College cuts
In a move that will like draw attention from across the North Country, Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs is cutting 70 positions.
This from the Glens Falls Post Star:
The decision to pare the school's work force was made after projected income for the 2011 fiscal year dropped 8 percent, roughly $12.6 million, from earlier estimates, school administrators said.
The shortfall reflects declines in expected tuition income, a fall-off in alumni donations and less-than-expected interest payments.
The school's endowment fund has also taken a hit. Projected to hit $340 million in 2011, it hovered at around $260 million as of late September, reflecting the overall downturn in the economy.
posted by Brian Mann @ 12/01/2009 09:52:00 AM
41 Comments
41 Comments:
Projected to hit $340 million in 2011, [the endowment] hovered at around $260 million as of late SeptemberAs a Skidmore grad, I feel qualified to play the world's smallest violin in sympathy with their pain.
The most impressive part of the article in the Post Star: Costs for tuition, room and board at the school topped $51,000 this year, making it the fifth most expensive private college in the country...
Is there any justification for that?
The obscene cost of higher education today is just.....obscene. I see little justification for the outrageous costs. It's supposed to be about education, not sports and non-academic functions and the constant build, build, build. Is it any wonder so many people are turning to online courses these days?
What's even more obscene about Skidmore's skidding is that New York taxpayers support every graduate from every private institution in the form of Bundy Aid.
jpm
A year ago 100 staff positions were cut at RPI, and according to a story in the Plattsburgh Press-Republican up to 70 positions could be lost. SUNY Potsdam is facing a deficit of millions. In the case of the state schools, tuition was raised last year and 90% went into the general fund!
Uh, Bret...
Skidmore doesn't have big-time sports. They're NCAA Division III. Cutting their budget won't save a whole lot.
But your point is correct as it pertains to spending by (state-supported) Division I wannabes like UBuffalo.
4:21- I was referring to colleges and universities in general. Any non-academic function, position, building or pursuit should be done away with. Lower the cost of higher education to where people can afford it and to where people aren't leaving school with 100,000.00 of debt. There's no reason for any professor to be making more than $75-100K a year, and most probably only really rate something in the $50-60K area, some I've seen aren't worth that.
I see no reason 4 years of higher ed shouldn't come in under $20K.
Please flame away now.
Let see Bret4207. If I've heard you right for the past six months pretty much everyone whould just take a pay cut. Is there anyone you think should not take apaycut?
You don't listen very well then. This is the first time you'd see me advocating anyone take a cut that I can recall. What I advocate is TAX and SPENDING cuts, over time, so as to leave more money in the hands of those who've earned it. The producers in this nation deserve that. Those that don't produce anything, yet reap benefits, are the only ones I'd look at cutting. Even then wading through the institutional bureaucracy to determine who really does produce in the college biz would be difficult.
Bret4207. Who "earns" their money? who "produces"?
Anonymous said at 7:33 PM
Bret4207. Who "earns" their money? who "produces"?
Anonymous, read what Bret4207 says one post before yours:
"Those that don't produce anything, yet reap benefits, are the only ones I'd look at cutting. EVEN THOUGH WADING THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO DETERMINE WHO REALLY DOES PRODUCE IN THE COLLEGE BIZ WOULD BE DIFFICULT."
December 1, 2009 7:21 PM
I'm not one to leap to Bret4207's defense here, but what he is posting here is right on topic.
In the college "biz" where everyone teaches but no one "produces" anything, how shall the institutional bureaucracies decide what jobs to cut and who the labor-fakers are?
Makes perfect logic to me.
And I took Logic 101.
And I watch Star Trek. The old school one. With Spock.
When the syracuse basketball team fills the dome with 32000+ is anybody "producing" anything? What say you? You think places like Clarkson University, right here in our NC don't produce anything? That they are living off the public dole, that they don't earn their keep? That the support personel at all the area colleges don't "earn" their pay? Many of these institutions and their programs provide funding so deserving students can attend these institutions of higher learning. How much should a car cost, how much should gas cost, how much should health care cost, how much should fuel to heat your home cost, how much should a textbook cost, the price of many things in our society is obscene.
An anon said: "In the college "biz" where everyone teaches but no one "produces" anything, how shall the institutional bureaucracies decide what jobs to cut and who the labor-fakers are?"
Part of the "college biz" is scholarship and research, which is actually a form of production. Even what some people would call "pointless" research, like linguistics where they literally study the meaning of the word "the," can lead to breakthroughs in programming and artificial intelligence. Same goes for the much maligned cow flatulence studies--which actually have pinpointed part of agriculture's contribution to global warming.
Bret, et.al.;
Paying college professors no more than 50-70k is silly. First off, in many private colleges the high pay that professors receive stems from endowments (specifically for their position) or because of grants that they attract to the institution. Second, the silliness of the cap you suggest doesn't account for inflation or location. Third, in order to keep good faculty you need to pay them. There's a market for those that produce good scholarship and are good teachers.
jpm
From Whip Inflation Now Bret: "There's no reason for any professor to be making more than $75-100K a year, and most probably only really rate something in the $50-60K area, some I've seen aren't worth that.
I see no reason 4 years of higher ed shouldn't come in under $20K."
For a private college.
Smells like... socialism. Hoffman's gonna throw you outta the lodge.
You guys take the bait every time. You prove my point without my help. If SU can fill the seats with 32K people- exactly what has that done to educate the students? Nothing. Not a darn thing. If Clarkson or SLU wins the coveted title what has that done to educate the students? If a professor is only hired because it fulfills an endowment requirement that's fine by me as long as it doesn't add to the overall cost of the education and the same goes for research that's producing something. But what of the Professors who draw their salaries and benefits that exceed $100 or $150K that have their grad students do all the instruction? What of the staffing requirements that have to be met to support programs and functions that are of no educational benefit, but are merely geared towards providing a politically correct environment? What of the courses that have no educational merit (badmiton? I saw this in a college paper not long ago) yet have a budget and support staff draining resources and costing more dollars? It's great that a kid can go to college and take "fluff" courses to fill the credit requirements and yet still leave him time to party till he pukes while piling up tens of thousands of dollars of debt, but isn't it just possible we could maybe change things a bit to make it more affordable? That's not socialism, that's conservative common sense.
As for the salary caps- with an "Anonymous" handle it's impossible to say for sure, but those of you who feel it's ridiculous, would you be on that side when the subject is Wall St types? It's the same thing. If capping a banker or investors salary is right then shouldn't we also cap a Professors salary when his "production" is even less visible or hard to quantify?
Open your eyes folks. I want more people to be able to send their kids to college, not less. But it's become a business where profit and reputation, however well hidden, is the motive. We just need a "Walmart" college option.
Bret, Bret, Bret. You are just plain wrong. SU basketball(and any other number of programs at various universities around this great country) bring far and way more money to SU then it takes to run the basketball program. There by allowing deserving students(not the basketball players, Bret) to get educations that could not otherwise be obtained. Now, You've clearly described who does NOT earn their keep. The question you were asked(see Dec. 1 7:33) is who DOES earn their keep.
Skidmore has a very good equestrian program.
Bret,
I believe as you do that there's a market for professor's salaries, just as there should be a market that determines the salaries of Wall St. executives. We're probably at odds with others in this discussion. So, I'm not opposed to higher salaries for either.
BTW, professors are often underpaid when compared to administrators in the same institutions. There are not many professors making exorbitant incomes from their appointments. There are, however, administrators that draw hundreds of thousands of dollars and "produce" little.
Also, "production" is not the proper index for determining salary. In an ideal situation market forces determine value (and salary). But there are plenty of circumstances when this doesn't occur.
The argument for continuing college athletics despite the fact that most are losers economically, is because they a) add to a sense of community & school spirit, b) increase the notoriety of the institution, and c)this notoriety attracts funding and leaders in different fields of research. To a lesser degree, as one posting suggests, sports also allow under represented students chances to earn college degrees.
My question to you though is - Why cap the salary of a professor but not that of a Wall St. executive, a physician, a baseball player? What's your rationale for that? It seems inconsistent from your other postings.
