- This topic has 30 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM #739388March 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM #739393
all
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=captcha]The chart shows ~35% decline for UC system and ~25% for CSU since 10 years ago.[/quote]
Why did you hand-pick a 10 year period for a chart that covers 40 years?
And ignore the text below the chart?[/quote]
It’s like with the houses – the product is different today. I don’t know what the student fees were 30 or 40 years ago. The overall 30-year trend (1970-2000) is clearly up and that seems logical to me. The cost of many things went up more than the official rate of inflation. The number of students went up and the average student is less prepared and requires more remedial work. Some SDSU students write at elementary school level, at best. Most classrooms are better equipped than they were 30 years ago.
Anyway, 30y trend has been reversed not for a year or two, but 10, and that has to have consequences.
The text below chart is a political statement. The ‘despite recent declines’ part is unnecessary and it shows bias.
March 6, 2012 at 12:13 PM #739394blake
Participant[quote=briansd1]
I have a theory that politicians are cutting services first in order to “blackmail” citizens into voting for higher taxes.[/quote]
1) Announce massive school bond
2) Threaten layoff
3) Next up: Sobbing commercials on TV touting how the bond is for the kids.Rinse & repeat every election.
March 6, 2012 at 12:30 PM #739396Anonymous
Guest[quote=captcha]It’s like with the houses – the product is different today.[/quote]
Houses are different, but land is not. And the predominant cost in real-estate is the land (location, location, location…)
[quote]The cost of many things went up more than the official rate of inflation.[/quote]
Perhaps, but the cost of many things related to education (i.e. technology) has gone drastically down. Just like real estate, there are only a few basic components in the cost of education. There is no major cost that has outpaced inflation except one – can you guess it!
[quote]The number of students went up and the average student is less prepared and requires more remedial work.[/quote]
The data shows cost per student, so number of students increasing doesn’t matter. The ‘kids are stupider today’ meme is probably false and doesn’t explain the change in cost structure even if true.
[quote]The text below chart is a political statement. The ‘despite recent declines’ part is unnecessary and it shows bias.[/quote]
The ‘recent declines’ is simply pointing out that there is a short-term anomaly (the economic crisis) that doesn’t really impact the long-term trend. It’s the long-term trend that matters.
March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM #739401Participant[quote=pri_dk]
Houses are different, but land is not. And the predominant cost in real-estate is the land (location, location, location…)
[/quote]One of the chart shows the number of UC students quadrupling since 1960’s. I assume the campuses had to expand and places like UTC are more expensive then they were. The building codes and environmental standards have been updated and what was possible in 1970 is no longer acceptable. Were every building and every room accessible to disabled students 40 years ago?
[quote=pri_dk]
There is no fundamental component of education cost that has outpaced inflation except one – can you guess it!
[/quote]Honestly, I can’t. Do you have the data? I assume SDSU had to pay some of the cost associated with the work done on I8 and UCSD supercomputer costs some money. Could be mostly salaries, but there are disciplines that did not even exist 40 years ago. People from Princeton used to come to UCSD for training (could still be happening, I don’t know).
Was $30MM annual loss on the athletics program normal 40 years ago? I would rather cut that than what little Shakespeare might be in curriculum.
[quote=pri_dk]
The data shows cost per student, so number of students increasing doesn’t matter. The ‘kids are stupider today’ meme is probably false and doesn’t explain the change in cost structure even if true.
[/quote]The kids are not ‘stupider’, but more of them are being pushed into the system and consequently the average college kid is ‘stupider’ today than it was 40 years go.
I have no contact with college students and I don’t know how bright or hardworking they are (one that I do know gave up after nearly 10 years and he is not particularly bright, but he might be an exception). I recognize that many scientific discoveries and scientific papers are performed in US and that tells me the faculty is world class.
[quote=pri_dk]
The ‘recent declines’ is simply pointing out that there is a short-term anomaly (the economic crisis) that doesn’t really impact the long-term trend. It’s the long-term trend that matters.[/quote]I don’t know. I doubt a solution as simple as ‘20% cut in faculty&staff salaries, take it or leave it’ will help reduce the out-of-pocket cost of college education. I know a CS guy who moved from a bank to UCSD back in 2006 with 20% paycut and his department was reduced from 5 to 3 guys since then.
