Pay us like you pay Petraeus

” … CUNY is trying to tap an independent donor to subsidize Petraeus’ salary.”

The contribution to CUNY is tax deductible to the donor, so the $200,000 salary would only cost the donor about $13o,000 and the taxpayers of the US and NY would be paying about $70,000. Win-win!

Checking CT’s WHOIS record, the domain crookedtimber.org was registered 2003-07-01 and expired this morning – presumably a 10-year registration. It has been renewed.

Cranky

Flush your DNS cache. On Windows it is ipconfig /flushdns

They are paying him as a “Distinguished Visiting Professor” which seems fine. However, I thought the whole point of spending a sabatical as a visiting professor somewhere was to actually be there! Sounds like he will be in NYC one day per week.

Also more laughably, why would a seminar on “Energy, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and information technology.” mean? How does he even have expertise on them?

I would think the solution is obvious: In good old CUNY tradition, sue to get rid of Petraeus. It worked with Bertrand Russell, after all.

FWIW, CT just came back up for me. If it was the lapsed domain registration reported by Cranky @ 4 that caused the problem, the renewal now seems to have taken hold. Life is good….

Anon, if being a “Full General” is actually a relevant qualification for obtaining adjunct teaching work in economics, American higher ed may be in even worse trouble than we’ve been led to believe.

If anything, anon understates the case. Full General should at least entitle you to a sweetheart loan on a luxurious summer house in the Hamptons.

“There are hundreds of thousands qualified to be adjuncts on CUNY. There are fewer than 225 soldiers who ever achieved the rank of Full General in the United States Army.

No doubt you believe that any one of those hundreds of thousands of qualified adjuncts could perform the service of a Full General. If so, you are more of an idiot than your posts make you out to be.”

I urge that someone’s a priori should be stuffed with apples, and (no doubt *his*) a posterior should be stuffed with oranges.

@Christian h.: If that’s what they’re willing to pay it seems likely that the claims of insolvency aren’t actually false as such.

@ adam.smith: the problem — one of the problems — with the replacement of aristocracy with market-based social stratification is that the only coin you can honour people with is, you know, coin.

A typical adjunct usually finds themselves teaching essentials identified by the university as coursework it couldn’t do without, for students who wouldn’t stand to make progress without completing it; whatever Petraeus teaches will be crafted by him, for him. What a dignified and giving public servant he has proven to be…

On the matter at hand, there’s something weird and American about the semi-obligatory campus appointment as part of the rehabilitation process for disgraced political celebrities.

At least the US rehabilitates its own. Canada’s Dalton McGuinty headed south.

So you could get 70 lecturers for the price of one?
Sounds like a bad deal for the university and the students. If they want to know what Petraeus thinks, they could have bought a few copies of his book for the library.

Becoming a four-star general is more a tribute to political in-fighting skills than real world military competence. But what do I know, didn’t he win the war in Afghanistan?

Can someone explain what the university expects to get out of such a deal? I can see the silliness of it,but presumably someone thought it wad a good idea. What are the proponents thinking?

Is it a pr thing, showing cuny as a place with connections to the corridors of power? If so, who is the pr aimed at? New students?

Also, is cuny a place with such connections, Do really connected places still have to pay?

For those saying he is providing a specialized teaching service normal adjuncts cannot:

I would be prepared to accept that argument if David Petraeus were joining CUNY as a full-time faculty member with no other employment. Or an adjunct with only limited, part-time outside employment, and living in NYC. With office hours, and with the courses materials prepared by David Petraeus rather than by graduate students. There is a place for one or two grad students in Dave Petraeus’ employ–they can help with the separate research he should also be performing as a faculty member, in addition to his seminar!

Instead, he’s also doing a separate university gig–in California! And I’m sure he’ll be giving paid speeches all over the place, and doing whatever the hell he’s doing for KKR, and plus frequent media appearances to promote Dave Petraeus. Forget about him spending time in his office with students–he won’t even be in New York! His course materials will be prepared by TAs, papers graded by student graders. All Dave’s going to do is show up and rehash whatever the hell he talked about with John McCain on TV last Sunday.

CUNY is renting a trophy. A famous man to give two public speeches the trustees can brag about to the their bigshot friends and to all the chumps at NYU and Columbia and Princeton who don’t have any generals. The value of this trophy to the public is $0. The value to the trustees is whatever money they can “secure from a private donor” (that is, whatever contributions they can divert from worthwhile programs to this) to pay Davey.