JPM
JPM- I'm not for capping the salarys per se, that was bait. What I was saying was you can't have it both ways- if the professor commands a certain salary based on his ability then so does the Wall St banker, the insurance executive, the pharmaceutical executive or investment banker- as long as they produce a result that's beneficial. Now that doesn't mean it makes sense to me that any of those guys or a basketball player or Oprah really is worth however many zillions of dollars, but that's life.
Yeah, yeah, yeah sports bring in so much money. Right, and the Lotto will make it so we never have to pay school taxes, sure. Okay, if sports brings in so much money then why is it still so expensive to go to college? It seems to me it only benefits the athletes, coaches and whoever makes bucks selling the sweatshirts, etc. I've heard this argument before and it's always from rabid sports fans, sports scholarship recipients, and college staff. What does it do to EDUCATE? School spirit? Please!
Who earns their keep? Those who produce the results they were hired to produce. Those who fail, lets use teachers for an example since I'm somewhat familiar with that area (my wife), aren't producing. A few years back the idea of "Excellence in Teaching" pay bonuses came about. Great idea I guess, pay those teachers who excel a bonus and encourage others to do likewise. As I understand it before long everyone got EIT pay since it was "unfair" to reward only some. Why reward those who don't meet the standard? Those are the non-producers. In my old career you either met the standard or you were fired. Simple. Why is that so hard to grasp? Those who benefit from the labor of others when they themselves are capable of labor but refuse to do so are leeches on us all. Why are they rewarded? Compassion for their situation only goes so far, especially when there's not enough money coming in.
So Bret, you peak my interest. In your old career if you didn't sell enough widgets you were out on your ear. I got that. Now, what if the standard was unclear. Umm... that is; more subjective, not black and white. Are you saying; teachers,such as your wife, should be out on their ear if too many kids fail. Is that the idea?
Wait a minute.
On one hand, Bret decries socialism and communism at every turn.
On the other hand, he says "someone" (I think he says this) should "determine" who is "producing" and who isn't. And that salaries should be capped, at an undetermined level for Wall Streeters, and at $50,000 for professors. Sounds like a command economy to me.
On the third hand, he says it's all just "bait."
On the fourth hand, he seems to throw his wife under the bus as a lousy teacher. Yet he still seems to be living off those public-sector checks.
So Bret, are we supposed to believe you believe anything you actually post?
I'ze confuzed.
Comon guys! Keep up with me here! I'm old and I know I killed a lot brain cells in my youth so it can't be that hard.
1- Nope, I don't endorse capping wages, but others here go on and on about the unjust salaries Wall St types make, so I tried to present the idea that no one should be artificially capped at any level.
2- No, I'm not saying teachers should be "out on their ear". I just re-read my post and it seemed clear to me. They tried to encourage teachers (who, like cops, burn out fast) with the Excellence in Teaching bonus. Instead it ended up with everyone getting it because it was "unfair" to reward those who "produced" a little better than the others. WHY? It wasn't unfair, it was an incentive to produce a little more and the by product would be better teachers, better schools and more kids meeting the standards expected which is the purpose of our school system- not sports, popularity, scoring chicks or providing jobs for people that only want to work 180 days a year. Seems simple to me.
3- How do you determine who's producing in a bureaucratic nightmare like our schools or gov't? I would think those people who are familiar with the school system or with the various Gov't agencies and divisions would have a better handle on just how to do that than an outsider like me. Were it up to me I suppose I'd find all the old retired "whistle blower" types who have complained for years about the waste within those areas and start there.
4- No way would I ever throw my wife under the bus. I've seen her reduced to tears when a special needs child is forced into a classroom setting where all her work at teaching that kid to start communicating is lost. And I've seen her and her co workers cry with joy when a 4 year old who's never spoken a word till then suddenly decides she'll talk! There are many very good teachers out there that excel at their profession and they make the same money as the slugs that stopped caring years ago. In a true free market setting the better teachers would be paid more. Again, a simple concept that has no place in our world it seems. That would be "unfair".
Does that clear it up any? I realize I'm not the best communicator in the world but most of that seems pretty straight forward to me. The public should get it's moneys worth, waste is wrong and artificial caps are wrong whether it's the teacher, professor or Wall St banker. Their salaries may not seem to make sense and we don't have to like it, but it's part of the free market working.
