Board of Regents Meeting

[joeboo22]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I cannot begin to fathom how courses that graduate less than 20 people over a a five year period should have been introduced in the first place.

How many programs graduate 10 or less students per year? They should probably get the ax.

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here, please forgive me.

A relative of mine is a secretary for one of the departments at SDSU. Do you know what she does all day? She answer phones, makes copies, and create spreadsheets for professors. People with PhD's. People who should be able to create their own spreadsheets, make their own copies, and answer their own phones.

I work a decent job and have been fortunate to get to know executives at companies most posters on this board would recognize. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them. I have coworkers who make about what professors make. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them.

My relative is one of those who may lose their job due to cuts. It sucks, and I feel for them. But part of me says, how the heck have they had this job for so long when everybody else in the world has to answer their own phones, run their own copies, and learn how to use a computer. Maybe that makes me a bad person.

The world has changed, and there are plenty of areas where I see universities not keeping up with the curve.

The place I work has also had the misfortune of hiring some recent college graduates. It is a small sample size, but I am not impressed at all with the quality of individuals universities are turning out these days. They spend company time on facebook and sending texts. Some have had to be let go because they don't know how to work, don't know how or want to learn, and don't have any skills necessary to compete. They have college degrees and do not have any marketable job skills in a modern economy. They complain about their wages and complain when given more responsibility (read opportunity in the private sector).

So yeah, I'm frustrated by the university system's attitude of entitlement, how much it costs, and the quality of product it turns out.

End of rant.

Its a secretary job that probably makes less then $13 an hour, and with the secretary the guys with PHD's are allowed to focus either on teaching or research (making the university money)

As far as minors being deleted, my guess is they were probably created when the university was much smaller, classes were smaller and so on. They probably consist of most of the classes being offered anyways and with a few select ones they would offer once every 2 years. Even with that they wouldn't have the class if that few of students were taking a class. Generally 8 are needed to keep a class for those small upper level classes.

People can debate the public-private mantra until pigs fly and cows talk. However I continue to remind people that they have a different objective, the private business is to make money, public is to provide a service. Now that doesn't mean they should spend money like Pacman Jones at a strip club but it does mean that in the end of things they should remember what the point of it is (to provide an education).

As far as students not being prepared I agree 120%, but I don't know if thats the universities fault.

[Nidaros]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

What is clear, however, is that access to the benefits of public higher education become more and more limiting to students from low- and moderate-income households as the cost of instruction shifts from state government general funds to tuition and fee revenues.

What is also very clear is that as access to public higher education for individuals becomes restricted because of higher tuition and fees, the long-term public benefits of stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future associated with a highly educated, inspired population are reduced.

Your post was excellent and rep pts were given, but a couple of comments struck a cord with myself. I feel very fortunate to be a graduate of SDSU. There were 9 children in my family and only an older brother and myself got degrees.
I came from a moderate to low income family. Liviing blocks from campus made it possible for me to attend school. I have no idea how much tuition was in the early sixties, but it was not a big amount. I had part time jobs and got through with out student loans, though having my parents free room and board saved a ton of bucks. It looks like it is becoming more and more an uphill battle with increases in tuition and fees. Though some have stated that comparibly with near by states, South Dakota public education is still a bargin and its hard to agrue its not. Student loans are more available then they were in my day 50 years ago, but sometimes student debt becomes a hole to dig one self in getting a cheap education. Having done tax prep for the last couple of years, I have noted people who really need that refund and need it like yesterday are often denied this money because of outstanding student debt that is in arrears.

Now the Pell Grants are under attack in US Congress, and that posses another problem for low income people, plus the outsourcing of jobs overseas. Folks wake up, the middle class is quickly disappearing and so is the low cost of public education. End of rant.

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I cannot begin to fathom how courses that graduate less than 20 people over a a five year period should have been introduced in the first place.

There's a difference between a course, a major and a minor.

A course does not graduate anyone.

But I think I see where you're going with this. You think that funds are being wasted, even though the cost of operating a minor is practically non-existent.

A relative of mine is a secretary for one of the departments at SDSU. Do you know what she does all day? She answer phones, makes copies, and create spreadsheets for professors. People with PhD's. People who should be able to create their own spreadsheets, make their own copies, and answer their own phones.

So what?

Is the secretary teaching classes? Is the secretary writing papers? Is the secretary editing journals? Is the secretary conducting research? Is the secretary, in short, performing the professor's duties?

