~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Gov't IS THE PROBLEM!!!!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mark Zuckerberg gave New Jersey $100 million to fix Newark's schools, WASTED
- Thread starter Prologue
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Gov't IS THE PROBLEM!!!!
Yekshemesh
Member
*Corruption Firms...
As a management consultant, none of this surprises me. There are a number of my contemporaries that are more concerned with dragging out the length of a project rather than extending actionable recommendations that can be executed, fostering self-sustainability.
As that caricature Marty Khan says, it's all about keeping them sucking on to the tit...
Curious to see Booker's response, he struck me a sharp guy whenever I saw him on Bill Maher's panel.
As that caricature Marty Khan says, it's all about keeping them sucking on to the tit...
Curious to see Booker's response, he struck me a sharp guy whenever I saw him on Bill Maher's panel.
Sirpopopop
Member
Charter schools aren't the problem. They're a symptom of the problem in public schools. I didn't go to a charter or private school because our public schools were good. But take those decent public schools and turn them into shit then it's no wonder many parents are willing to try private/charter schools as an alternative.
Charter schools are a joke and are part of the problem. Our issues with education don't lie in the Northeast. The poor public schools in the Northeast are poor because there is a sizable amount of the populace (though I would hesitate to call it the majority) in these schools who come from trying circumstances. They are going to require more money & more effort to educate. However, by and large, the Northeast is doing well in education. They believe in their public schools and they get good results out of them.
Our country is lagging because of states that don't spend money on their schools - namely the South.
Guess where all of the shitty government lies that you are complaining about? The South.
Government is bad at spending other peoples money because the people aren't in the street flipping the fuck out when their money gets poorly spent. But hey, House of Cards is 4K in June. Sure, in 100 years our kids will be so dumb we won't even be to innovate technology and solutions but whatevs.
I didn't bring up Charters school, lol. But ok.
1. My original point was that government is poor at spending money because we use our government to fund poor ideas. Charter schools are one of those ideas.
2. People don't protest when money is poorly spent? I guess you missed this past Newark election where the folks who wanted to continue Booker's agenda lost the election. A vote for the other team is the strongest form of protest I know.
Corporate education reform is one if the worst things about the democrat party. Really? 20 million on consultants? Charter schools?
What a joke.
Aren't Booker and Christie Republican?
Aren't Booker and Christie Republican?
Booker is a Dem with different views on education. Most would say Repub views.
BobTheFork
Member
$1000 a day for a consultant is only a $125 bill rate. That's not abnormal at all.
Is it abnormal for them to serve no purpose and accomplish nothing?
Is it abnormal for them to serve no purpose and accomplish nothing?
I get the impression it isn't!
curlyfriski
Banned
Education reform is popular with a lot of dems. Just look at Obama's Secretary of Education.Booker is a Dem with different views on education. Most would say Repub views.
I'm not going to say all or the majority but a size able amount of dems support "corporate" education reform with all the bullshit that comes with it.Booker is a Dem with different views on education. Most would say Repub views.
I definitely wouldn't say its abnormal. My private sector company I work at is currently paying a shit ton of money to consultants who I think mainly work on convincing upper management to keep paying them indefinitely.Is it abnormal for them to serve no purpose and accomplish nothing?
EatinOlives
Member
When has pouring money into schools ever fixed anything?
Well the problem is the vast majority of the money didn't even go to the schools.
It would if the money ever got to the schools. New Jersey dams are hollow.When has pouring money into schools ever fixed anything?
He could and should have gone with an endowment and trusts to get this rolling. It may very well be in realm of possibility that Mark has horrible advisors around him
I don't think it was too bad they probably just couldn't find the leader they needed. I imagine he knew it had low odds from the beginning.
He basically invested a ton in Blackberry. Look that business is totally failing lets invest huge in it! He knew they'd need a dynamic leader but he had no control over it. He prompted the mayor to get his butt in gear hiring the person and apparently someone was immediately hired.. probably not the best sign. It was probably going to be hard to get someone incredible anyway. Let's say you threw a bunch of money at BlackBerry. Could you get one of the brightest up and coming execs to come on board? Dunno, they can go to any company doing well and get investments there and not risk ruining their career taking on an incredible challenge.
In terms of an hourly billing, the consulting rate of $1000 a day is actually pretty low. These companies bill $125-150 for entry level (pre-MBA) employees' hours typically. (Those entry employees are probably making 60k-100k at best annually, for those curious). Hourly billings will range upwards to 800 to 1000 per hour for a partner. That $1000 per day probably represents a couple hours of work per day from an analyst and a consultant, as well as a couple hours per week from a manager and a partner. A typical consulting firm would probably offer some discount on its typical rates, especially for a project like this.
The $20 million figure is a bit more interesting. In the context of the $200 million donation, 10% basically being attributed to administrative and executive functions isn't necessarily unusual. What is unusual is this:
$1000 per day per consulting firm
260 workdays per year (overestimate, but de minimis for the argument)
3 years (2010 through 2012, though they probably weren't active for the entirety of the time. Again, de minimis for the argument)
= approx 780 thousand
20 / 0.78 = approximately 25 different consulting groups. For any project, that would be highly unusual. The article only lists off 'public relations, human resources, communications, data analysis, [and] teacher evaluation.' My guess is there are some groups being called 'consultants' in there that never delivered any substantial deliverables aka people are being paid off and being called consultants.
Flipping through the New Yorker article now to see if there is any more to help with understanding this.
The $20 million figure is a bit more interesting. In the context of the $200 million donation, 10% basically being attributed to administrative and executive functions isn't necessarily unusual. What is unusual is this:
$1000 per day per consulting firm
260 workdays per year (overestimate, but de minimis for the argument)
3 years (2010 through 2012, though they probably weren't active for the entirety of the time. Again, de minimis for the argument)
= approx 780 thousand
20 / 0.78 = approximately 25 different consulting groups. For any project, that would be highly unusual. The article only lists off 'public relations, human resources, communications, data analysis, [and] teacher evaluation.' My guess is there are some groups being called 'consultants' in there that never delivered any substantial deliverables aka people are being paid off and being called consultants.
Flipping through the New Yorker article now to see if there is any more to help with understanding this.
I worked for a consulting firm and am going back to business school to hopefully transition to investment banking
Dreams-Visions
Member
Sent the article along to my educator friends and family. I'm sure they'll find it quite interesting indeed.
"Consultant" more often than not seems to mean "six figure bullshit artist".
Depends on the industry, really, and how trained the consultant is. Engineering consultants are vital, for example in the environmental space, and have a wealth of training and knowledge.
Is it abnormal for them to serve no purpose and accomplish nothing?
If they're not supervised or don't have a good contract in place to make sure they deliver? Which sounds like was the case here.
SwiftDeath
Member
Public relation consultants win again
SlipperySlope
Banned
As a project manager, this really makes me angry. While the last quote isn't really wrong, it's not something you say when you're still at 0% completion.
It's Zuckerberg. I'd hardly say his own project is an ideal platform.
SlipperySlope
Banned
$1000 a day for a consultant is only a $125 bill rate. That's not abnormal at all.
It's actually not for a skilled consultant. But 20 million on them is abnormal when your budget is 200 million. Consultants aren't supposed to be brought on full-time at their high rate, which is what it sounds like was done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The government is not efficient at spending your money. It's about as efficient as the crack whore down the street. You know where your money is going if you give it to her. Which is the main reason I want the government cut to bare-bones.
Who do you think is better at spending your money? You, or the government?
Public relation consultants win again
I'm in the wrong field. Seriously, what do you tell your clients? "Don't say anything stupid."
smokeandmirrors
Banned
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The government is not efficient at spending your money. It's about as efficient as the crack whore down the street. You know where your money is going if you give it to her. Which is the main reason I want the government cut to bare-bones.
Who do you think is better at spending your money? You, or the government?
Of course you would. Of course the big bad crack addicted government can't be good at anything ever.
Or you know, NASA too, or even our public schools in the past when we were number 1 in the world before it was gutted, teachers demonized and people like you with a completely incorrect view on how economies work thought they should have a say.
But you're a joke so I don't know why I bother with you at all.
Vicetrailia
Member
Article paints consultants as the scum of the Earth and some Gaffers say they want to become one. Nice one guys!
easy money.
Good government has oversights to stop consultants and private individuals from ripping people off. This is just a story of what happens best in the US. Like healthcare the money goes to administration costs rather than actual treatment.people trusted the government to handle $100 million with honor and integrity and made sure not one penny was wasted?
how naive
Obviously I'm a consultant so my take is biased, but I've seen stuff like this in private sector as well as public. It's not a "lolololz gubmint" thing. Whenever you have a chunk of money without clear objectives, deliverables, and vision stuff like this happens regardless of the kind of institution. Zuckerberg was at best naive, but most likely stupid in saying "here's a ton of money, do something" I mean, do you really think this would have played out any different in the private sector if you gave them a chunk of cash and no real objective or anything? Come now.It's actually not for a skilled consultant. But 20 million on them is abnormal when your budget is 200 million. Consultants aren't supposed to be brought on full-time at their high rate, which is what it sounds like was done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The government is not efficient at spending your money. It's about as efficient as the crack whore down the street. You know where your money is going if you give it to her. Which is the main reason I want the government cut to bare-bones.
Who do you think is better at spending your money? You, or the government?
Sirpopopop
Member
I feel like the people dumping the blame on charter schools and consultants hasn't actually read the article, or else they have poor reading comprehension, or else they're intentionally ignoring the substance of the article for axe-grinding purposes.
So can you tell us what people should be taking out of the article instead of engaging in drive-by insults?
So can you tell us what people should be taking out of the article instead of engaging in drive-by insults?
What I took out from the article is:
1. The educational reform movement is authoritarian and paternalistic. While it may not be intentional, it seems the people running the movement at least subconsciously believe that the situation is "beyond" the people they're trying to help, and don't put enough priority on obtaining the buy-in of these people. In fact, one of the reasons Newark was chosen as the test case was because the schools were run so badly and corruptly that the state took them over, thus allowing the reformers to bypass what they saw as the corrupt and obstructionist local political scene. While they may or may not be correct in this assessment, cutting local power-brokers out of the process will ensure that they will drag you down to hell with them, because the local population will trust them more than they will a group of colonialist carpetbaggers.
2. Educational reform is like the left-wing version of health-care reform. The reformers had to keep watering their proposals down to appease both ideological opponents and people (teachers' unions, local politicians and activists) who were benefiting either financially or politically from the status quo. Or, to be more specific in the case of populist politicians, benefiting from opposition to reform. Instead of any compromise earning a grudging attempt at open-mindedness from opponents, it instead just made the policies less effective, while encouraging the opposition rather than mollifying them. The unions and politicians were also able to use point 1 (which is legitimate) to mobilize Newark's population into rising up in opposition (which also had the coincidental side-effect of benefiting these power-brokers).
Conclusion: Power struggle transitioned from a means to an end, with the suffering of the people becoming an afterthought.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.