Skidmore, like any institution of higher learning, is a business. They will do whatever they need to do to survive. Some quick research showed that 47% of the applicants there applied for financial assistance. That tells me that a little over half of the students there have parents with the ability to pay $50,000 a year to send their kids to Skidmore. 20% of the students at St. Lawrence receive no financial aid.
What bothers me, is that we are nearly full circle from where we started. Only the wealthy will be able to afford a private education. That is what is lost here. Unless you are a minority ( before you start in on me, I am a Liberal), or fall in to a special sub group to meet the diverse student group profile the institution accepts students by, then the private school route is not an option.
If that is what we have come to, then it is time to drop Bundy Aid because it no longer does what it was intended to do, and put our efforts and money in to the public institutions. I do think the SUNY system should charge more. Those that benefit the most should assume the greater risk.
Some private schools will close ( that is how U.A. Buffalo became part of the SUNY system in the mid seventies). That is not a bad thing. I think there are too many students going to too many schools and a degree does not mean very much. If 84% of all freshmen at Skidmore graduate in four years, then just how tough is it? I am not saying Skidmore is any different than any other school. It is a business and it will do whatever it has to , to make sure you can stay the four years. It is all about $$$$
Correction: Mea Culpa...94% of freshmen at Skidmore graduate in four years....hit the wrong key...
7:24- Could you please elaborate on why you feel SUNY schools should be MORE expensive? I can't send my kids as it is now unless I take on another full time job and having them graduate with $20-40K minumum debt in this economy seems like a poor gamble. Private schools are just beyond consideration.
With everyone seemingly going to college and the resulting glut of college grads on the market (and very poorly prepared for life it seems), why should it cost more?
zSorry- 7:27, not 24
Anonymous said "So Bret, are we supposed to believe you believe anything you actually post?
I'ze confuzed.
December 2, 2009 5:31 PM
I applaud your acumen, Anonymous at 5:31PM.
Please check out "The In Box" thread regarding Congressman Hinchey and the Tora Bora issue.
The subject of torture was introduced on that thread, throwing the discussion completely off topic (as is this) and believe it or not...
Bret4207, supports torture, but hates torture, but torture is necessary to defend our kids, but the U.S. didn't torture under the Bush/Cheney nightmare, but if we did, it was necessary to defend us and anybody that wants Cheney/Bush held for war crimes are supporters of the terrorists and their use of torture, and we need to keep our use of torture for defense of our nation...and on and on and on.
As I said, Anononymous, nice acumen displayed.
Bret4207 is desperately dissembling. Disassembling? Perhaps both? He does self-describe as being "old."
My grandmother was 97 years old when she passed. She was old, but she was never as inventively clever with truth as Bret4207 seems to be in his old age.
Frank- have you been at the bottle again? For a guy who said he;d never respond to anything I ever posted again you sure do write a lot.
Dude, chill out. You ain't wrapped to tight.
It would appear Brett wants to rid colleges(and all systems public and private) of fraud, waste, abuse and fivolous spending. I think any reasonable person would agree with you on the first three. However, what's frivolous to one person might very well be essential or atleast worth while to another. Hey Brett isn't that cable television a frivolous waste?
I have to agree with much of what Bret4207 wrote on this one. How are we supposed to get our kids through college today? Either they go into enormous debt or we do. Either way $30 thousand plus is a lot of money for a degree that might be worthless in 4 years. My husband and I both work and there's just no way we can do it. And as someone else said, a college degree is no guarantee of a job anymore. Maybe his "Walmart" college idea has merit.
I also agree with Bret4207, half of the time, on his ideas regarding reform of the college mills and our education system in general..
But if you read closely through all of his posts, he is inconsistent from one post to the next and insulting to those who challenge him.
And these insults were in use long before I started responding in kind to Bret4207.
He may give ground to a previous poster at one moment and then retrench on his position on the next posting.
I do believe that is what Anon. at 5:31 PM meant when said to Bret4207..."I'ze confused"
And so am I..confused.
And I am also chilled out.
dude
One area not discussed is that, in general, where government subsidies are involved, the organic market forces that normally sort these things out are all muddled up.
Tuitions are artificially high because subsidies are given to just about everyone.