No?

Then what's your problem?

I am sick of this notion that private enterprise is so streamlined and efficient and that government should be ran like a business with business-type accountability. This line of reasoning is beyond specious. Private enterprise-----yeah, awesome. What should we talk about? The graft, kickbacks and corruption endemic among government contractors? The inefficiency of union labor? The banking crisis? The atrocious working conditions of Asian laborers? Do you, in short, really want to put private enterprise on some holy pedestal? Because, son, it doesn't stand any closer scrutiny than the government.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Hey you kids, get out of my yard! When I was your age I walked to school ten miles uphill both ways and I was happy to do it.


I kid, I kid.

Lol, that thought did run through my mind as I was typing.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

I cannot begin to fathom how courses that graduate less than 20 people over a a five year period should have been introduced in the first place.

How many programs graduate 10 or less students per year? They should probably get the ax.

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here, please forgive me.

A relative of mine is a secretary for one of the departments at SDSU. Do you know what she does all day? She answer phones, makes copies, and create spreadsheets for professors. People with PhD's. People who should be able to create their own spreadsheets, make their own copies, and answer their own phones.

I work a decent job and have been fortunate to get to know executives at companies most posters on this board would recognize. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them. I have coworkers who make about what professors make. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them.

My relative is one of those who may lose their job due to cuts. It sucks, and I feel for them. But part of me says, how the heck have they had this job for so long when everybody else in the world has to answer their own phones, run their own copies, and learn how to use a computer. Maybe that makes me a bad person.

The world has changed, and there are plenty of areas where I see universities not keeping up with the curve.

The place I work has also had the misfortune of hiring some recent college graduates. It is a small sample size, but I am not impressed at all with the quality of individuals universities are turning out these days. They spend company time on facebook and sending texts. Some have had to be let go because they don't know how to work, don't know how or want to learn, and don't have any skills necessary to compete. They have college degrees and do not have any marketable job skills in a modern economy. They complain about their wages and complain when given more responsibility (read opportunity in the private sector).

So yeah, I'm frustrated by the university system's attitude of entitlement, how much it costs, and the quality of product it turns out.

End of rant.

Sounds like you should have tried to get the job with the secretary, then.

[LakeJack]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Hey you kids, get out of my yard! When I was your age I walked to school ten miles uphill both ways and I was happy to do it.


I kid, I kid.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Which costs what exactly?

A few pages deleted from the bulletin? A few courses removed of the thousands offered every year?

I cannot begin to fathom how courses that graduate less than 20 people over a a five year period should have been introduced in the first place.

How many programs graduate 10 or less students per year? They should probably get the ax.

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here, please forgive me.

A relative of mine is a secretary for one of the departments at SDSU. Do you know what she does all day? She answer phones, makes copies, and create spreadsheets for professors. People with PhD's. People who should be able to create their own spreadsheets, make their own copies, and answer their own phones.

I work a decent job and have been fortunate to get to know executives at companies most posters on this board would recognize. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them. I have coworkers who make about what professors make. Do you know how many of them have secretaries? None. They have voicemail. They have computers and copiers and have learned how to use them.

My relative is one of those who may lose their job due to cuts. It sucks, and I feel for them. But part of me says, how the heck have they had this job for so long when everybody else in the world has to answer their own phones, run their own copies, and learn how to use a computer. Maybe that makes me a bad person.

The world has changed, and there are plenty of areas where I see universities not keeping up with the curve.

The place I work has also had the misfortune of hiring some recent college graduates. It is a small sample size, but I am not impressed at all with the quality of individuals universities are turning out these days. They spend company time on facebook and sending texts. Some have had to be let go because they don't know how to work, don't know how or want to learn, and don't have any skills necessary to compete. They have college degrees and do not have any marketable job skills in a modern economy. They complain about their wages and complain when given more responsibility (read opportunity in the private sector).

So yeah, I'm frustrated by the university system's attitude of entitlement, how much it costs, and the quality of product it turns out.

End of rant.

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

focus on what's in front of me, rather than how things should be

Honestly, more managers and administrators should have this attitude.

But when you're negotiating, it's self defeating. When I was working at Gateway, we were taught how to control calls--that customers are much easier to deal with once they understand that they cannot dictate the terms of the interaction.