I don’t think it is possible to produce a world-competitive college graduate at inflation-adusted 1970’s cost.March 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM #739402CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Completely agree, flu. Being “well-rounded” thru being exposed to “Shakespeare” and “Greek Mythology” (at a cost of abt $3500+ for 6-8 units) does nothing to make one employable. Absolutely nothing.
Taxpayer funds should not be used in this day and age to make students “well-rounded,” either in public university operations or in issuing gov’t backed student loans. Students who want that kind of curriculum can go to private universities and pay the entire (non-subsidized) tuition/fee load from their families’ deep pockets, IMHO.
There are way too many “well-rounded” young people out there now who have no work skills or work experience.
An exception would be a student majoring in English and Literature with a HS teaching credential.[/quote]
A lot of English majors go on to law school. The ability to read, comprehend, interpret, and write about various written texts is critical when pursuing a career in law, as you know.
They can also become technical writers, journalists, editors, authors, script writers, etc.
Ultimately, it does benefit society to have a well-rounded population. It gives us the flexibility, ingenuity, and creativity to maintain a healthy society and economy.
March 6, 2012 at 3:09 PM #739418bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]
Completely agree, flu. Being “well-rounded” thru being exposed to “Shakespeare” and “Greek Mythology” (at a cost of abt $3500+ for 6-8 units) does nothing to make one employable. Absolutely nothing.
Taxpayer funds should not be used in this day and age to make students “well-rounded,” either in public university operations or in issuing gov’t backed student loans. Students who want that kind of curriculum can go to private universities and pay the entire (non-subsidized) tuition/fee load from their families’ deep pockets, IMHO.
There are way too many “well-rounded” young people out there now who have no work skills or work experience.
An exception would be a student majoring in English and Literature with a HS teaching credential.[/quote]
A lot of English majors go on to law school. The ability to read, comprehend, interpret, and write about various written texts is critical when pursuing a career in law, as you know.
They can also become technical writers, journalists, editors, authors, script writers, etc.
Ultimately, it does benefit society to have a well-rounded population. It gives us the flexibility, ingenuity, and creativity to maintain a healthy society and economy.[/quote]
Working for a public agency, the vast majority of public attorneys I worked with had an undergraduate major in Political Science or History. I know of a couple of attys in the private sector who majored in accounting and finance.
CSU already has a journalism major, “Film and New Media Production” in which the student gets an apprenticeship (at a TV/film studio, if poss) in their senior year. This is a viable occupational track . . . however, the competition for the program on (all half dozen or so) campuses offering it (and jobs sweeping floors for the local news stn) is fierce.
Anyone can be an author. However, actually getting published is another matter entirely. Biz education/experience might help with this.
Having a “humanities” or literature degree standing on its own does not make a person employable in this day and age. Yes, lawyers need to know how to write and convey their ideas concisely but CA is w-a-a-ay too overlawyered. The majority of bar candidates who passed the CA bar within the last decade cannot land a gig as a lawyer in this state and their (often huge) student loan debt has come due and has been deferred. These newly-minted lawyers have to (re)take the bar exam in another state in which they may have contacts and believe they are more likely to find work.
This is due to the majority of CA private attorneys working in their firms until well past retirement age. Us boomers approaching the age to collect SS should be glad of this. I have known several of these (sr citizen) attorneys to die on the job without ever collecting a penny of SS :=[
March 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM #739420ParticipantTo be frank, a couple of the most “employable” degrees right out of college are “human resources” and “labor relations” including the subjects of collective bargaining, grievance procedure, performance evaluation protocol and preparation of employment cases before the state’s tribunals.
You may laugh but it is what it is. CSU offers these programs but not sure about all campuses.
March 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM #739443paramount
ParticipantCommentary on this crap legislation (public employee bill of rights):
The people need to put an end to this nonsense. Write your legislatures and tell them to decertify all public unions in California and throw this garbage legislation out.
Enough of enabling the codependency of public employees. We’ve put them on a pedestal and paid their enormous egos and bills for too long. Time to end the artificial reality we’ve allowed them to create.