Didn’t Petraeus “win” the war by handing out large sums of money? (Bribing the enemy?)

Harold,you might find out if you take a course at cuny!

Hmmm…if other countries are sending their disgraced figures to be white-washed with cushy sinecures in US colleges and universities, perhaps the relative sanity of those other countries’ higher ed pay scales is only possible due to the seeming injustice of ours! Someone should ask (commission?) Acemoglu, Robinson and Verdier to write a paper on it.

Call this a further rationalization of the revolving door principle. These days, when a general’s methods become unsound, we don’t send Martin Sheen to hack him to death with a machete, we set him up at an enterprise institute or a college. (Generals whose methods remain sound wind up running our diplomacy, our weapons procurement, or our global arms marketing.)

the majority of the Obama cabinet should probably be cutting similar deals sometime in the next 5 years

Then they’d better get busy. They’ve got a lot of upward failing to do if they want to match Petraeus’ record of non-accomplishment.

@43
Holder has surely already punched his ticket and Katherine Sebelius should have ample at bats over the next year or so….Hegel has to be considered a lock as well, he just needs say a whole year on the job. Susan Rice isn’t on the cabinet, but she been failing upward at a steady pace as well.

You’re right on Pritzker, Lew and Kerry though – they won’t need the money.

The rest have been largely beyond debacle (to their credit).

What a sanctimonious group. There’s hardly a person here who wouldn’t jump at the same deal if offered it. What should Petraeus have done said “oh no, just pay me like a first year junior…maybe a raise later if I prove worthy.”

The post’s title is “Pay us like you pay Petraeus” and you think this is addressed at the General rather than CUNY?

What is the value of an apple?
Someone likes apples and someone doesn’t , thus the value of an apple is different for everyone.
The only way to reach a consensus value is through the market, so the real value of an apple is only the value estabilished by the market.
Only evil central planners think otherwise, they try to push on you their centrally determinated values to deprive you of your freedom.
So, what is the value of a Peterus? It might be 1$ or 2$ per hour, but if the market says otherwise, what special wisdom have we got to go against it?
And what is the value of a common adjunct ? And of an unemployed ?
Face it, the only scientific way to determine the real value of a person is through the size of his/her paycheck, all the rest is just illiberal superstition.

“remember Niall Ferguson making the point in one of his books”

Must’ve been an early book, as Mac wasn’t a Democrat.

A couple of things.

First, an adjunct isn’t a good comparison to determine whether Petraeus’s services are good for the price. In fact it seems to be one deliberately chosen by Gawker to help them sensationalize the story (shocking, just shocking, I know). I’d add some other snort-worthy aspects of Gawker’s reporting on this (teaching a new 3 hour seminar per week apparently means 3 hours of work per week – this may be a pleasant surprise to any academics reading this), but there’s no need.

Second, a seminar with Petraeus is a great opportunity for those students fortunate enough to be in his class. Those students will have a chance to learn from, impress, and forge a very useful contact. That contact, if a student does well, may open doors down the road that would otherwise be closed.

The tough job market today should underscore the value of that second point. CUNY, afaik, has a student body that contains a wide range of ability and talents. And that’s fine – and in fact I’m in favor of radically expanding and improving our public universities – but it may mean that students who work hard and distinguish themselves there may need some additional help competing against students from schools with “better pedigrees” (I hate that term). Having someone like Petraeus on their side can be important.

So, I suspect a seminar by Petraeus (so long as that’s not way above price for a comparable figure) for 150k is worth the price. Assuming a seminar of 20 students, that’s a truly great opportunity for those 20 students, at the cost of 7,500USD per student.

Obviously, there are also lesser but still significant benefits to those students who take advantage of other opportunities to interact, meet, and talk with Petraeus.

And this is before discussing the educational value itself, which I suspect will be substantial.

“Those students will have a chance to learn from, impress, and forge a very useful contact. That contact, if a student does well, may open doors down the road that would otherwise be closed.”

I know this is just a troll but I’d be interested to know what kind of Petreaus contacts would come in useful to the average CUNY undergraduate? (Also that really is an abysmal – if practical – way of approaching your education)

There is, quite possibly, an opportunity to have sex with the general, so count me in!

