Comment history

Stipends for student-athletes? KU has mixed feelings

Amen. Amen and amen.

January 31, 2012 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stipends for student-athletes? KU has mixed feelings

Most financial aid is need based, not athletic based and at the very best schools, those in need who have excellent academic qualifications get a full ride. The counterposition to your argument is more common: Atletes who would have business in being in school, and no interest, were it not for playing a sport. And many don't earn an education, they just attend school, until they flunk out or complete a useless degree.

January 31, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stipends for student-athletes? KU has mixed feelings

So spin off the basketball program and let it be the minor league professional sport that it has become, but don't pretend that these athletes are primarily students, or students first. And you conveniently ignore all the other sports that lose money as well as the other schools where their basketball programs lose money as well. Go look at Towson, Binghamton,...

January 31, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stipends for student-athletes? KU has mixed feelings

Get real. Most student-athletes provide no income to the school and they cost the school a lot more than their scholarship, with tutors, buffet meals, physical therapy, coaches, equipment.

January 31, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stipends for student-athletes? KU has mixed feelings

Not true. Some sports do generate a profit. Most don't. And some of those "own pocket" costs include cell phones, going to the movies, bar tabs, jewelry. Since when does "full scholarship" mean "everything free, including tuition?"

January 31, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Paterno legacy

JHawkins says: "More? He should have called the police. And no, calling the VP of the university does not constitute calling the police. And he should have followed up. The assistant has not been charged because as a witness, he receives certain protections."

You are illogical if not dead wrong on several counts. First, if this was a crime, the assistant should have called the police. Second, the assistant did not report a crime, not to Paterno and not to the police. The report Paterno received was 'horseplay', not rape. How can the assistant then get 'protection' as a 'witness' when he did not report anything to the police and the 'evidence' he gave to Paterno was incomplete at best.

The entire logic of the firings is crazy: The assistant who witnessed the 'crime' says nothing to the police and he gets lionized (no pun intended). Paterno followed Board procedure and gets fired by the Board. The VP and AD who heard from Paterno get indicted for perjury but are not fired by the Board. Their boss -- the present -- does get fired. The Board fires Paterno (for following their rules and, as they admit, for doing nothing wrong) and the president (for being responsible) and washes their hands of blame, while acknowledging that they knew of the condition long ago and assuming no responsibility. Then they go on a massive PR campaign, claiming 'transparency' while fighting release of minutes of their own meetings.

The entire Board or at least all who voted to terminate Paterno need to resign. Paterno's firing needs to be rescinded posthumously, and the stadium needs to be named after him.

January 25, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Paterno legacy

Paterno followed university policy, as set by the Trustees. He was not a witness to a crime and even the assistant admitted he did not tell Paterno exactly what he saw. Paterno was fired because the board was embarrassed by the behavior of one of Joe's former assistants and by the fact that the Board had a weak policy in place to report misbehavior. Had it been a crime, why did the assistant neither report it to the police or be held accountable for not "doing enough". Even the grand jury said that Paterno did nothing wrong. The idea of being considered a criminal for him admitting he wished he had done more, or that he SHOULD have done more is ludicrous. You can't even make a case for what he did not do that seems to anger everyone. What more should he have done? "More" is not an answer.

January 25, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senior sadness: KU collapses in fourth quarter, blows 21-point lead in 31-30 overtime loss to Baylor

This is an asinine comment. First of all, it is a new low, a new low standard of comparison, even for KU. To bring it up here is a horrible use of the misfortune of victims. Second, "as far as we know" is a most disingenuous claim, one that you can't really back and one that you could just as easily apply to Paterno. Read the grand jury report: What exactly did the assistant see and what exactly did he report? Third, I can see why the KU law school rankings have collapsed: You are eager to execute the accused before there is any due process, any rebuttal. Gill's failures are public, numerous and documented. Stop trying to praise with faint damns and think about what you are saying.

November 13, 2011 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Heard on the Hill: Renderings of the new GSP renovations available; statistics show breakdown of tenured vs. non-tenured faculty; School of Music's Halloween concert set for Friday

This is not very illuminating: "The Lawrence campus faculty features about 56 percent tenured faculty, 16 percent of faculty in a tenure track position and about 28 percent non-tenure track employees." If a tenured faculty member teaches two courses a year and the non-tenure track faculty member teaches eight, the use of a simple headcount grossly under-represents the role of the non tenure-track faculty. Better to use a measure of students taught, or salary costs to represent the true impact of these disparate groups.

October 29, 2011 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Heard on the Hill: KU Parking joins Twitter; Obama's student loan plan generates conversation; Border War headed to Kansas City libraries

The Atlantic is making a naive or optimistic analysis. First, it only has to do with future loans. Second, it assumes that the borrower will get a good job. Third, it ignores the amount left at the end of twenty years. And then there is the interest rate, unimaginably low now, but who knows in three years? Fox News offered an extreme 'hypothetical' only it does not look so extreme when you look at the rapid, continuing increase in tuition and debt load upon graduation.

October 28, 2011 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )