UW: rotten at the top

We hate to turn the page from our previous post where the discussion is still going at 80 comments, but this news is not unrelated in that it also deals with misrepresentation. (comments can still be added to the previous post, or just comment on the same issue here.)

A recent UW press release claims that UW-Madison is rising in overall university rankings. In the CWUR (Center for World Univ. Rankings, based in United Arab Emirates), the UW rose from the 27th ranked university worldwide in 2018 to 25th in 2019 (21st to 19th nationally). But has the UW really improved? A rise of two spots doesn't even surpass the margin for error, and we were unable to find any other ranking in which the UW has risen or in which is ranks as highly as in the study cited by the UW.

In the highly respected Times Higher Education (THE) rankings (image), the UW slipped from 33rd to 36th in reputation score from 2018 to 2019. This score is important because, although it doesn't focus on measurable attributes like student acceptance rates, faculty/student ratio, library quality, and research output, it does measure the perceived quality of a school among academics--which is important for getting a job or getting into grad school.

More significantly, THE ranks UW 43rd overall among world universities. Thus, the UW isn't quite as good as its reputation.

Even worse, THE now ranks UW-Madison as the 23rd best U.S. university (note that this is consistent with the CWUR ranking of 21st in 2018). That compares to rating as the 10th best U.S. university in the 1980s (that includes private universities such as Harvard, Stanford, etc). Also, UW-Madison now ranks as only the 8th best public school; that's not bad, but in the 1980s, it ranked 3rd, trailing only Berkeley and Michigan. In the new US News rankings of public U.S. universities, UW-Madison doesn't even crack the top 10.

In the widely cited QS world university rankings 2019, the UW is even further back at 53rd (20th among U.S. universities), ranking behind such venerable bastions of scholarship as Fudan University (China), the U. of British Columbia (Canada), and the U. of New South Wales (Australia). Ouch.

Finally, the Princeton Review's list of top party schools. Not that it means much, but the UW has slipped to #13 this year. But hey, we still rank higher as a party school than as a place to get a degree!

In citing the CWUR study, it is obvious that UW administrators cherry-picked the study that would paint UW-Madison in the best possible light--and it's still a big drop from a few decades ago. Elder UW administrators must be dreaming of the old days.

The $64,000 question: Is the UW's slide driving Hoofer Sailing Club's slide..? Someone ought to climb Bascom Hill, find the chancellor, and slap her in the head with a copy of the Princeton Review until she gives a straight answer. Or rip that ridiculous sifting and winnowing plaque off the building and use that.

Culture of dishonesty

On Friday, former UW wide receiver Quintez Cephus was found not guilty of sexual assault (rape). Prosecutors argued that the two women who accused him were too drunk to consent to having sex, but it took the jury just 30 minutes to agree that the prosecution was full of shit.

Cephus and former teammate Danny Davis, both of whom are black, testified that the two women, who are white, were not as drunk as they claimed and that they spontaneously undressed after entering Cephus' apartment. Incredibly, the UW-Madison detective who interviewed one of Cephus' accusers in her dorm room shortly after the encounter didn't even note how drunk she was. And this guy is a detective?

The moral is: if a woman voluntarily goes into a man's apartment, gets naked, and then signals for attention, those actions amount to consent.

The Cephus case appears to be yet another instance of women with emotional problems refusing to take responsibility for their actions and making false allegations to try to throw the blame.

Certainly sexual assaults do occur, as with former student Alec Cook who was expelled and subsequently convicted of felony sexual assault. Yet, even in that case, it is evident that one or more of his accusers lied. One has to wonder how much of the truth got lost in the vitriol of that case.

False reports

The Cephus case has eerie parallels in Hoofers. Former commodores have been accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment but were not convicted--probably for lack of any wrongdoing.

False reports may be more common than generally believed. In a 2016 case, a woman reported that she had been sexually assaulted by three men near Memorial Union. Her story turned out to be utter crap--possibly induced by lingering trauma from a supposed previous assault years earlier. For all anyone knows, that one was bogus too.

Former Wis. Union student building manager Abby Panozzo also claimed that she was raped, in 2006. However, her story falls apart to reveal not a rape but a deeply disturbed woman. No charges were ever filed.

The rate of false reports of sexual assault is supposedly 5-10% but may actually be much higher. Moreover, that number doesn't include baseless reports (where a person reports something that actually occurred but is not a crime) or the far more prevalent and insidious problem of embellished reports. The vast majority of reports are likely embellished to some degree. As a dumb but honest cop once said, everybody lies.

How many women end up naked in a guy's bed because their parents never taught them how to say "no"? It may indeed be the parents' fault; the problem is that innocent men are often harmed by the ensuing false police report. And how many young women are damaged goods as a result?--time bombs waiting to wreck some guy's life. If you're a young woman and you don't want to have sex, JUST SAY NO. Don't get drunk, take your clothes off, and then say no.

Speaking of taking your clothes off, keep in mind that over a dozen surveillance cameras now observe part or all of the lakefront area. No doubt Union administrators, most of whom have never seen a live naked human before, are hoping that someone does take their clothes off...

Hot & slippery

At right is a photo from this year's C-Cup, taken on Friday July 19 when the temperature outside was a sweltering 93ºF. If anything, it's even worse out on the water on hot days because the air is extra humid. Look at those faces--these are not happy campers.

If club "leaders" and Union managers aren't careful, they'll find themselves in court, being sued for negligence. Requiring people to wear lifejackets when it's that hot out--especially when it's not windy, as was the case for much of last Friday's "all fleets race"--is negligent. We aren't five year olds. Yeah, somebody drowned in 2015 while not wearing a lifejacket, but it wasn't his fault; it was the skipper's, for letting him jump off the boat in very cold water without a lifejacket, and then sailing away.

It's triply bad because club "leaders" are discouraging anyone from swimming off the boats, maybe because of what happened in 2015. Oddly enough, the reason given isn't usually the toxic algae, which might be a reason. It's more like, "I wouldn't swim off a boat"--so you'd better not either, the implication being that it's dangerous (it's not) or you might lose your ratings if you do. Funny how even a hollow little threat like that can provide a small rush to someone in authority.

The algae hasn't been as bad this year as in some past years, but obviously you don't want to jump into a mass of iridescent blue-green slime near shore. However, swimming off a boat out on the lake is usually fine. Still, people shouldn't have to go swimming just because they're on the verge of heat stroke from being forced to wear a lifejacket. Why do we like to wear lifejackets in October..? Because they help keep you warm.

Tribal conflict

Commodore's Cup '19 is here! Among other things, that means the new piers are about to get their first real test. C-Cup also seems a good time to take a look back at a slice of Hoofer history.

It will be 20 years ago next month that Nathan Salowitz became commodore. Why an engineering student would ever want to become commodore is unclear--the meetings, the problems, the infantile pomp and circumstance. All of that distracts from schoolwork and from actual sailing. Perhaps it was because Nate coveted a keelboat skipper rating and didn't want to have to take hundreds of lessons to get one. Others, too, wanted to obtain skipper ratings the easy way, and they desperately wanted to get paid to teach on the big boats. With that in mind, Nate decided to grab control of the fleet.

Ever since the 1980s, the heavy keelboat fleet--at that time consisting of Maria and Soma--had been an autonomous program wherein instructors were unpaid and all rated skippers could teach lessons. In some ways it was a perfect system because a full skipper rating on Maria or Soma meant you were qualified to teach. The full skipper rating requires (or used to) the ability to manage crew effectively, which means mastery of the boat along with good communication skills. This isn't to say all keelboat instructors were good teachers. Some were lazy, and their lessons were basically cruises, complete with popcorn and beer (can you believe it?!). The important thing is that any skipper could instruct if s/he chose to do so; thus, everyone had equal status in a true 'club' environment. It was a sharp contrast to the other fleets, including the J's, where paid hacks grudgingly doled out ratings to customers--and still do.