They can work in the real world like the rest of us. And let’s bring back the part-time legislature too so these overpaid politicians don’t have time to sit around and dream up new ways to stick it to us: the people.
and…
Dickinson’s bill should be voted down. The rights of the public unionized worker should not be put above the rights of the taxpayer….that is, the person whose wages are garnished to pay the salary of an unproductive public worker.
and this one is great:
The proposed public employees’ bill of rights does not go near far enough — public workers should enjoy guaranteed salary equity with the earnings of moviestars and professional atheletes — the current gap between public worker pay and Hollywood film stars is scandalous — everyone in California knows that public worker pay lags far behind that of professional basketball, football, and baseball stars — guarantees for pay parity between state workers, moviestars, and professional atheletes should be explicitly provided for in the California state employees’ “bill of rights” — the future of California is dependent on this outcome…
March 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM #739528temeculaguy
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]
California spends more on Prisons than Education. So yes, we do need to get our priorities straight.[/quote]Sorry, but this isn’t actually a fact, not sure where you got it.
I’m not saying that prison is better than school, nor do I want to get into some long drawn out argument, I just hate bad data.
http://www.sco.ca.gov/state_finances_101_state_spending.html
The controller’s website seemed to be the most accurate even though it’s a two year old pie chart, but looking at past years, nothing real dramatic changes. Don’t get your data from a teachers union.
Corrections/rehabilitation I assume includes prisons and parole, probably some other crap. It’s usually 9-10% of the budget.
K-12 is 28% of the budget and higher education is 12%, they combine to be 40%, thus 4 times what is spent on prisons. Health and human services (welfare and medical for the poor) another 40%. 80% of the budget is for school, welfare and medical.
Feel free to back to complaining about whatever it everyone is mad about or who they are mad at. But I actually pay these new higher fees, and no, princeton would not be cheaper for me, we aren’t poor, we are hopelessly white, my kids lack any particular athletic skill and their grades and test scores are near the top but aren’t the top, so the 7k a year for CSU and the 12k for UC still looks like a good deal for us.
March 8, 2012 at 12:19 AM #739530Participant[quote=captcha]
SDSU athletics program generated $30MM less than what the cost was in 2010.[/quote]
Where did this data come from? The SDSU athletic budget is 33 million.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/26/sdsu-athletics-hopes-success-offsets-state-cuts/
And no they didn’t lose 30 million.
Here’s a rough estimate, ticket sales, tv contracts, corporate sponsors and donations cover more than half of the budget. Student fees cover about 1/4 and the university pays the other 1/4. So were talking 7 million would be a loss. The students get free or low cost admission for that fee, some may never go to anything, but then again, I never got my money’s worth from the library so were even.
Keep in mind I’m rounding all these numbers.
The new football tv contract is 5x more than the old one by moving to the big east, that will bring in another 4-5 million and some guy donated 5 million all by himself (because he likes the sports, not the library). Basketball and football are the only sports that bring in ticket revenue, it’s all the other sports that technically lose money. But seriously, are women’s lacrosse scholarships really ending the world? Because that’s where the losses are, women’s sports and sports that rarely get on t.v. It’s the reason some kids go to a division 1 school, it’s the reason alumni give money, we could argue for hours, but my real point is that the athletic department didn’t lose 30 million, not even close.
One side note, when the american women win gold in soccer or men win in hockey or any other sport where watching our kids do really well, the losses and the scholarships become suddenly worth it for me. Nobody is taking away a poor kids scholarship or an academic scholarship, why would you want to take away from the athletes, especially the ones that don’t sell tickets. I like watching golf, sdsu has a great college team. On Sundays, the last day of every tournament, Tiger wears red (stanford), Fowler wears orange (oklahoma), the euros wear whatever. Why? because wearing your college colors on the last day of the tournament matters, the announcers mention it every time and that is a source of pride (and donations) from dorks like me. Some people complain, but I don’t mind paying so that one day, the winner at augusta is rockin the red and black on Sunday.
