Balsy Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 On 10/24/2016 at 10:06 AM, Hilltopper said: In the real world a big company doesn't wait around for a year to find new leadership while their stock price drops like a rock! Yeah, in the real world loser CEOs who drive their businesses into the ground get paid millions for doing so, and paid millions more to walk away...which is now over in education where you hire loser presidents who get paid hundreds of thousands, and then get paid hundreds of thousands to walk away for driving the university into dumpster and lighting it on fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZippyRulz Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/12/university_of_akron_facing_declining_enrollment_plans_significant_investment_to_attract_international_students.html President Matthew Wilson, who has a background in international education, would lead the initiative. He has said the university needs to focus on expanding beyond Summit County for students. Sounds familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted January 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue & Gold Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Don't know the implications of a collaborative agreement, but suppose it can't be bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZippyRulz Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 1/8/2017 at 8:43 PM, Blue & Gold said: Don't know the implications of a collaborative agreement, but suppose it can't be bad. What is UD's enrollment? Do we get to include it in UA's total enrollment now? How is the soccer scene in Vietnam? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 5 hours ago, ZippyRulz said: What is UD's enrollment? Do we get to include it in UA's total enrollment now? How is the soccer scene in Vietnam? I understand that the Danang students are thrilled to be getting free admission to all Akron football and basketball games. Just as thrilled as our own students in Akron as a matter of fact. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K92 Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Danang Rowdies 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 On 1/8/2017 at 8:43 PM, Blue & Gold said: Don't know the implications of a collaborative agreement, but suppose it can't be bad. Depends, but usually collaborative agreements involve exchanges in cultural studies and/or enrichment (faculty and students), like exchange programs (study abroad etc...); researchers at both universities to form collaborative exchange of information in research/developing research projects jointly. Among other things of course depending upon the circumstances. It is a great thing, because it's another opportunity for students to get a one-of-a-kind experience at the University of Akron as well as keeping up with the Joneses. It is a popular thing with business programs...engineering programs, design programs and the sort these days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LZIp Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20170118/NEWS/170119801/university-of-akron-president-sees-a-balanced-budget-on-the-horizon?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Matt Wilson response executive order on US immigration policy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Would it be a big shocker if someone from the Academic world opposes a policy of a Republican president, along with all of the nut jobs in Hollywood, and everyone else who will march in the streets every day because they didn't get their way in the elections. See below as proof that even a liberal-leaning poll shows that the public supports it, which is why we voted in someone who actually cares about protecting America. Edited January 30, 2017 by skip-zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Z Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, skip-zip said: I couldn't read when the poll was taken, here is a bigger graphic. Source Not sure why anyone would be opposed to @profmattwilson having an open discussion about it. Seems to be a hot topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) I only posted it that small because my Download space has run out. But I wanted it visible that it was a Quinnipiac poll so there was no misunderstanding about whether it was a "fake news" story. A Harvard study (not your typical conservative stronghold either) shows an even higher number (50%). And that was for the question of whether there should be a ban, not just the temporary ban that was just invoked. Edited January 30, 2017 by skip-zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dr Z said: Not sure why anyone would be opposed to @profmattwilson having an open discussion about it. Seems to be a hot topic. I agree with you Dr. Z We have students and I imagine even some faculty that are native to those countries. Some of them might even be here on visas themselves. I'm not going to get into a political debate on whether the ban is justified or not (You can do that on plenty of other forums), but I'd be disappointed in the university if they weren't hosting some type of open forum to discuss the ramifications of this ban. Edited January 30, 2017 by kreed5120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, skip-zip said: Would it be a big shocker if someone from the Academic world opposes a policy of a Republican president, along with all of the nut jobs in Hollywood, and everyone else who will march in the streets every day because they didn't get their way in the elections. See below as proof that even a liberal-leaning poll shows that the public supports it, which is why we voted in someone who actually cares about protecting America. Poll's don't reflect the public actually understanding facts. 48% of people saying they support a ban to me, shows a lack of intellectual curiosity in America...and frankly a failure of the media, not a just reason for policy. The majority of the public supported the Iraq War before, and now afterwards the majority of the public (in hindsight) is against it. But what is the factual credibility of claims that should be important. Is it really protecting america? (1) The vast majority of refugees are women and young children, the most statistically least likely to commit acts of terrorism. (2)Most terrorist attacks in America are conducted by homegrown AMERICANS not foreigners. (FBI) (3) The majority of the people who have committed terrorist attacks in the US, did not come from the countries on his ban...Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon... Facts > Fear. I know the president and some of his supporters live in an alternate reality...but if you give people access facts like those above, that "support" number would go down. People are stupid, they're even more stupid when they aren't given facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LZIp Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 I don't have a strong opinion either way. I like to look at both sides. I'm just wondering where all of this outrage was back in 2011 with the Iraq ban?