Unfortunately, there was little oversight, which naturally led to occasional problems. Head of Paid Instruction Jim Rogers wanted nothing to do with the keelboats because he didn't have authority over the instructors. When there was a problem, good luck! However, he was intrigued at the thought of gaining control, and Nate could help him do that. Nate and Erik saw the personality conflicts as an excuse--and an opportunity--to grab control of the fleet. Doing so would let them water down the ratings requirements, and it would let them exclude individuals they didn't like. It would also pave the way to paid keelboat lessons, every J instructor's wet dream. So it was that Nate spent the year collecting dirt on people and planning his coup. Instead of doing anything to smooth rough edges in the program, he threw a wrench in at every opportunity. Instead of intervening when there were disagreements, he would let the situation fester. The worse it got, the better his chances of taking over.

Evidence of Nate and Erik's intent comes from their ratings--neither had ever earned a skipper rating on any Hoofer large keelboat. Instead, they began chartering private cruises in Florida under the handle "Catastrophe At Sea", amused and inspired by the club's last official cruise (1993) which ended in actual catastrophe. Due to his lack of experience skippering big boats, Nate needed letters of support for the charter company, which his new friend Jim R. was happy to provide.

They would not succeed in weakening the ratings requirements, not right away, but their efforts would inspire others to take up the cause. By 2009, JustinC & Co. had finagled a light (day) heavy keelboat skipper rating, an oxymoron to be sure, that would allow incompetent individuals to skipper the keelboats too. Most passengers would never know or care that their skipper was a lackey, prohibited from sailing the boat after sunset, so long as the beer kept flowing.

In the old days, the only skipper rating had been full skipper, the reasoning being that a storm can always come up while you're out on the water. If you only have a light rating, then what? Big boats can do big damage and are categorically different than dinghies or even J-boats. Hence any skipper should be a full skipper. Today, that reasoning has become: get as many yahoos out on the water as possible. Nate's efforts also led directly to paid instruction on the heavy keelboats. Alas, giving people money to do something doesn't make them more competent at it.

In an upcoming post, we'll look at other commodores who used the position to pursue members of the opposite sex. We'll also take a closer look at the new piers which, it turns out, are not as bad as some people expected!

Hoofers: A dominance hierarchy

With Commodore's Cup approaching, we thought it would be a good time to reflect on past commodores and some of their achievements.

It's common knowledge that former commodore Carl Stenbol met his future wife in Hoofers. Lots of commodores and instructors meet their future mates in Hoofers. From the 75th Anniversary anecdotes:

Stenbol met Dawn at a Hoofer Kickoff late 1980’s, when Carl picked her out of a membership signup line and announced she had won a free cruise on Maria (Hoofer heavy keelboat) for being the 1000th member. It wasn’t even close to the truth but it gained Carl his first date with his future wife. Married August 1992, at their wedding we drank the Union out of Mount Gay Rum. The current instruction program at Hoofers (with paid instructors, instructor training, standard lesson content, reviews) was pretty much all built by Carl – before Carl, instruction was volunteer and haphazard.

A rum fest, wow... wish I could have been there. Alas, I can only imagine what the old days must have been like.

Anyway, it's a cute anecdote, but think about what it says: The first thing Carl ever said to his future wife was a deceit. Of course, we all tell white lies from time to time. I did it myself once, although it was more the trivial variety, e.g. "Didn't I see you at Sammy's party last week..?" Not a terribly clever line, but all I could muster on a hangover, and it worked--it got me a date!

But when you're in a position of authority, then you can really take advantage (more on that in a forthcoming post). Was it an abuse by Stenbol? It was someone taking advantage of his position. The point is, practically no one else in Hoofers would be in a position to do that. Nor is it only white lies that are told in Hoofers. Some people deliberately tell blatant, malicious lies to attack people they don't like.

The second thing Carl did was to start building a stronger caste system in HSC. Paid instruction created a vested interest in hanging on to your job which, in turn, created an incentive to hire your buddies in place of more qualified individuals. No longer was everyone expected to teach others in a club environment. Now it was us (paid "staff") and them (payers). A natural evolution of the elevated status enjoyed by instructors is the incentive to water down the requirements for ratings, at least for insiders. Hence "instructor ratings weekend" and "fast-tracking". HSC instructors pretend to know what they're doing, but many are incompetent (LINK2, LINK3, LINK4, LINK5, LINK6, LINK7, LINK8, LINK9).