March 8, 2012 at 12:32 AM #739531ParticipantI may have figured out where that data came from, if you look at a 33 million dollar budget and 3 million in ticket sales, someone with an agenda could say they lost 30 million. I’m not saying captcha has an agenda, but someone played a game with numbers to trick you. Tickets are not a big part of the equation and students pay little or nothing. All sports other than a few are free for anyone to attend. As evidenced by my previous post, television revenue, naming rights, corporate sponsorships and money from boosters are where the real money is at. A single booster gave more money than all the ticket revenue combined for the year, and their ticket prices are fairly cheap for the sports they charge for. It would be like saying a movie cost 33 million to make and only made 3 million in the box office, thus lost 30 million, even if it made 25 million in dvd sales and cable tv revenue. That would mean it really only lost 6 million, not 30. That is the closest analogy I could figure out this late without referencing porn, sorry.
March 8, 2012 at 6:28 AM #739537Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=poorgradstudent]
California spends more on Prisons than Education. So yes, we do need to get our priorities straight.[/quote]Sorry, but this isn’t actually a fact, not sure where you got it.[/quote]
TG, is right that it’s not true. At a least if you look at absolute numbers. PGS may have meant on a “per person” basis. It does cost far more to incarcerate someone than educate them (about 3x more in California.)
Although we do spend more on higher education, the corrections budget is still pretty alarming:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_26_1294170707
March 8, 2012 at 8:31 AM #739552Participant[quote=temeculaguy][quote=captcha]
SDSU athletics program generated $30MM less than what the cost was in 2010.[/quote]
Where did this data come from? The SDSU athletic budget is 33 million.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/26/sdsu-athletics-hopes-success-offsets-state-cuts/
And no they didn’t lose 30 million.
Here’s a rough estimate, ticket sales, tv contracts, corporate sponsors and donations cover more than half of the budget. Student fees cover about 1/4 and the university pays the other 1/4. So were talking 7 million would be a loss. The students get free or low cost admission for that fee, some may never go to anything, but then again, I never got my money’s worth from the library so were even.
Keep in mind I’m rounding all these numbers.
The new football tv contract is 5x more than the old one by moving to the big east, that will bring in another 4-5 million and some guy donated 5 million all by himself (because he likes the sports, not the library). Basketball and football are the only sports that bring in ticket revenue, it’s all the other sports that technically lose money. But seriously, are women’s lacrosse scholarships really ending the world? Because that’s where the losses are, women’s sports and sports that rarely get on t.v. It’s the reason some kids go to a division 1 school, it’s the reason alumni give money, we could argue for hours, but my real point is that the athletic department didn’t lose 30 million, not even close.
One side note, when the american women win gold in soccer or men win in hockey or any other sport where watching our kids do really well, the losses and the scholarships become suddenly worth it for me. Nobody is taking away a poor kids scholarship or an academic scholarship, why would you want to take away from the athletes, especially the ones that don’t sell tickets. I like watching golf, sdsu has a great college team. On Sundays, the last day of every tournament, Tiger wears red (stanford), Fowler wears orange (oklahoma), the euros wear whatever. Why? because wearing your college colors on the last day of the tournament matters, the announcers mention it every time and that is a source of pride (and donations) from dorks like me. Some people complain, but I don’t mind paying so that one day, the winner at augusta is rockin the red and black on Sunday.[/quote]
You are right, the annual loss is $15MM, not $30MM. I understand your need to be entertained, but may I suggest you find a form of entertainment that is not paid for by $15MM in student fees (money is fungible, etc) at SDSU alone?
March 8, 2012 at 8:49 AM #739554Participant[quote=temeculaguy]I may have figured out where that data came from, if you look at a 33 million dollar budget and 3 million in ticket sales, someone with an agenda could say they lost 30 million. I’m not saying captcha has an agenda, but someone played a game with numbers to trick you. [/quote]
I did not remember the numbers correctly. There was an article in UT about a year ago about their football program, together with one line about ~$30MM budget and half coming from general fund/fees.I found this while trying to locate the article:
[quote]The infusion is necessary despite a $160 annual student fee increase implemented in 2004 by SDSU President Stephen Weber, overriding a student referendum. That has added $4.8 million to $7 million to the athletic department coffers annually.
[/quote]
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/aztecs/20070510-9999-1s10azmoney.html -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.