58: Don’t cloud the argument with hyperbole. Petraeus is a Ph.D. (Princeton), he’s got a fair bit of academic experience (including as an ass’t prof at West Point), and he is used to giving assignments and expecting intelligent answers, in the Army and in the classroom. He may turn out to be as disappointing in practice as you say, but I wouldn’t just assume so.

Posted 60 before i saw Anderson’s 59

great minds think alike ;)

teaching a new 3 hour seminar per week apparently means 3 hours of work per week – this may be a pleasant surprise to any academics reading this

That stuck in my craw too, at first…but upon learning about the “team” of grad students who will be doing pretty much all the work outside the classroom, I think Gawker got it right.

Petraeus is a Ph.D. (Princeton), he’s got a fair bit of academic experience (including as an ass’t prof at West Point), and he is used to giving assignments and expecting intelligent answers, in the Army and in the classroom.

His Ph.D., and his academic experience, are in international relations. The topic of his course is “developments that could position the United States…to lead the world out of the current global economic slowdown.” Wouldn’t that course be more suitably taught by someone with a background in economics? (That was a rhetorical question, of course…we all know that nobody gives a shit.)

Corey, I’m not sure that’s a great way to judge the value of the investment, but along those same lines, 150k is about .005% of CUNY’s 2.6 billion dollar budget.

In combination with the other benefits Petraeus brings to CUNY, and if there are no alternative investments with a better return, I think that’s a good investment. But, if you have an alternative project for the 150k that you think would bring better value, then that would certainly be worth bringing up.

LFC, eh, two seminars, a few campus-wide lectures, and what sound like a few other events. From what little I understand of the market for “names” like Petraeus, even single lectures are quite expensive – I’ve heard of some in the 25k range. I don’t think a 150k salary, for a one year term, is an excessive price given the market. In fact it may be less than Petraeus could obtain elsewhere.

Now, whether that 150k is best put here, or whether there’s an alternative project with better return – that’s an open question, and one I don’t know the answer to.

I wanted to raise the benefits to the students taking his seminars as those benefits didn’t seem to be mentioned in the thread or post, and for the students I think those benefits are particularly important.

Whether this is the best way to spend the money depends, imho, on alternative projects. The Petraeus project produces – again, strictly imho – benefits for his students that are likely greater than those produced by many other professors. However, perhaps there are alternative projects that would produce greater benefit to students. If so, the introduction of those projects would really close the argument.

Ronan, CUNY undergraduates will go on to pursue careers in a wide range of fields, including government service. Petraeus can do lots of things, with little effort, that may make a big difference to a student attempting entry into those careers. A forwarded resume with a personal recommendation, a phone call, a quick email to someone who wants to show himself helpful, etc. Don’t misunderstand me. Education is about much more than making connections that land you in the field you want, and there are ways to get jobs other than helpful connections. But these things can matter, and matter a lot.

Wouldn’t that course be more suitably taught by someone with a background in economics?

On the one hand, I agree; OTOH, looking at many of the economist-pundits nowadays, I wonder whether the course is most suitably taught by anyone *but* an economist ….

… Here is a column at Pat Buchanan’s The American Conservative:

“None of this means Petraeus’ appoint at CUNY is formally unethical. As far as I can tell from the emails, it’s all by the book. And if a private donor can be found, it won’t cost the taxpayers anything. Even so, the episode indicates that CUNY’s priorities are not students’, regular faculty’s, or the public’s.”

Barry has the right take on this. The rest is just a mothe-eaten defense of the indefensible — it’s amazing to me how comfortable we’ve all gotten with Andrew F.’s version of reality, even when we disagree with it. Where’s the House Committee on Un-American Activities now that we really need it?

“He may turn out to be as disappointing in practice as you say, but I wouldn’t just assume so.”

I think if the course was specifically on something he had direct experience with/expertise on (such as the Iraq War) it could be worthwhile. If he was willing to openly talk about, say, US counterinsurgency doctrine, take questions on it, ask people to think critically about it, then that could be interesting and defensible.
But going by the descriptions of the course that have been put out (and the Uncle K describes above) it seems boilerplate Thomas Friedman. He could at least put the effort in

I think if the course was specifically on something he had direct experience with/expertise on (such as the Iraq War) it could be worthwhile. If he was willing to openly talk about, say, US counterinsurgency doctrine, take questions on it, ask people to think critically about it, then that could be interesting and defensible.
But going by the descriptions of the course that have been put out (and that Uncle K describes above) it seems boilerplate Thomas Friedman. He could at least put the effort in

yes. i hadn’t read the course description, or that snippet of it. he shd be teaching something he knows about or has a claim to know about.