If you go into a negotiation over funding cuts and start talking this way:

"Well, I guess we can drop the French major at SDSU--probably don't need that." Or, "Yeah, I guess we can look at eliminating some faculty at Northern." Or, "I can understand why you want to reduce funding for......"

You're negotiating against yourself and ceding control to the Appropriations Committee.

If, on the other hand, you respond to requests with statements like these:

"We will continue to pursue our strategic initiatives with the funds you allocate us," "Without knowing the exact amount of the budget, we're not in a position to talk about program and staff actions," "We remain committed to our mission as a driver of economic growth in South Dakota." etc.

You're retaining control of your sphere of influence.

And this isn't about playing politics as such either: The BoR is the steward of the state's universities. It is not the purview of the legislature. The BoR should refuse to discuss matters with the legislature that are not subject to direct legislative oversight.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

South Dakota has been part of a national trend over the previous generation: A greater and greater proportion of the cost of public higher education instruction is paid for by students and their families through tuition and fees. Conversely, driven by ever increasing demands from health care, public safety, social services and K-12 education for state funding, taxpayers through state general fund appropriations have been paying a smaller and smaller proportion of instructional costs at universities. Some call this trend ―The Privatization of Public Higher Education.‖

This phenomenon — public higher education users paying a larger percentage of the cost of instruction over time — certainly is not new to South Dakota, nor is it unique to the state. Since the late 1970s, state government budget processes steadily have shifted higher percentages of the costs of instruction to students and their families. The tipping point at South Dakota State University, for instance, occurred during the 2007-2008 academic year when 52.4 percent of higher education instructional costs were borne by the individual student. Students paid for 53.4 percent of their instructional costs during the 2008-2009 academic year. Forecasts both in South Dakota and nationally are for this trend to continue as the economy recovers from the most serious downturn in many decades. Demands for resources will continue to increase from the health care, public safety, social services, and primary and secondary education sectors, yet state government’s general tax revenues will struggle to regain previous levels and rates of growth.

It has long been accepted that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit. The benefits to the public from a well-educated, inspired population and workforce include higher household incomes, stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a
more prosperous future. The benefits to individuals with college or university degrees include greater earning power from professional careers, higher standards of well-being and greater prospects for personal prosperity.

This principle of both public and private benefits from higher education investments is the foundation for a partnership between taxpayers and students in funding public higher education partially with tuition and fees and partially with state government general funds. The appropriate combination of taxpayer and tuition and fee funding has no definitive, objective answer.

The combination of funding is the result of the policy- and budget-making processes of state government. What is clear, however, is that access to the benefits of public higher education become more and more limiting to students from low- and moderate-income households as the cost of instruction shifts from state government general funds to tuition
and fee revenues.

What is also very clear is that as access to public higher education for individuals becomes restricted because of higher tuition and fees, the long-term public benefits of stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future associated with a highly educated, inspired population are reduced.

With this as a backdrop, and particularly in tougher economic times, it is clear thatelected state government officials are facing difficult decisions each year on how to invest limited taxpayer dollars to achieve the best long-term returns while addressing immediate short-term, ever-growing demands such as health care spending. Simply stated, investments in higher education bring value to every region of South Dakota over the long term and not just to those students enrolled in the state universities and not justto those legislative districts containing public universities.


Go State!

Thank you for this informed response, I can't really disagree with any of it. I would be extremely interested to see the percentage of public vs. student paid into higher ed over time.

However, you didn't answer my questions:

Are they saying that if the budget wasn't cut, they wouldn't be raising tuition?
How many times in the last 20 years has there been a tuition increase?

In your personal opinion, if the 10% budget cuts are repealed next year by the legislature, would public universities in SD lower tuition? If so, I would commend them. If not, they are just like so many other publicly funded institutions who only ask for more.

[zooropa]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

running 15 minor programs

Which costs what exactly?

A few pages deleted from the bulletin? A few courses removed of the thousands offered every year?

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

What does that mean though? what does it actually save? I'm not sure what the cost are to offering a minor? offering the classes once every 2 years?

It doesn't matter what the costs or savings are.

Supposedly the universities are being run efficiently. In my personal experience in the private arena, when a tiny bit of waste is discovered, there is usually more. Where there is a substantial amount of waste, there is potential for serious problems. In almost every instance, the person who is responsible for that area of the business swears it is being run as efficiently as possible.

[89rabbit]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

In other words, are they saying that if the budget wasn't cut, they wouldn't be raising tuition?