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, Balsy said: People are stupid, they're even more stupid when they aren't given facts. Educated voters look for the facts themselves. Blue collar folks finally got tired of automatically voting for Democrats who hadn't helped them for decades, and stopped believing what mainstream media was selectively dictating to them. How else can you explain why our state, especially, turned a loss into a resounding 10% victory in just a 4 year span? Don't you think that's a very bitter, loser mentality to imply that people who support one candidate/issue did so because they didn't know any better, and that the other side was actually the more credible voters that followed the facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, LZIp said: I don't have a strong opinion either way. I like to look at both sides. I'm just wondering where all of this outrage was back in 2011 with the Iraq ban?! Since they seem to be protesting every new policy that is enacted, do you really think it's because they hate everyone of those policies? Or, because it's an excuse to continue to show their displeasure for the person making them? Some elements of our society respect the results of elections, even if they disagree with the policies of the new official, because they understand that the person elected was given the authority, by the people, to make such policies. That's respecting American democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip_ME87 Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, skip-zip said: Educated voters look for the facts themselves. Blue collar folks finally got tired of automatically voting for Democrats who hadn't helped them for decades, and stopped believing what mainstream media was selectively dictating to them. How else can you explain why our state, especially, turned a loss into a resounding 10% victory in just a 4 year span? Don't you think that's a very bitter, loser mentality to imply that people who support one candidate/issue did so because they didn't know any better, and that the other side was actually the more credible voters that followed the facts? Not a bitter, loser mentality at all. The reason for representative democracy is that the general populace can't be expected to be as informed on issues as needed to make good decisions. Some think that Trump's actions make us safer. Others believe that he is making us less safe by providing fuel to help our enemies recruit. I fall into the latter category. 1 hour ago, skip-zip said: Some elements of our society respect the results of elections, even if they disagree with the policies of the new official, because they understand that the person elected was given the authority, by the people, to make such policies. That's respecting American democracy. The great thing about the American form of government is that no one person is "given the authority, by the people, to make such policies" carte blanche. He must do so within the laws enacted by Congress and interpreted by the courts. Edited January 30, 2017 by Zip_ME87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, skip-zip said: Since they seem to be protesting every new policy that is enacted, do you really think it's because they hate everyone of those policies? Yes, I honestly feel they do. It's not like the legislation they have been protesting is party neutral. Not saying there is anything wrong with a Republican president pushing the Republican agenda, but it is a little naive to think Democrats wouldn't be salty about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skip-zip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, kreed5120 said: Not saying there is anything wrong with a Republican president pushing the Republican agenda, but it is a little naive to think Democrats wouldn't be salty about it. No, I'm not being naive. I actually agree with you completely. I expect that some will be upset if they don't believe in the policies themselves. But I think LZip said it best. Why weren't these same people rioting in the streets when the ban was placed on Iraq in 2011? The president from a different political party was making the decision this time? You betcha !! That's one reason why you'd be convinced that it's the person, and not the policy. 18 minutes ago, Zip_ME87 said: The great thing about the American form of government is that no one person is "given the authority, by the people, to make such policies" carte blanche. He must do so within the laws enacted by Congress and interpreted by the courts. Come on, ME87. They were protesting throughout DC and elsewhere, and breaking out store windows, as he was being sworn in as President. He hadn't signed a single document yet, or enacted a single policy. FYI...The President DOES have powers that do not require Congressional approval. And as far as the courts are concerned, if a Presidential action is ultimately proven to be beyond his power by the Supreme Court? Then they need to abide by that and find another course to enact their policy. I'm fine with that. Then the country is working the way that it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachTheZip Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Did the Iraq ban in 2011 include green card holders? I don't recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, skip-zip said: Don't you think that's a very bitter, loser mentality to imply that people who support one candidate/issue did so because they didn't know any better, and that the other side was actually the more credible voters that followed the facts? Nothing loser about it, please look at the substance of what I'm saying: The Proof is in the pudding. If the majority of people support a position that is factually incorrect, they are ignorant or willingly stupid. That's how we end up with statements like "alternative-facts". I'm not making a claim for voters on either side being more "credible" than others. I'm simply pointing out that public opinion doesn't reflect reality: Something like 93% of Americans believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in June 2003. No weapons of mass destruction have ever been found, according to the CIA...and the Pentagon...and hell, the current president! So public opinion clearly doesn't reflect reality. What it DOES reflect is a failure of the media to relay factual information to the public. It DOES reflect the failure of the media, and also the public, to question things presented to them...and to run whatever government sources say without double-checking the reliability of the government's claims. The question is: Does this Ban actually make us safer? The evidence would suggest that no it does not. Despite how people "feel" about it. Despite how well the President sold it, doesn't make it so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balsy Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, skip-zip said: Since they seem to be protesting every new policy that is enacted, do you really think it's because they hate everyone of those policies? Or, because it's an excuse to continue to show their displeasure for the person making them? I take it that you were defending Obama when literally everything he did (and his wife) was criticized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kreed5120 Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 22 minutes ago, skip-zip said: No, I'm not being naive. I actually agree with you completely. I expect that some will be upset if they don't believe in the policies themselves. But I think LZip said it best. Why weren't these same people rioting in the streets when the ban was placed on Iraq in 2011? The president from a different political party was making the decision this time? You betcha !! That's one reason why you'd be convinced that it's the person, and not the policy. If you actually care this lists the similarities and differences between the 2 bans. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-trump-travel-ban-differs-obama-2011-policy-article-1.2959631 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.