FFS, he wrote the ******* ’07 Counterinsurgency Field Manual. There’s actually been quite a lot of academic and quasi-academic discussion of that. Even if one thinks it’s a load of ****, it’s something he knows about. I have no real idea what “developments that could position the United States…to lead the world out of the current global economic slowdown” means, but it sounds pretty amorphous, to say the least. I personally wdnt pay 2 plugged nickels to hear Petreaus on that subject.

I will note that in 4 years of undergrad and 7 of grad school, I absolutely, positively, never had a class that deviated in any way from the published course description. The class will be about whatever Petraeus wants it to be about. I’m not even clear who wrote that up, him or CUNY.

The japanese, btw, call this sort of thing “amakudari”, descending-from-heaven.

Also, something that everyone here knows but needs emphasis: the details of the solutions that “the market” generate depends on the distribution of liquidity going in, and the appropriateness of “the market’s” solutions depends on the appropriateness of the liquidity distribution. And “It’s a market solution so it’s OK” precisely begs this — rather important — question.

Ronan, thanks for the link, tho this strikes me:

“Petraeus is in such favor because the surge is widely seen to have ‘worked,’ allowing the military and the media to shift their attention from Iraq to Afghanistan. The works of Kilcullen, Nagl and Sepp, along with Ricks, have been highly influential in establishing this metanarrative ….”

“While the surge has many champions, its master hagiographer is Tom Ricks, whose The Gamble is so complete in its advocacy of the new counterinsurgency orthodoxy that its cast of characters, narrative arc and subtle norms have passed into mainstream lore.”

That appeared in summer 2010, so one might wish to keep up with what Ricks has been writing since The Gamble. For ex (links not included):

“Did the Iraqi surge succeed? Yes, if you think its purpose was to enable the United States to find a way to get out of Iraq with a few shreds of dignity. (But that would be cynical!) No, if you think its purpose was to improve security in such a way that Iraq would have a political breakthrough.”

As for the author’s assertion that “Counterinsurgency is always an instrument of imperial rule,” … well, “always” is a strong word.

82: Having seen things done so woefully wrong, Ricks was understandably excited to see someone trying to do things right. Tho I seem to recall even at the time, he was clear that the surge could not “work” solely as a military strategy. Possibly I’m just remembering his backpedaling.

Despite my lack of qualifications to pronounce on this stuff, I suspect that “imperialism” isn’t a very helpful framework to understand stuff like the Iraq occupation (or Vietnam for that matter). What the U.S. is up to today is not any better or wiser than what Britain was up to 100 years ago, but it seems materially different in ways that risk being obscured by Victorian labels.

From my (admittedly very limitied) understanding a lot of British ‘imperialism’ was highly contingent and reactive, (private interests leading the way and the state becoming more and more involved as the initial settlers/interests began to expand, lobby government, demand protection etc) and driven by any number of interests, ideas and circumstances that complicate the idea of ‘imperialism’ that (I at least) would hold.
So I really dont know how to think about imperialism, or what it can mean *in general*, across time
Sounderstanding of the history of, particularly British, Imperialism is that it was built in significant part on private interests leading the way and the state becoming more and more involved as the initial settlers/interests began to expand, lobby government, demand protection etc
So, in short, I guess I’m confused..

Trader Joe 07.02.13 at 2:17 pm

” What a sanctimonious group. There’s hardly a person here who wouldn’t jump at the same deal if offered it. What should Petraeus have done said “oh no, just pay me like a first year junior…maybe a raise later if I prove worthy.””

Have a friend loan you a clue.

Ronan(rf) 07.03.13 at 1:46 pm

” I agree generally with your point that ‘Imperialism’ isnt always the best framework to use when trying to understand any number of interventions etc (including a lot of those carried out by the British and Im sure other Imperial powers)
I don’t really mind its use though as, imo, there are arguments either way”

It’s like ’empire’; the word applies differently to the Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, Spanish, French, British and Americans. However, we don’t really have the sort of language we need.