Am I the only one that finds this disingenuous? How many times in the last 20 years has there been a tuition increase?

When it comes to government agencies, it seems like when it is asked "how much money is needed", their answer is always "more."

That isn't governing responsibly, and I don't think I'm a nutjob for finding that irratating. I also think more and more people are starting to see the absurdity in it, which is why (IMO) the pendulum of politics and public opinion (and frankly reality) is starting to push the government to make cuts (or raise taxes), regardless of how responsible or forward looking it is.

South Dakota has been part of a national trend over the previous generation: A greater and greater proportion of the cost of public higher education instruction is paid for by students and their families through tuition and fees. Conversely, driven by ever increasing demands from health care, public safety, social services and K-12 education for state funding, taxpayers through state general fund appropriations have been paying a smaller and smaller proportion of instructional costs at universities. Some call this trend ―The Privatization of Public Higher Education.‖

This phenomenon — public higher education users paying a larger percentage of the cost of instruction over time — certainly is not new to South Dakota, nor is it unique to the state. Since the late 1970s, state government budget processes steadily have shifted higher percentages of the costs of instruction to students and their families. The tipping point at South Dakota State University, for instance, occurred during the 2007-2008 academic year when 52.4 percent of higher education instructional costs were borne by the individual student. Students paid for 53.4 percent of their instructional costs during the 2008-2009 academic year. Forecasts both in South Dakota and nationally are for this trend to continue as the economy recovers from the most serious downturn in many decades. Demands for resources will continue to increase from the health care, public safety, social services, and primary and secondary education sectors, yet state government’s general tax revenues will struggle to regain previous levels and rates of growth.

It has long been accepted that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit. The benefits to the public from a well-educated, inspired population and workforce include higher household incomes, stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a
more prosperous future. The benefits to individuals with college or university degrees include greater earning power from professional careers, higher standards of well-being and greater prospects for personal prosperity.

This principle of both public and private benefits from higher education investments is the foundation for a partnership between taxpayers and students in funding public higher education partially with tuition and fees and partially with state government general funds. The appropriate combination of taxpayer and tuition and fee funding has no definitive, objective answer.

The combination of funding is the result of the policy- and budget-making processes of state government. What is clear, however, is that access to the benefits of public higher education become more and more limiting to students from low- and moderate-income households as the cost of instruction shifts from state government general funds to tuition
and fee revenues.

What is also very clear is that as access to public higher education for individuals becomes restricted because of higher tuition and fees, the long-term public benefits of stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future associated with a highly educated, inspired population are reduced.

With this as a backdrop, and particularly in tougher economic times, it is clear thatelected state government officials are facing difficult decisions each year on how to invest limited taxpayer dollars to achieve the best long-term returns while addressing immediate short-term, ever-growing demands such as health care spending. Simply stated, investments in higher education bring value to every region of South Dakota over the long term and not just to those students enrolled in the state universities and not justto those legislative districts containing public universities.


Go State!

[joeboo22]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Regents slash little-used programs

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...news|text|Home



Someone was saying (maybe it was in another thread) how public universities in our state are run so efficiently. These programs should have been cut 5 years ago. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but running 15 minor programs that graduate virtually zero people does not reflect well on SDSU.

What does that mean though? what does it actually save? I'm not sure what the cost are to offering a minor? offering the classes once every 2 years?

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

Regents slash little-used programs

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...news|text|Home

Also cut are 15 minor programs at South Dakota State University that had 20 or fewer graduates since 2004.

Someone was saying (maybe it was in another thread) how public universities in our state are run so efficiently. These programs should have been cut 5 years ago. Maybe there is something I'm missing, but running 15 minor programs that graduate virtually zero people does not reflect well on SDSU.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Board of Regents Meeting

http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...news|text|Home

State's cuts to cost college students

Regents cite S.D. budget woes in approving tuition hike

In other words, are they saying that if the budget wasn't cut, they wouldn't be raising tuition?

Am I the only one that finds this disingenuous? How many times in the last 20 years has there been a tuition increase?

When it comes to government agencies, it seems like when it is asked "how much money is needed", their answer is always "more."

That isn't governing responsibly, and I don't think I'm a nutjob for finding that irratating. I also think more and more people are starting to see the absurdity in it, which is why (IMO) the pendulum of politics and public opinion (and frankly reality) is starting to push the government to make cuts (or raise taxes), regardless of how responsible or forward looking it is.