aside, most tenured positions in higher education are heavily subsidized by private endowment. You can do a cursory internet search at State, UM and Southern to see how much donor money goes in to paying specifically for instructor support.
Are they laughing at you? It wouldn't matter what i sent you, you'd reply with the longest post ever that went around in circle after circle after circle.
I never wrote that. You yet again don't understand what I'm writing. Drop the shovel
17. How are these posts so confusing to you? You said I should sweat it out and I posted a gif of Larry and Jeff laughing at your comment.
It is hilarious that you think I am sweating anything.
You have continually said ChatGPT will provide sources and that your claim will be validated as a result. I suggested you provide the source and you refuse.
That, along with your claim that I am sweating over this, is hilarious.
Malcolm Gladwell's work once again draws widespread attention—often undeservedly. Outliers, in particular, has been one of the most widely embraced yet critically problematic texts adopted by the general public. Its influence on educational discourse has been disproportionate to its empirical rigor, and the education sector's enthusiasm for it has had lasting effects.
Having spent my career in both K–12 and higher education, I can state with confidence that it is exceedingly rare for full professors in Mississippi to earn $250,000 annually. Salaries at that level are uncommon even among associate and assistant professors. While there are occasional research-intensive or externally funded roles that command higher compensation, such instances are the exception rather than the rule.
Regarding the original post's topic: the notion of "fully funding" education in Mississippi remains largely rhetorical. While it may serve as an effective public relations move—especially in light of recent positive developments in state education—it does not reflect the underlying structural or financial realities of educational investment in the region.
Having spent my career in both K–12 and higher education, I can state with confidence that it is exceedingly rare for full professors in Mississippi to earn $250,000 annually. Salaries at that level are uncommon even among associate and assistant professors. While there are occasional research-intensive or externally funded roles that command higher compensation, such instances are the exception rather than the rule.
Regarding the original post's topic: the notion of "fully funding" education in Mississippi remains largely rhetorical. While it may serve as an effective public relations move—especially in light of recent positive developments in state education—it does not reflect the underlying structural or financial realities of educational investment in the region.
You are 100% right. I don't understand what you are writing. Why don't you make it really clear or stfu?
O.K. I'll try. How's this: Drop the shovel is used metaphorically and means that I think you're already in a hole, you have some weak-*** arguments you can't defend all that well which is why you changed the subject, and instead of making valid, logical assertions you're digging deeper. But I'm done. Until next time.
Public schools through HS need to be less college prepatory and have much more life prepatory focus. We need to educate craftsman and tradesman again in public schools. We don't need to rely on all this immigrant labor. We need to accept not everyone is college bound and actually can make a good living as builders, technicians and electricians. There is plenty of new technology that needs people to fix it and keep it running.
Colleges should be service providers and realize the students and business and industries that need that labor force are the customers.
Colleges should be service providers and realize the students and business and industries that need that labor force are the customers.
I read outliers, but it's been a while, so I'm at a loss as to what relation it has to this topic (although to be fair I'm not entirely sure what "this" topic is anymore.). I remember a lot of talk about the 10,000 hour thing, but thought it was reasonably clear that you needed exceptional talent plus opportunity, plus time and that 10,000 hours wasn't going to turn the average person into anything. What was its relation to education policy?
It's always been a more or less absurd concept. It was only created in attempt to head off litigation because of judges in other parts of the countries overstepping and trying to take over the legislative roll of appropriating money. Then a bunch of idiots have gone around for years claiming to believe that legislatures in one session can say "Education gets this much money or more from now on and no take backsies" and that should have some binding effect on future legislators. Everybody that was involved in the pushing the lawsuits over that should have been sanctioned.