Live data from Hacker News

Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

nytimes.com

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#91
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UA is a decent University System, but not more than that. In fact, a few months ago, the University of Alaska Anchorage lost accreditation for their teacher program. Yes, you read that correctly. The largest University in Alaska lost their accreditation for a program that is one of the most needed in the state. Getting people to teach in Alaska is a major issue for obvious reasons, and the largest university in the s…

>the largest university in the state did such a poor job that they lost their ability to graduate licensed teachers. Maybe you can help me understand this, but how is the solution to cut funding further by 41%?

I wouldn't blindly apply it to this situation, but I can at least see the logic of just stopping doing something that isn't working.

For the specific situation, maybe a program that paid off student loans for anyone with some period of service (lots of teachers outside of AK) would be a better way to spend the money than unconditionally throwing it at a failing program?

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#92

Hard to feel bad for any higher-ed institutions nowadays. It's clear that degrees are essentially signaling that's captured by outrageously bloated, rent-seeking institutions. I'm completely sympathetic to the idealism that colleges are vital institutions of education, but there's something systemically wrong with college price, criminally so, and the issue isn't just "we're not spending enough."

UA is nothing like a corporation it is tied to the state. Yes it has quite a bit of waste but fundamentally the institutions goal is to do research and to educate

I understand you mean that it isn't a for-profit business, but the Alaska constitution literally establishes the state university as a corporation.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

surprisingly a lot of the people there actually care about science and some people care about teaching

Oh, of course - but individual goals are not organisational imperatives.

Not always. UA is composed of many sub groups. They usually have little to do with each other. Some of these groups are very wastefull and just try to further their existance. But a large portion of the groups are actually concerned with doing things in the real world. I do not want to give specific examples but I have plenty of experience with people that actually want to do good things in the world at UA.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#94
post #41
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

The point of the senate has nothing to do with giving people in sparsely populated areas the same vote. At the time, there wasn’t the same dichotomy created by people living in cities. The purpose of giving every state two senators is so that the states, as distinct sovereign entities, each have the same representation in the senate. It doesn’t matter how many people live there.

> It doesn't matter how many people live there.

Exactly. It gives, and is meant to give, sparsely populated states an equal voice to the more populous states. The GP was talking in terms of red states versus blue states, and I was here assuming that context.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#95
post #33
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Clearly this is the result, and I've heard this argument before, yet I haven't seen any solid references that this was an explicit design choice by the founders to balance interests of sparse/rural states against dense/urban states. Can anyone point to any particular references in founders' documents or authoritative historians showing how this was designed as a specific feature and not a side-effect, e.g., of simply…

Federalist #62, section III:

"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'' A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#96
post #20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

But is the degree of inequality a foreseen consequence? 20% of citizens controlling 1/3 or 2/3 of the federal government is not a healthy republic, especially when the 20% have views that are so far from average. It's not like they're a representative 20%.

But is the degree of inequality a foreseen consequence?

No. Originally, the ratio of Senator to constituents and Representative to constituents was much closer to 1:1 than what we have now.

While there isn't any easy way to fix the imbalance in the Senate (short of adding/splitting states), we can fix the House and Electoral College by simply increasing the size of the House (easy button would be to peg the size of a district to the population of the smallest state).

Post reply on HN