@the_same_mountainbike
Research is important and grant funding is important to carrying out the research. I had a very good publication record and was involved in grant writing.
However, I taught the courses I was assigned in addition to doing the research and publishing. I would not turn any of my classes over to a graduate assistant. I served as a panelist on my university’s research committee evaluating grant proposals for internal funding in the science and social science areas.
I now write grants for musical organisations to keep them going. I do this without pay. I get more satisfaction bringing in funding that brings free concerts for underserved areas than I did working on grants where a good portion of the grant goes to support bureaucracy.
All of my professors and instructors were full time and no research period. The only thing they did was consultant work with area companies in the summer. We never had any assistants teaching classes. Of course our tuition was about double a state school. My smallest class one summer was 5 of us.
I do believe the lid is starting to blow off on higher education similar to the Hollywood and media scandals. Let it happen as far as I’m concerned. Who was it that said instead of worrying about what kind of planet we are leaving our kids, we should be concerned about what kind of kids we are leaving our planet? It only takes one generation for ruination as Reagan alluded to.
I pass no judgment on the system. As I said, I did it myself. My feeling is that for a college to exist, it has the same need to bring in revenue as a company does, and this is a good source of funding. I dislike the politics, but it’s a “package deal”. A college has different sources of revenue than most companies do, but the funds to pay the bills have to come from somewhere. Colleges are in actuality businesses, even though most are run by administrators who are more politically astute than rich in business acumen.
I remain bothered by a great deal of what I saw being taught in some college courses, and by the out-of-control proliferation of totally useless courses (offered as “free electives”), as well as the proliferation of programs created solely to pander to and attract special interest groups, but that’s a separate issue from the funding… except where these programs are created solely for the purpose of acquiring federal grant funding.
There are the few institutions that are rich in endowments, but that’s a whole 'nother discussion.
But hey, I’m retired now. I shouldn’t care anymore. 
Where do you find these lousy kids? My children and all their friends are outstanding young adults. I have no problem turning the USA over to them. Certainly there are those that are unsatisfactory, but there are several Boomers of note that are below the line as well.
I prefer to use measured data rather than opinion surveys to determine things like reliability and durability. Fortunately, one of the articles you’ve provided (the first) uses such data. The CR article relies on survey results.
That’s not a fact, it’s a slogan, and you’re buying into Toyota’s marketing hype by repeating it.
Maybe not a ‘fact’, but a well-tested claim. Every time this comes up, folks try to disagree, with no alternative offered up. If it’s not Toyota and Honda, then who are the most reliable carmakers? And what is your basis for that claim?
I don’t deny the claim itself, I merely point out that it’s a marketing slogan, not a fact. Please don’t get the mistaken idea that I necessarily disagree with the point being made just because I distinguish between fact and opinion, especially as the owner of a 20-year-old Honda that has 291,000 miles on the odometer.
When I bought my car 19 years ago, Honda and Toyota held a clear edge in reliability and manufacturing quality. Perhaps they still hold that same edge, but with the margin of build quality narrowing among the top car manufacturers, I’m not sure the slight edge in build quality is worth the premium you pay in price difference, so I’m not going to let brand loyalty choose my next vehicle, but if Honda offers the vehicle I want at the price I want, I will make my next vehicle another Honda. I have been extremely happy with the reliability of my '98 Civic.
I’m not entirely sure that Toyota has a clear quality edge
For example, I believe my 1995 Corolla was built to a higher standard, versus my 2005 Camry
That shouldn’t really be possible, considering the Corolla was built earlier, and was a smaller and cheaper car to begin with
But that’s been my experience, nevertheless
We have several Civics and Priuses in our fleet, which I also feel have mediocre build quality. And the Prius is not supposed to be a disposable garbage car. Sure, they’re holding up mechanically. But the interiors are falling apart. And it’s due to build quality, not fleet use. That much I’m certain of.
No,talk to mechanics and they will agree with me.
I’m a mechanic and I don’t agree. I’d say a modern day Ford product is as reliable as a Toyota. And that’s coming from a life-long Chevy guy.
A great deal of long-term reliability comes from driving habits and maintenance. I believe people that buy Hondas and Toyotas tend to be more vigilant in following maintenance and keeping up on repairs. And therefore get better results than the person who buys a Ford and doesn’t do a bit of maintenance.
I’ve said for 25 years that the Camry is a great car. I’d never buy one. It has absolutely nothing fun or sexy or exciting or appealing about it. It’s like a plain baked potato. Blah.
I can’t say that I have observed that situation with Priuses, but I have seen it on multiple VWs.
The most memorable one was a VW Golf that was owned by a guy whom I knew. Yes, he was a big, heavy guy, but should the upholstery on the driver’s seat have been–literally–in shreds after just 4 years? You could actually see the metal seat components peeking through the huge gaps in the shredded upholstery fabric.
Actually this is an interesting conversation. When though did we switch from buying for style to buying for longevity? Gee back in 1958, when the 59 models came out, everyone wanted a new car. Then the 1960 models came out and everyone wanted to trade-because of styling, not longevity. So somewhere along the line we decided we wanted to keep cars for 10-15 years and we didn’t care if they all looked the same from one year to the next? Interesting but I still think styling sells but you still have to have a reasonable reputation for reliability.
I buy for both, and for handling, comfort, sound level, and acceleration.
@bing. I am one who doesn’t care about style. Function is more important to me. I replaced my 2011 Toyota Sienna with a 2017 Sienna, because we sold the 2011 Sienna to our son. Except for the color, the 2011 and 2017 are exactly the same in appearance. When I bought the new Sienna, I told my friends that I had my old Sienna repainted by Earl Scheib for $49.95. The 2017 Sienna that I wanted was exactly the same color as my 2011, but it was sold before I could buy it.
I was probably in the minority about the looks of the 1959 GM cars. I thought these cars, particularly the Cadillac, were an exercise in bad taste. I was senior in high school when these GM cars came out. My Dad was driving ac1954 Buick at the time with 100,000 miles on the odometer. We went for a test drive in a 1959 Buick Invicta. The whole family agreed that the 1954 Buick we owned was much more comfortable. The seats in the 1959 Buick were hard in the middle section, essentially making the 1959 Buick a four passenger car. The trunk was so shallow that a suitcase wouldn’t stand upright.
I think the VW Beetle did a lot to change the culture. The styling of the Beetle didn’t change and that set a trend.
I rather spend time driving it than fix it.
We got a 2017 rav4, it is hard to tell from other makes of a similar vehicle, I look for the roof racks, but everything looks pretty much the same to me.
When did we switch from style? I don’t know if I am in the minotrity here but for me it was when every thing started to look the same. The only way I can tell one from another is when I am close enough to see the name tag.
.
I don’t even LIKE the new styles. Everything is creased, folded, spindled, and mutilated. I like smooth curves, like the '64 XKE or the Jaguar D-type. I guess my tastes are just old fashioned.
We traded our 08 for a 12 and shortly after one of our neighbors was wondering about buying our old car when we traded. We said, well we already did trade. Yeah they looked pretty close.
Yeah sure, comfort and handling and so on were important, but still a 58 Ford and a 59 Ford were pretty much the same for comfort and handling, but the style was different.