As to the subject matter at hand, it suffices to say, "the government giveth, and therefore, the government can taketh away".
Brett:
Yes, I think more of the cost of a SUNY education should be placed upon the students. I understand your position, but it is a bargain compared to the cost at the private school.
It is time.The first tuition increases since 2003 and the second since 1995 don't require approval by the Legislature.
The government, Sallie Mae and other subsidized low/no interest loans available to students are not available to anyone else. AND they are tax deductable later on.
Yes, I think all that can be done to lower the cost of that education should be done, but more of the percentage of the cost should be assumed by the student. Remember, tuition and fees does NOT cover the cost of a SUNY education.
SUNY's current state support for its state-operated campuses is $1.17 billion, up from $1.38 billion a year ago. The board's proposed state funding for the 2009-10 fiscal year is just over $1.32 billion.
Whats frivolous? Cable TV? I guess, as you say, that would depend on the person judgings perception. Cable TV, basic cable, I can see. Divide that up among 2-3 kids in a dorm and it's what? $10.00 a month maybe? You'd think a college could get a cut rate. Now if it's the 800 channel with HBO, Playboy, and the other expensive garbage then no, heck no! And if it's not an option and you have to get the big ticket package then 100X no!
I don't care where it is in Gov't and large enterprises (whatever you wish to consider a college) , there's waste- huge amounts of waste. That costs us money, efficiency and in the end jobs and service quality. Cut the waste, streamline. We have to do it at home, why are Gov't and Colleges somehow exempt. Gov't IS a business, so is a college. They have their goals and one of them is to produce a result, supposedly not at a loss. But like so many other people and organizations ( I include myself here) we got fat and lazy and grew to expect that someone, somewhere would pick up the slack and somehow come through with whatever it was we needed in the nick of time. That type of thinking just has to stop. It's irrational, it's unrealistic and it's doing us no good.
I don't pretend to have a solution for every specific problem but if we don;t recognize the problems exist then we're never going to address them at all.
10:51, I see your point. Again, while I don't have a specific answer to entirely fix the issue, it seems that those figures would be even more incentive to cut costs as much as possible. It's just staggers me to think what people are paying for higher education today.
Anonymous said...
SUNY's current state support for its state-operated campuses is $1.17 billion, up from $1.38 billion a year ago. The board's proposed state funding for the 2009-10 fiscal year is just over $1.32 billion.
December 3, 2009 10:51 AM
Great posting.
I believe you may have transposed your figures re. state support of public universities.
Did you mean to say that it is "up $1.38 billion compared to $1.17 billion, a year ago?
Anyway, an enlightening post.
I had a vague idea of the way the SUNY system works.
Thanks for the information.
Yes, there is a problem. In none of these posts do I see a solution.
"Anonymous said...
Yes, there is a problem. In none of these posts do I see a solution.
December 3, 2009 1:43 PM"
I said to myself, this very morning while walking my dog at Lehman Park, "look at the nasty fast food wrappers thrown on the ground. Pigs. It ought to be cleaned up.
Then a solution dawned on me. I used my walking stick to spear the junk and toss it into the trash can.
You complain about no solutions being offered at any of these posts.
So...let's read what you have in mind.
Bret4207 said...
"I don't care where it is in Gov't and large enterprises (whatever you wish to consider a college) , there's waste- huge amounts of waste. That costs us money, efficiency and in the end jobs and service quality. Cut the waste, streamline. We have to do it at home, why are Gov't and Colleges somehow exempt. Gov't IS a business, so is a college. They have their goals and one of them is to produce a result, supposedly not at a loss.
December 3, 2009 11:41 AM"
I was rereading through the postings on this topic to get a new angle.
I had totally overlooked your words quoted above.
And they are Absolutely True.
Waste, waste, waste. I hated to see it during my 22 years in the military.
Each year we were required to totally expend the present year's budget in order to receive more $$ the next year.
I witnessed totally good office equipment, tools, etc. being dumped in order to justify a bigger budget for the next fiscal year.
A terrible shame, and it goes on at all levels of government, or so it seems.
"Yes, there is a problem. In none of these posts do I see a solution."
And your answer is?
Post a Comment
<< Home