Such shenanigans by Stenbol and other club "leaders" highlights the fact that HSC is now a club within the club. That is, the real club consists exclusively of club officers and instructors. The rest of you are just cattle, here to be milked for cash (and sex). This model works, more or less, because so many around the UW are used to paying for instruction.

The easy-ratings-for-instructors policy has had serious repercussions including the death of a passenger in 2015 caused by a skipper who got her rating from her boyfriend after a single lesson. Makes you wonder if it was even a sailing lesson.

Feel free to share more anecdotes, but remember that personal names are strongly discouraged except when discussing state of Wisconsin (e.g. Hoofer) employees or former employees.

In a forthcoming post, we'll look at other commodores and Hoofer employees who used their position to pursue a member of the opposite sex, not always successfully.

And you thought Hoofers only taught sailing?

The Hoofer Sailing Club, established in 1939, is a collection of students and community members working together an unsupervised sociology experiment authorized by the Wisconsin Union, UW-Madison. Here you can learn the arts of manipulation, how to slander people to advance your own position or harm rivals, how to "cook the books", and so on.

As a paying "club member", you won't actually become a club member--you'll be a customer, but that's okay (for us). We are the instructors and club officers who have been selected for our superior party skills and/or alcohol tolerance.* Fortunately (for us), we have immunity from prosecution should you be injured and want to sue. People shouldn't be held responsible for their actions if they're state employees, right?

Luckily for you, sailing is safer than rock climbing or bungee jumping, but injuries are to be expected. In the past, we've had students get hit in the head by the boom--hundreds of times, on various types of boat, with some of those resulting in concussions and permanent injury. Do a google search for "flying jibe" if you want to learn more. Since 2015, there have been two deaths in Hoofer Sailing. One was caused by an instructor, the other by the UW Rescue service. But hey, hundreds of other people went out sailing and didn't get killed. Those are pretty good odds, right?

NOTE that the club's official site falsely advertises many aspects of "club" membership. For instance, the site states that:

1. you'll be joining a "club". This implies you'll have equal say, standing, comparable benefits, or something like that, but nothing could be further from the truth. You'll be a customer, giving money to other individuals who have lots of benefits, none of which you will have.

2. That you can "teach others to sail". In fact, you are not allowed** to teach anyone how to sail unless formally approved as a Hoofer instructor! If you try it, you'll be kicked out of the club, and we'll keep your money.

3. That you can get your deposit back. Good luck with that because Hoofer employees actively scheme how to keep customers (paying club members) from getting their deposits back^†.

4. That HSC is a social organization where you can make great new friends. Mostly that's for instructors and club officers--the real club--who take advantage of their positions in every way possible. If you're just a plebe (a customer), heh, good luck impressing anyone in a dinghy or as crew on a keelboat. If you can somehow manage to become commodore, you can really take advantage and get the girls (more on that in our next post).

5. Most people who join only want to take a few lessons. That's absurd. Most people want to take many more, at least initially, but either the lessons they want are always full, or they get scared away (see above). The real club (instructors+BOC) love those people because we get to keep their $200 membership fee!


6. That Hoofers doesn't discriminate. Unfortunately, the club does discriminate illegally. For one example, see the comments here.

So join Hoofers now! Just don't sign up for sailing--try kayaking, SCUBA, or something else instead. Better yet, get the heck out of Madison this summer and go see the world!

*Alcohol has been officially banned on board Hoofer boats since 2015, although there's no law against getting hammered on shore and then going sailing. Nor has the no-alcohol policy stopped some club leaders and instructors from taking beer and liquor on board.
**Hoofer Sailing has been changing web URLs, removing documents, sanitizing BOC minutes, and so on, perhaps to cover their tracks. That is how crooks operate. The link in #2 above is to the 2014 Ground School Manual--the latest that's online as of the date of this post (which alone should tell you something). As of June 2019, the club's official manual site has removed all manuals, ostensibly to be revised (why didn't we do this in the off-season??). If the above link to the 2014 GS Manual becomes disabled, let us know and we'll post a copy someplace.
†Not all BOC and instructors are criminals, but too many are.